If he was the Dem establishment pick, the DNC and allied media crew would be burying the story or dismissing it as a GOP attempt at dirty tricks.
They aren’t; they’re promoting it.
Except that if the GOP sues the GOP might win depending on judge, and the “establishment” candidate isn’t a deeply embedded establishment pick that is also raising impressive sums from small donations. Whitmer has a history of fighting to raise the minimum wage, expanding medicaid, etc. I don’t see anything about her that makes her a more corporate pick other than having a decade of public service on El-Sayed.
If you have something, then by all means share it - but these are both progressive candidates with incredibly similar platforms and one represents a legal risk if elected. If I was an active Democrat in Michigan, I would be very concerned too since we all know what the GOP does post election if they lose - they will hold switching power in a legal dispute while they do everything they can to sabotage the incoming party’s term in those few weeks. It happened in North Carolina, and Michigan will be the same way since they control the state legislature.
This isn’t the Democrats boxing out Ellison when they announced their “new platform.” This isn’t the establishment boxing out Berniecrats from officer positions. Those are pointless and bullshit politics that explains why the Democrats have not changed enough. This is a huge political risk with the candidate because the way Michigan’s candidacy rules are, though I will guarantee that some portion it comes from race because while Middle Eastern communities are populous in Michigan they are not welcomed.
I don’t quite remember quite how I landed on this page from an Australian nursing journal.
but it’s got this marvelous quote:
“The purpose of the ‘quality revolution’ in management theory was explicitly Orwellian. Its goal: to produce a language to facilitate the control of working populations by making meaningful opposition to the policy decisions of senior management within organisations strictly impossible”
I have the feeling that I’d enjoy the original source of that quote a lot better than that paper.
“Characteristically straight to the point,” Mr. Darbyshire is not.
I have a burning hatred of Schiff. If there is a single Democrat I could point to that is everything wrong with the party’s present it would be Schiff. While Manchin is everything wrong with Reagan onward neoliberalism and laziness of the party, Schiff’s view on national security is terrifying and his abuse of the press and backhanded message is the worst.
Also, to avoid continuing to double post, EMILY’s List finally backed Marie Newman, and the public pressure had to have been a factor.
EDIT
And while Schiff was far from the only one bemoaning the release of the memo, he’s the loudest and the worst and makes the most media pit stops.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/959464165441196033
Cynical answer: because the Mueller investigation is nothing more than kayfabe to keep the liberals distracted while the fascists complete their takeover.
I’m not sure that that is actually true, but it’s plausible enough for me to keep as an active hypothesis.
Interesting thread:
https://twitter.com/ajitbirsingh/status/959461525831462912
Not sure I agree with all of that, but I support the general gist of it.
I’m not hot on supporting either Russia or China; their records on human rights violations and claiming territory as theirs that isn’t are not points in their favour.
That said, I can’t see how an American politician can make an accusation that someone else is an imperial power with a straight face.
Thread:
Yeah; I often feel like I need to link this vid every time I mention China, just for the caveats about nuance.
The old men running the PRC are pricks, modern China is increasingly Orwellian, and my view of China’s activities in Africa is not as rose-tinted as some. My Dad’s partner still has scars on her legs from the whippings she got during the Cultural Revolution.
But if it comes to a USA vs PRC fight, I’m not on Team USA.