RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Clarence Thomas Likens Birth Control and Abortion to Nazi Eugenics Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Wednesday, 29 May 2019 12:40

Levin writes: "In an insane 20-page opinion, Thomas argues that the government should limit what a woman wants to do with her body on the basis that abortion and birth control are both part of the same state-sanctioned eugenics plot to keep those with 'inferior' traits from being born."

Justice Clarence Thomas. (photo: Getty)
Justice Clarence Thomas. (photo: Getty)


Clarence Thomas Likens Birth Control and Abortion to Nazi Eugenics

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

29 May 19


The Supreme Court Justice on Tuesday offered a preview of how he’ll go after a woman’s right to choose in the future.

n Tuesday, the Supreme Court reached a compromise on an Indiana abortion law, allowing the part that says the “remains” of an abortion must be cremated or buried—to the delight of those who believe fetuses are people—while declining to rule on the part that would have banned abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the fetus, which had been blocked by a lower court. That keeps the issue, and a showdown over Roe v. Wade, off the court’s docket, for now, which is the good news. The less good news? The batshit broadside against abortion and birth control launched by Justice Clarence Thomas, which serves as a preview for how he might attempt to restrict a woman’s right to choose in the future.

In an insane 20-page opinion, Thomas argues that the government should limit what a woman wants to do with her body on the basis that abortion and birth control are both part of the same state-sanctioned eugenics plot to keep those with “inferior” traits from being born:

I write separately to address the other aspect of Indiana law at issue here—the “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban.” This statute makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion in Indiana when the provider knows that the mother is seeking the abortion solely because of the child’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics. The law requires that the mother be advised of this restriction and given information about financial assistance and adoption alternatives, but it imposes liability only on the provider. Each of the immutable characteristics protected by this law can be known relatively early in a pregnancy, and the law prevents them from becoming the sole criterion for deciding whether the child will live or die. Put differently, this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.

The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.

As Thomas naturally fails to mention, whatever grotesque hopes and dreams Sanger might have had 100 years ago never actually came to fruition. As Ian Millhiser notes, “today’s Americans are fully capable of using birth control in a responsible, non-eugenic manner,” just as most people don’t use abortion to further Nazi Germany-esque goals. But not in the alternative universe Thomas is apparently living in:

Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion. According to one economist, “Roe v. Wade help[ed] trigger, a generation later, the greatest crime drop in recorded history.” On this view, “it turns out that not all children are born equal” in terms of criminal propensity. And legalized abortion meant that the children of “poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers” who were “much more likely than average to become criminals” “weren’t being born.” Whether accurate or not, these observations echo the views articulated by the eugenicists and by Sanger decades earlier: “Birth Control of itself . . . will make a better race” and tend “toward the elimination of the unfit.

Here, Clarence introduces a theory that he himself acknowledges may be utterly baseless (“whether accurate or not”) and then uses it to support his absurd argument. Unhinged or not, his purported concern for the nonwhite, non-“superior-race” children who are never born due to the scourge of abortion and birth control would be a lot more convincing if not for the fact that, as Elie Mystal writes, “instead of trying to uplift potential mothers and make it economically and professionally easier for them to have children, conservatives are only interested in forcing women, including black and brown women, to bear pregnancies against their will. Thomas and his ilk dislike abortion and birth control because it amplifies the free will of women.”

Anyway, enjoy your eugenics pills while you still can!

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
McConnell Pledges to Fill SCOTUS Vacancy in Election Year Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49007"><span class="small">Sophie Weiner, Splinter</span></a>   
Wednesday, 29 May 2019 12:40

Weiner writes: "Despite brain-melting hypocrisy, it should surprise no one that McConnell now says that he'd be absolutely fine with helping Trump confirm a third Supreme Court Justice, were it to become necessary before 2020."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)


McConnell Pledges to Fill SCOTUS Vacancy in Election Year

By Sophie Weiner, Splinter

29 May 19

 

n 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used former President Obama’s lame duck status as his excuse to block Merrick Garland’s nomination for the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

“This nomination ought to be made by the next president,” McConnell said in 2016, before stonewalling Garland.

But despite the brain-melting hypocrisy, it should surprise no one that McConnell now says that he’d be absolutely fine with helping Trump confirm a third Supreme Court Justice, were it to become necessary before 2020, according to video spotted by CNN.

Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky on Tuesday, McConnell was asked what he would do if there was a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020.

“Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?” an attendee asked.

McConnell took a long sip of what CNN said “appeared to be iced tea” before responding.

“Oh, we’d fill it,” he said, smiling, to laughter.

McConnell then hammered home the point even more forcefully, saying that while things like tax policy can change because of an election, “what can’t be undone is a lifetime appointment,” adding, “That’s the most important thing we’ve done in the country, which cannot be undone.”

Mother. Fucker.

Of course, this is infuriating. But McConnell has proven time and time again that he is a sociopathic, cynical nihilist who will stop at nothing to put more dead-eyed conservative drones in power. Going back on his 2016 stance may be outrageous, but it’s also par for the course. Anyone who expected otherwise needs to wise the fuck up real fast and start backing candidates who support adding more seats to the Supreme Court.

In case McConnell’s total lack of shame needed any more clarification, here’s CNN:

David Popp, a spokesman for McConnell, said the difference between now and three years ago, when McConnell famously blocked Judge Merrick Garland’s ascension to the Supreme Court, is that at that time the White House was controlled by a Democrat and the Senate by Republicans. This time, both are controlled by the GOP.

There you have it, folks. This is how the game works now. If you aren’t willing to get with the times, you need to get the hell out of our way.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Mueller's Statement Puts Pressure on House Democrats to Begin Impeachment Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Wednesday, 29 May 2019 11:32

Reich writes: "Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, came as close as ever to calling on Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


Mueller's Statement Puts Pressure on House Democrats to Begin Impeachment

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

29 May 19

 

n an astounding and unexpected news conference at the Justice Department this morning, Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, came as close as ever to calling on Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. He said:

1. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

2. He noted that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another process — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to impeach.

3. He stressed that Russia’s systematic effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential election “deserves the attention of every American.”

4. He said he would not testify before Congress because his report was "his testimony."

Mueller's statement puts increasing pressure on House Democrats (the Republicans are Trump zombies) to begin an impeachment inquiry. I believe they must. What do you think?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Robert Mueller's Written Statement on the Russia Investigation Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50876"><span class="small">Matthew Kahn, Lawfare</span></a>   
Wednesday, 29 May 2019 10:48

Excerpt: "As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. (photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times)
Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. (photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times)


Robert Mueller's Written Statement on the Russia Investigation

By Matthew Kahn, Lawfare

29 May 19


On Wednesday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered a statement about the Russia investigation. The statement, as prepared for delivery, is available below.

"As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."


wo years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. 

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. 

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. 

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. 

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.   

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. 

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.   

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.  

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.  

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.   

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. 

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Bernie Sanders Accidentally Built a Groundbreaking Organizing Movement Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47633"><span class="small">Ryan Grim, The Intercept</span></a>   
Tuesday, 28 May 2019 12:48

Grim writes: "Outside of the watch of the campaign's top brass, a collection of activists working in the bowels of the campaign tested out a variety of experimental approaches to organizing, eventually producing a breakthrough that has been copied by organizers in Spain and the U.K."

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)


How Bernie Sanders Accidentally Built a Groundbreaking Organizing Movement

By Ryan Grim, The Intercept

28 May 19

 

cDonald’s workers, pushing for higher wages and an end to workplace abuses, picketed Thursday outside franchises across the country. In an unusual twist, they were joined by volunteers from the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders.

It was the campaign’s second bout of activist intervention in as many weeks, as campaign supporters had previously joined a picket line with University of California workers locked in negotiations with their bosses.

It’s common for a politician to make a brief appearance on a picket line to show solidarity with a cause, but it’s practically unheard for a campaign to divert its own volunteers away from the mission of electing its candidate. This act of activism flows directly from the bottom-up approach taken by the 2020 Sanders campaign, which is not just in stark contrast to every other presidential campaign: It’s also a sharp reversal from the approach taken by the leadership of the 2016 Sanders campaign.

For all its revolutionary sensibility, the 2016 campaign was organized around a traditional strategic approach: Raise money to put ads on television and fund a field operation in key early states.

But outside of the watch of the campaign’s top brass, a collection of activists working in the bowels of the campaign tested out a variety of experimental approaches to organizing, eventually producing a breakthrough that has been copied by organizers in Spain and the U.K.; helped elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress; and is now guiding Sanders’s 2020 campaign. Sanders built this movement, however, largely by accident.

Throughout his career, Sanders resisted hiring any more campaign or even congressional staff than absolutely necessary — and oftentimes less than that. Part of it was philosophical: Sanders for decades believed that staff were inherently corrupting of a politician, more likely to push him toward party orthodoxy, and undermine the iconoclastic independence he had nurtured.

His 2016 presidential campaign was no different — in part because nobody who wanted a future in Democratic Party politics thought they’d survive coming near his challenge to Hillary Clinton. Jeff Weaver, who left Sanders’s office in 2009 to run a comic book store, came out of retirement to work as campaign manager, but few others joined the official campaign.

“You have to remember in the very beginning, it was very hard for the Bernie campaign to hire pros,” said Becky Bond, an adviser to the 2016 Sanders campaign, “because it was just very clear that you’d be totally blackballed, not just from a White House or a federal agency job, but from any of the Democratic-aligned institutions. Even vendors who weren’t employed by the Clinton campaign didn’t want to work for the Bernie campaign, because they were worried about not getting business in the future.”

“We really had to fill out the ranks from the super volunteers who’d never worked in politics before.”

That meant that, by definition, the staff had to be filled out by renegades, people with activist rather than campaign backgrounds, and operatives accustomed to taking on the establishment. Claire Sandberg fit that bill. As a high school student, she was swept up in an illegal mass arrest at a protest of the World Bank and IMF in 2002 and used the settlement she got to launch a group in New York dedicated to banning fracking. Improbably, she won, and by 2015, was looking for her next thing. She reached out to everybody she knew who might have some tangential connection to the small circle of Sanders advisers and eventually connected with Zack Exley, who had been talking to the campaign about joining. The pair pitched themselves as a package deal, and Weaver bit. Exley was brought on as a senior adviser and Sandberg was made director of digital organizing. Exley also brought on Bond, his longtime friend and ally.

“The professionals that joined were really true believers, like me and Zack, and then we really had to fill out the ranks from the super volunteers who’d never worked in politics before,” Bond said. One of those super volunteers was Corbin Trent, a chef in Tennessee who sold his food trucks to volunteer for the campaign full time. He reached out to Exley about a job, and Exley, without a lot of other options, took a chance on him. Another was Saikat Chakrabarti, who’d been the first engineer, and the fifth employee, of the Silicon Valley firm Stripe but left it behind to join the campaign. A third was Alexandra Rojas, who Exley met as she organized community college students in Orange County, California.

The team’s charge was to figure out a way, with very little budget, to channel the energy behind the Sanders campaign into an effective volunteer army. But if they couldn’t, that was OK too. Even as the team began putting people to work, expectations were low.

Sandberg recalled a meeting with a leader of the field program, who didn’t end up sticking around, as indicative of how traditional campaigners viewed what they were trying to do. “I remember him saying to us, ‘Listen, you guys, you’re the dancing dog. Just be happy that the dog dances. Don’t try to get it to do anything else,’” she said. “He meant that the fact that you have this system where people on their own can go every week … with some friends and do a chalk-the-block-for-Bernie or do a honk-and-wave, a table at a farmer’s market, is in and of itself an accomplishment, and that is the best that you can achieve, is having people where there are no staff basically just keep themselves busy with stuff that everybody knows is not actually valuable work.”

Big Organizing

A honk-and-wave can be a fun-enough way to spend an afternoon with newfound friends, but there’s no evidence it has any impact on actual votes. For that, a campaign needs voter contact, both to persuade people to vote for their candidate and to motivate them to get to the polls.

Simply emailing a list of supporters and asking them to phone bank or door knock wasn’t working. And even if it did work, the team didn’t have regular access to the email list, whose main purpose was to fuel Sanders’s surging fundraising. The campaign brass, meanwhile, assumed that the flow of money could shrink to a trickle at any moment and resisted investing in volunteer organizing. One loophole Exley found was the travel budget, which had more flexibility. So he and Trent decided to hit the road, to see if meeting face to face with volunteers could spark the kind of engagement that an email or a text message couldn’t.

A standard campaign field operation rents an office and pays canvassers to go door-to-door while facilitating volunteer activity like phone banking. It’s top-down and expensive, and the Sanders crew wanted to distribute the potential for that organizing across the country to places where there was no paid field staff. The approach is now known as distributed organizing.

Folks like Trent were willing to try things that campaign veterans would have laughed off the whiteboard.

In October 2015, Exley and Trent set out on a tour of Tennessee with a new experiment: see if single gatherings could be used to create an endless number of new events. The team called them barnstorms and picked Tennessee because Trent had already done much of the organizing work there on his own.

The upside to having inexperienced staff was that folks like Trent were willing to try things that campaign veterans would have laughed off the whiteboard. At each event, Trent and Exley tried to figure out why the barnstorms just weren’t clicking. Toward the end of each gathering, they would ask who there was willing to host an event at their house — a phone bank, for instance — and often 10 to 20 percent of the crowd would volunteer. Despite that enthusiasm, however, almost nobody would show up to the event that had been planned.

Throughout October and November, Trent and Exley continued iterating at barnstorms to no real success. The digital team gathered for a retreat in Seattle in the middle of December to work out the kinks, and Sandberg suggested connecting the hosts and attendees right there at the event, something Trent had also been proposing they do.

They gave it a shot and experimented with different approaches, but the one that landed was this: After people were asked who would host an event, they’d be told to come to the front or stand off to the side. That solidified their commitment and gave the campaign a chance to tell the audience, “Look, these people have committed to hosting an event — you have to commit to go and bring something.”

Trent was the first to try the new barnstorm model in Asheville, North Carolina, in January, where they worked out one final kink: how to actually get people to sign up. They tried name tags and big signs people would hold up, before hitting on a simple altar call and a sheet of paper. “We did all this complicated, convoluted shit,” Trent said, “when the answer is actually just a piece of paper with the host’s name and with blocks for people to sign up.”

The way it worked was that volunteer hosts would line up and give a one- to two-sentence pitch about their event, then the audience would be told to find the host of the event they planned to attend and sort out details. By having people link up in real life, they formed a social contract of sorts, Trent said. “That social contract became super powerful,” Trent said.

Rojas handled logistics for the barnstorms. “We started seeing a lot of the results coming in from these barnstorms, and it’s like, ‘Holy fuck, we’re creating way more voter contact events through this way than we are any other way,’” she said. Rojas and Lynn Hua, another student organizer Exley had met and recruited on to the team, expanded the barnstorming model to allow volunteers to run them. The campaign ended up hosting roughly 1,000 barnstorms, 650 of which were run by volunteers.

By the time the campaign had finally figured things out, the end was approaching.

The final innovation that made it all workable came from Chakrabarti, himself an unusual figure on the Sanders team. After graduating from Harvard in 2007 with a computer science degree, Chakrabarti briefly worked for a hedge fund, then became the founding engineer for Stripe, the payment processor now valued at some $20 billion. When the Sanders campaign launched, he queried his network to find a connection, and like all the others, that turned out to be super-connector Exley, who brought him on board.

Chakrabarti put together a process that easily allowed organizers to snap photos of the handwritten sheets and upload them to the campaign website, where other volunteers would enter the information in so that events could be facilitated and tracked.

By the time the campaign had finally figured things out, the end was approaching. “We didn’t even hire most of our distributed team until January 2016,” said Sandberg, “and we’d only hit a million calls, out of the 85 million that we ended up making, by Iowa.”

Sanders stunned the political world by effectively tying Clinton in Iowa on February 1 and crushing her in New Hampshire, but she had locked in nearly all the superdelegates. She eked out a win in Nevada, crushed him in South Carolina, and ground out a victory.

Brand New Congress

As primary season progressed, the traditional campaign was running headlong into the radical distributed experiment that was now under way. In some states, the field team worked collaboratively with the distributed team — often because Sandberg had hired that state’s director — but in others, they effectively kicked the Sandberg-Exley-Bond operation out. In one state, the campaign shut down a volunteer-organized phone bank because the campaign was having a ribbon-cutting on its first official field office and didn’t want competition.

By April 2016, it was becoming apparent that the primary was no longer winnable. The only path Sanders had to the nomination was to convince Clinton-backing superdelegates to switch sides, as unlikely an event as is conceivable. Exley, Rojas, Trent, and Chakrabarti were determined to channel the energy that had gone into the Sanders campaign. They teamed up with Isra Allison and created an organization called Brand New Congress, aimed at running Bernie-style populists everywhere around the country. And they really meant everywhere — even in Republican districts.

Sandberg, for her part, stayed until the bitter end and then joined a new group, Our Revolution, that Sanders set up to carry the political revolution forward. Her condition for joining, along with other organizers, was simple: Jeff Weaver could not run it. When Jane Sanders decided to install Weaver as president and turned Our Revolution into a 501(c)(4) organization that could take unlimited dark money contributions, Sandberg and her team quit.

While Our Revolution splintered, Brand New Congress struggled to get its concept off the ground. After the November 2016 election, Cenk Uygur, the founder and head of the progressive news network The Young Turks, reached out and said he wanted to find a way to support the group’s efforts but that TYT’s viewers had no interest in backing Republican candidates. Out of that conversation, Brand New Congress agreed to carve out a separate group, called Justice Democrats, that Uygur could get behind. (I’m an on-air contributor to TYT.)

Eventually, Justice Democrats — with Rojas, Chakrabarti, and Trent at the helm — split from Brand New Congress and became an independent organization. Soon after, #AllofUs, a group founded by Sandberg and Waleed Shahid to pressure Democrats to resist Donald Trump, folded into Justice Democrats. They backed more than 60 candidates ahead of the 2018 midterms, including an activist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who went on to become the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

Today, Rojas is the executive director of Justice Democrats, where Shahid is the communications director. Chakrabarti is Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, and Trent is her spokesperson. Exley co-founded New Consensus, the policy muscle behind the Green New Deal. Bond took the distributed organizing model, along with Sanders aide Zack Malitz, to Texas, running Beto O’Rourke’s groundbreaking field program during his 2018 Senate campaign. She and Malitz stayed on for his presidential run but were pushed out by former Obama operatives.

Sandberg, meanwhile, spent time in Spain and the U.K., training Podemos and Momentum, the leftist movements in each, on the art of the barnstorm. Weaver, rather than running the campaign, is a senior adviser, and he and Sandberg have reconciled. She’s now the national organizing director for the 2020 Sanders campaign.

This article was adapted from “We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement” by Ryan Grim, published by Strong Arm Press on May 28. 

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 Next > End >>

Page 876 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN