In October 1948, President Harry Truman was stumping Minnesota, on behalf of both his own successful re-election campaign and a Senate bid by then Minneapolis mayor, Hubert Humphrey. During an appearance in St. Paul on the 13th, Truman delivered an address at the Municipal Auditorium which was carried nationally on radio. It included this critique of the Republican Party, a critique that most Democrats wouldn't be able to use today, thanks in large part to Bill and Hillary Clinton, among other neoliberals, including Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete and Bloomberg, who have infected the Democratic Party and changed it fundamentally-- and not for the better:

Today the forces of liberalism face a crisis. The people of the United States must make a choice between two ways of living-- a decision which will affect us the rest of our lives and our children and our grandchildren after us.



On the other side, there is the Wall Street way of life and politics. Trust the leader! Let big business take care of prices and profits! Measure all things by money! That is the philosophy of the masters of the Republican Party.



Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.



Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.



They approve of the American farmer-- but they are willing to help him go broke.



They stand four-square for the American home-- but not for housing.



They are strong for labor-- but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.



They favor a minimum wage-- the smaller the minimum the better.



They indorse educational opportunity for all-- but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.



They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine-- for people who can afford them.



They approve of Social Security benefits-- so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.



They believe in international trade-- so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.



They favor the admission of displaced persons-- but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.



They consider electric power a great blessing-- but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.



They say TVA is wonderful-- but we ought never to try it again.



They condemn “cruelly high prices”-- but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.



They think the American standard of living is a fine thing-- so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.



And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.



Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way-- there is another way-- the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party.









At one time-- in Truman's day for example-- the chart below would have looked much different. These are the current members of the House who have taken the most bribes from the Finance Sector-- the class of miscreants FDR labeled "the banksters"-- in the 2018 cycle. These are the only ones who took at least a million in bribes:

• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $2,253,625

• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,134,472

• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $1,718,006

• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,549,650

• Andy Barr (R-KY)- $1,537,784

• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $1,438,794

• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $1,430,888

• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $1,416,015

• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $1,290,587

• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $1,283,038

• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,270,853

• French Hill (R-AR)- $1,183,912

• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $1,145,089

• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $1,070,719

• Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA)- $1,067,278

• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $1,021,840

• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $1,020,550

• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $1,006,027









Bribes like this can really mount up in a few cycles. Since being elected to Congress, the super-corrupt GOP minority leader Kevin McCarthy has gorged himself with $9,508,537 in bankster "contributions." The next biggest career criminal along these lines is majority leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, with $7,356,624 finding its way into his campaign coffers. The third biggest criminal recipient of Wall Street dough was dispatched by AOC last year. Joe Crowley had gobbled up $7,217,725 in bribes from the banksters. Am I saying these politicians should be bundled off to prison in the next half hour to await trial? Yes, I am. And I'm not the only one who opposes politicians taking bribes from financial institutions that are charged with regulating.





Several progressive candidates are running on platforms built on strict opposition to Congressional bribery.

Cenk Uygur has been studying congressional corruption for many years. Now he's running for Congress in a wide open field in which all the front-runners, both Democrat and Republican-- are on the record approving of bribery, although they insist it isn't bribery. I asked Cenk to explain why it is bribery and what he plans to do about opposing it when he's in Congress. "No one thinks JP Morgan Chase is giving a politician money for their health or for charity," he said flatly. "Everyone knows it's a bribe. And if they give that same politician a second 'contribution' that means they got a return on investment. And to be fair to them, an American politician is the most profitable thing you can buy. And they're almost all up for sale. This is a sick system that has to be fixed immediately. I'm running in CA-25 to make sure we end the obvious bribery and the brazen corruption."

And speaking of which, Pelosi and her team announced this morning-- on the same day that the Democrats announced just 2 impeachment charges against Trump-- that the House Dems will back Trump's new NAFTA 2.0. Remember, corporate Democrats like Pelosi always go for these sell-out trade deals, so this wasn't unexpected. It's days like today that I especially appreciate Bernie's call for a political revolution, something that no other candidate is even close to understanding, let alone doing.





I spoke to at least a dozen progressives today. Most said they feel uncomfortable with the Trump trade bill but that they will go along with it because... Trumka:

Make no mistake, we demanded a trade deal that benefits workers and fought every single day to negotiate that deal; and now we have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support.



I am grateful to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies on the USMCA working group, along with Senate champions like Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden, for standing strong with us throughout this process as we demanded a truly enforceable agreement. I also commend Ambassador Robert Lighthizer for being a straight shooter and an honest broker as we worked toward a resolution.

Why the sell-out from Trumka? I'm hearing the big sweetener to get him on board was the deal on hitching Butch Lewis and Mineworker pension fixes that Richard Neal floated a few months ago. So far, just one of the progressives I spoke with said he's inclined to vote against it anyway. Just one. I hope he can persuade some others. And even if labor is happy, environmental and Climate groups sure aren't.

Dear Representative,



On behalf of our organizations’ over 9 million members and supporters, we strongly urge you to oppose a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that fails to meet the baseline standards for environmental and climate protection that the environmental community has consistently called for.



Correcting NAFTA’s environmental failures and addressing climate change in modern trade agreements is a top priority for our organizations. For over 25 years, NAFTA has contributed to climate change, toxic pollution, economic insecurity, and social inequity. We will vigorously oppose any deal that would perpetuate NAFTA’s track record of helping corporations dump pollution, outsource jobs, push fossil fuel dependency, and undermine hard-fought environmental protections.



Before, during, and after the Trump administration’s renegotiation of NAFTA, we and other leading environmental organizations repeatedly named specific changes to curb NAFTA’s environmental damage. The administration ignored nearly all of our concerns. The deal that the Trump administration produced last year-- the United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA)-- would encourage further outsourcing of pollution and jobs, offer handouts to notorious corporate polluters, and prolong Trump’s polluting legacy for years. The deal not only fails to mention, acknowledge, or address the climate crisis, but would actually contribute to it.



Since this summer, a team of Democratic members of Congress has worked to try to eliminate these and other fundamental problems by negotiating meaningful changes to the Trump administration’s deal. We have actively supported this effort with detailed recommendations to achieve the following essential environmental priorities:

• Binding climate standards, backed by 110 members of Congress, to curb outsourcing of climate pollution and jobs and to ensure the U.S. and its trading partners fulfill commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement

• Binding clean air, water, and land standards to halt the dumping of pollution in Mexico

• Obligations to fulfill commitments under an array of key multilateral environmental agreements

• A new, independent and binding enforcement system to stop environmental violations

• Removal of corporate polluter handouts that support tar sands oil and fracked gas

• Elimination of broad rights for corporate polluters to sue Mexico over environmental policies in tribunals

• Elimination of rules that would help corporate polluters weaken and delay our environmental regulations

In case you missed it yesterday, please take a look at this Twitter thread from Paul Krugman:

And, one wag cautioned a few minutes ago that this is probably a better deal than what progressives could have gotten in a Status Quo Joe or Mayo Pete presidency. Now that really is sad.





Kicker: Media is already laughing: "Democrats are saying Trump is an existential threat on one hand and helping him with his trade deal on the other."