Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders wrote a stinging letter to the Center for American Progress, the presumptive think tank of the Democratic Party establishment. (Sorry, no link available to me, but the story appeared today in the New York Times.)
”Senator Bernie Sanders, in a rare and forceful rebuke by a presidential candidate of an influential party ally, has accused a liberal think tank of undermining Democrats’ chances of taking back the White House in 2020 by “using its resources to smear” him and other contenders pushing progressive policies.
“Mr. Sanders’s criticism of the Center for American Progress, delivered on Saturday in a letter obtained by The New York Times, reflects a simmering ideological battle within the Democratic Party and threatens to reopen wounds from the 2016 primary between him and Hillary Clinton’s allies. The letter airs criticisms shared among his supporters: That the think tank, which has close ties to Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment, is beholden to corporate donors and has worked to quash a leftward shift in the party led partly by Mr. Sanders.
“This counterproductive negative campaigning needs to stop,” Mr. Sanders wrote to the boards of the Center for American Progress and its sister group, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “The Democratic primary must be a campaign of ideas, not of bad-faith smears. Please help play a constructive role in the effort to defeat Donald Trump.”
“Mr. Sanders sent the letter days after a website run by the action fund, ThinkProgress, suggested that his attacks on income inequality were hypocritical in light of his growing personal wealth. The letter is tantamount to a warning shot to the Democratic establishment that Mr. Sanders — who continues to criticize party insiders on the campaign trail — will not countenance a repeat of the 2016 primary, when he and his supporters believe party leaders and allies worked to deny him the Democratic nomination.”
CAP continues to celebrate and protect the failed education policies of the Obama administration, which were built on the foundation of George W. Bush’s disastrous No Child Left Behind. The Bush and Obama education policies were twins and relied on testing, punishment, choice, and accountability. The Bush-Obama regime is responsible for the closure of hundreds of public schools, mostly in communities of color, and their replacement by privately managed charter schools.
Last year, CAP’s education analyst Ulrich Boser wrote an excellent critique of vouchers. I wrote to congratulate him and asked when he would apply the same critical lens to charter schools, and he replied, “We will have to agree to disagree.”
I interpreted his response to mean, “Never.”
CAP is in the debt of the corporatist, Wall Street Democrats, who won’t break ranks with Obama, Duncan, DFER, or Wall Street. They are the voice of the past.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Go BERNIE!
Obama was a huge disappointment. So was Clinton.
Support for charters is still part of the official position of the DNC. The Democrats have not learned their lesson after the 2016 loss. Establishment Democrats still resent Bernie running on their ticket, and the DNC was guilty of marginalizing Bernie in 2016 as documented by Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9.
At least as a result of the midterms Bernie is not the sole voice for changing our broken health care system a well as other issues important to working families. Many of the junior representatives have joined a progressive coalition. I do hope Democrats put a leash on DFER and CAP and figure out a way to work together. They need to present a united front in order to take on Darth Vader and the Evil Empire in 2020.
“…and the DNC was guilty of marginalizing Bernie in 2016 as documented by Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9”
Actually, as documented by the release of THE DNC’S OWN EMAILS!!!! If that was da Russkies, we owe them a helluva debt of gratitude.
If “emails” were evidence, then we know from the e-mails between Trump Jr. and the Russians offering dirt that the Russians absolutely did conspire with Trump to help elect him.
Interesting point!
NYC public school parent
BINGO
And it was not the content of the emails. No Bernie supporter ever read one nor 99% of the electorate. Those that know how to read would not vote for Trump, to begin with. Those that voted for Trump were never ever going to vote for Clinton, 97% of Trump voters voted for Romney and the other 3% probably did not vote before. No one before Trump was vile enough to bring them to the polls.
The emails just being in the ether of negativeness surrounding Clinton was enough to keep Democratic voters home. It was not the Obama voter who crossed over; there were NONE. The difference in the number of voters who told pollsters in live polls vs automated polls that they were voting for Clinton not Trump; was almost the same 7% that claimed after to have voted for Obama twice and then Trump. The farce, way more people claimed to have voted for Obama than actually did. So it is tough to admit that Trump’s vileness is why you voted for him.
It was the Obama voter who stayed home In Detroit in Philly in Milwaukee and the Young voters who stayed home.
Joel,
Thanks for noticing the blatant hypocrisy of those who insist that we must not accuse Trump of doing anything wrong whatsoever without evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. So all the documented wrongdoing in the Mueller report is not “evidence” to them because they aren’t sure if all the documented meetings that members of the Trump campaign and Trump administration took with Russians and their subsequent actions to promote the Russian agenda and Russia’s election efforts on Trump’s behalf, and Trump’s “suggestion” that all investigation into Russia meddling be quashed and his firing of the FBI director when he did not listen to Trump’s “suggestion” are connected and they demand we give Trump the benefit of the doubt. He was exonerated and they will attack and attack a Democrat like Adam Schiff for daring to even mention Russia because they insist there is not one bit of evidence that Trump did anything wrong.)
But all they need to convict a Democrat and smear them as unethical crooks is to say “e-mails”.
Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates
April 14, 2019
The Vermont senator’s criticism of the Center for American Progress threatens to inflame the ideological divisions that roiled the Democratic Party in 2016.
…“Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas,” he wrote. “I worry that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the role it is playing in the progressive movement.”
Mr. Sanders also accused ThinkProgress of “personal attacks” on two other Democratic presidential candidates who have espoused progressive policies, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. He cited a February post on the website accusing Mr. Booker of undermining a bill he wrote with Mr. Sanders that would allow the importation of medications from Canada and other countries. Mr. Sanders further accused ThinkProgress of playing into President Trump’s hands by publishing op-eds criticizingMs. Warren for claiming Native American heritage…
“I and other Democratic candidates are running campaigns based on principles and ideas and not engaging in mudslinging or personal attacks on each other,” he wrote. “Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.”…
CAP is toxic to the Democratic Party and to democracy. The distance between the Koch brothers and funders of CAP can be measured in inches. The CAP board chair is the same Democrat who founded the lobby shop, Bipartisan Policy Center.
Shame on media for perpetuating the sham that casts CAP as the political left.
The reason that Ulrich promotes privatized education will get more and more scrutiny now that the ACLU, NAACP and SPLC are on record recognizing the threat it poses to the minority community.
CAP’s window dressing shouldn’t be trusted. Opposition to deregulation and concentrated wealth should be unequivocal. The campaign of CAP’s candidate, Cory Booker, a man who carries the freight for hedge funds and the tech industry, is languishing because people are on to him. Gates, Z-berg, Reed Hastings, Eric Schmidt etc. are desperate to keep deregulation flourishing, relying on corporate politicians, Dems and Repub.
If CAP ‘s prominence continues, along with the 2016 decision to court Republican crossover votes instead of the Democratic votes of the industrial central north, the result will be similar to the preceding period when 1000 legislative seats were lost.
Bernie’s prediction is accurate.
CAP is the so-called Left’s Americans for Prosperity. Moreover, either could continue to exist using the other’s name.
Boser’s bio. includes –
Founder of a .com, the Learning Agency
Award from Education Writers
Education Week researcher
Here’s what I remember about them–they are awful on education:
https://progressive.org/public-school-shakedown/center-american-progress-not-progressive-education/
Neera Tanden- typical- pulling up behind her the ladder she climbed- she went to a public high school and a state university.
I think the Center for American Progress supports corporate owned Democrats and anyone that threatens corporations and the 1 percent is considered the enemy by the CAP.
The Uban Dictionary defines CAP: To lie or say something false.
Another definition for CAP is “To shoot someone with a handgun turned to the side.”
But, “Originally, a kneecap. The phrase “bust a cap” originated in Northern Ireland several years before entering urban gangsta culture, and referred to the nonlethal (but fantastically painful and disabling) practice of firing a firearm at close range into the crook of the knee. The practice served, and in some areas continues to serve, primarily as an intimidation tactic, and the victim becomes a hobbling reminder of what happens to “the enemy.”
All good descriptions for “The Center for American Progress”. Progress means the same as profits no matter how you get them. The CAP does little or nothing to improve the lives of the working class.
The source of the personal attacks against Bernie was Think Progress. They can be contacted – general@thinkprogress.org
Bernie alleges Booker’s fall from grace (CAP gave one of his prior campaigns, $10,000 and, Cory was a featured speaker at a CAP event) came, when he began to identify progressive ideas that he supported e.g. a fix for the pharmaceutical cost problem.
I am confused because just up above you posted “The campaign of CAP’s candidate, Cory Booker, a man who carries the freight for hedge funds and the tech industry, is languishing because people are on to him.”
In his letter, Bernie demanded that CAP stop using its resources to smear Corey Booker.
Apparently Bernie doesn’t think Corey is the CAP candidate or he would not have demanded that CAP stop smearing Booker.
The important thing is not whether CAP likes or doesn’t like a candidate — is Booker now acceptable because CAP doesn’t like him or Bernie defended him?
As Bernie’s letter says, this needs to be a campaign of ideas, not smears. That goes for both sides. The smear that Booker is “associated” with CAP is bad. Booker isn’t bad because he is associated with CAP, he is bad because of the policies he stands for.
We need to talk about ideas and what the candidates are saying, not whether they are or are not endorsed by CAP.
CAP’s agenda is privatization of public education. Cory Booker is a privatizer. When Scott Walker takes campaign money from the Koch’s and, he is ideologically on the same page as they are, addressing his association with them is not a smear.
A smear is alleging that because Bernie may have money, he no longer is true to his long held and consistent message about policies.
The incident referred to in Bernie’s letter is not isolated. It is preceded by other questionable statements from Think Progress/CAP.
Media wrote about the blurred line created by a think tank like CAP when it is so closely linked to a candidate’s campaign i.e. Hillary’s.
If CAP funds and promotes certain candidates and trashes others as alleged, it is a logical deduction that the favored candidates fit criteria. If a candidate is associated with Justice Democrats, there is a different deduction …if a candidate is associated with Americans For Prosperity…if a candidate is associated with Third Way.
If Booker disavowed CAP, in a way similar to what Bernie has done, and a person continued to link them, after knowing of the disavowal, a smear may have occurred. If in the case of drug price policy, Booker’s candidacy has lost momentum and he is strategically pivoting, each voter can judge the sincerity.
.
A smear is also alleging that a Democrat’s position on an issue is entirely because they are doing CAP’s bidding and not because they simply have an opinion that happens to be the same opinion CAP has on that issue.
That’s why Bernie Sanders could strongly endorse Tom Perriello despite Perriello being a DFER Democrat and Perriello taking copious amounts of money from Powell Jobs.
Why does it matter whether Booker disavows CAP? Bernie isn’t saying it matters. He didn’t demand that Perriello disavow CAP or disavow the ed reformers who underwrote his campaign — Bernie still endorsed him and worked very hard for Perriello.
The point isn’t “disavowing” CAP because that’s a smear by association. The point is to look at each candidate and his positions and decide which ones are most important to you and accept that it is likely that no candidate will perfectly reflect everything you want. And then fight for that candidate in the primary and if he or she loses, fight for the whichever Democrat wins even if CAP also happens to like that Democrat, too.
I am glad Bernie and you are criticizing CAP. I just hope that criticism of CAP doesn’t get confused with smearing a candidate simply because CAP happens to support him or her.
I will judge Booker not on whether CAP likes him or Bernie likes him but on the positions he holds. And right now, I find the positions that Booker holds on public education disqualify him from ever getting my support in the primary. And whether or not Bernie happens to like Booker or not has nothing to do with that decision. Just like whether or not Booker disavows CAP or not has nothing to do with that decision.
NYC,
Your position is clear. If there is a small opening that permits a question, can you identify the advantages that accrue if all Democratic (or, a majority) of candidates for President disavow the only “voice of the left” that media currently recognizes, which happens to be funded by the Waltons and Gates and whose views align with theirs?
If not, there is no need to restate your unity points nor risks you perceive.
In turn, I won’t enumerate the risks I fear from an organization that thinks Bloomberg creates a win for the Democratic Party.
I don’t know exactly what “disavow” means but I absolutely support everything Bernie Sanders wrote in the letter to CAP. Bernie rightly criticized CAP for their destructive attacks on candidates and said he would be informing his supporters of the concerns he has.
I am glad the candidates are critical of CAP and I would be happy if more step up. And there should be a concerted effort — perhaps led by Bernie or Warren – to get some media attention on the fact that CAP is not “progressive” and should not be defined that way.
I agree with every point you made and I apologize if it seemed I did not. I despise CAP’s position on public education and on many issues. But then again, I despise Booker’s position, too, and CAP apparently has turned against Booker. And I’m not exactly pleased with Elizabeth Warren’s position on public education although I like all of her other ideas. Bernie’s position doesn’t thrill me yet either but I’m hopeful he will change it soon. CAP needs to stop smearing candidates, period, and if it doesn’t it should be marginalized.
You got me all worked up Dianne, and now I’m fifty dollars short!
I have this blog’s article from the NYT in moderation.
….
By the end of Monday, every candidate’s information will be public. For now, here’s the fundraising totals that we know:
Sanders — $18 million
Harris — $12 million
O’Rourke — $9.4 million
Buttigieg — $7 million
Warren — $6 million
Klobuchar — $5.2 million
Booker — $5 million
Gillibrand — $3 million
Yang — $1.7 million
Evidently, Podesta who founded CAP and, CAP’s President, Neera Tanden, lack the capacity to self identify their failures or, they prefer scapegoating.
Hillary’s team blames others for the 2016 debacle despite the number of unforced errors by the campaign e.g. Bloomberg as a speaker at the convention, Nina Turner denied her speaking time, Hillary’s predicted win which led voters to stay home or pull the lever for the green candidate, elitists sent as campaign managers to economically depressed states (the son of venture capitalists in Ohio), a pass word shared after a warning about the threat.
WTH did Hillary expect when Podesta is in a YouTube video on a dais with Jeb Bush and Chester Finn calling on donors to support candidates privatizing America’s most important common good?
This letter is excellent! But every point in it should be embraced by progressives, too!
“The counterproductive negative campaigning needs to stop. The Democratic primary must be a campaign of ideas, not of bad faith smears. Please help play a constructive role in the effort to defeat Donald Trump.” This is absolutely what we need to do to win.
By the way, Bernie Sanders defended COREY BOOKER in that letter. In his letter, Sanders criticizes CAP for “attacking another friend and colleague of mine, Corey Booker…”
Bernie Sanders says CAP is “using its resources to smear” Corey Booker, too.
Please take note of that — Bernie Sanders is accusing CAP of attacking Corey Booker, too.
In other words, stop smearing Democrats running for President. I hope that people will listen to Bernie.
CAP’s new VP of education worked for Arne Duncan. (Arne is now employed by Laurene Powell Jobs.) CAP’s Senior Fellow for education was formerly a TFA executive. Another CAP education expert was formerly with the Foundation for Excellence in Education. A fourth was associated with the Gates Foundation. And, the final expert who is not new to CAP, formerly worked for the Alliance 4 Excellent Education, which fails to list funders at its site.
If the goal was plutocratic representation, what would the CAP education department look like?
I’d like to blame CAP for the terrible education policies of the Democrats, but remember who was the former president of the CAP lobbying arm and recipient of lots of money from Laurene Powell Jobs when he tried to defeat a pro-public education Democrat in the primary?
Tom Perriello. Whose first major endorsement came from Bernie Sanders.
There are a lot of bad policies that you can blame on CAP, but you can’t blame them for the fact that Bernie Sanders and other progressives were just as happy to support education “reform” and DFER candidates.
I absolutely agree with you that CAP’s policies are terrible, but people like Arne Duncan were enabled by progressives who gave credibility to the education reform movement instead of standing up strongly against it.
I am going to judge the Democratic candidates on their views and positions. I am waiting for one to come out strongly for public education and against the privatization movement.
I think Bernie is right that this should be a campaign of ideas, not smears. Just because a politician like Tom Perriello is a favorite of CAP doesn’t make him evil. But I will certainly judge him based on the policies he is endorsing. Same goes with all the candidates.
Is it a conflict of interest for the founder of a highly influential bipartisan lobby shop to be Board Chair of CAP, an organization that media labels as the voice of the left?
Should media and the public question an organization allegedly trashing candidates selectively in the context of a possible agenda to advance bipartisan policies?
“Should media and the public question an organization allegedly trashing candidates selectively in the context of a possible agenda to advance bipartisan policies?”
Yes! They should question and criticize that! I agree with everything Bernie Sanders wrote in the letter!
I just want to make sure progressives don’t go down that path, either. It’s fine to question such organizations. It’s important to question such organizations.
It is not fine to smear a candidate because they were once associated with the organization or are being endorsed by the organization. Even Bernie doesn’t believe that since he so strongly endorsed Tom Perriello and it didn’t bother Bernie one bit that Perriello was a DFER Democrat trying to defeat a Democrat who believed strongly in public education.
We should strongly criticize these organizations. We should not trash Democrats because of their associations with these organizations just like Bernie isn’t trashing Booker. We should criticize Democrats for whatever positions they hold, not smear them for some previous association. Just like Bernie does.
A message about Democratic unity will fall on deaf ears at CAP.
“A message about Democratic unity will fall on deaf ears at CAP.”
If CAP is making character attacks, they need to be called out, exactly as Bernie did. I would be happy if the unity is all the democratic candidates criticizing CAP for making unwarranted attacks.
I think what we’ve seen from the past couple of days from Sanders’campaign is that he’s in it to win it this time. He’s not an outsider, a long shot, a dark horse now. His ideas which seemed extreme to some in 2015 are now accepted as logical, for example health care and a $15 minimum wage.
That his campaign has reached out to Diane is very important, as it demonstrates a willingness to listen to people’s concerns rather than push through only ideas already in the policy circle.
It’s a bold move to call out CAP for what they are, an organization dedicated to keeping themselves in the sphere of influence and not one dedicated to a progressive set of values and ideals. His solidarity with Warren and (ugh!) Booker is impressive in the face of the corporate DNC – and against Trump.
The Justice Democrats, and other progressive groups received seed money from Sanders’ organization, and Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio Cortes, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillium, Randy Bryce and Ben Jealous were all beneficiaries. Even if they did not all win, they are now known candidates, making the road ahead smoother.
I feel that the media is once again putting down Bernie. He is not a corporate controlled politician and that isn’t acceptable. Look at what WaPo is saying.
……….
Can Bernie Sanders really win over Trump voters?
The most striking example of this strategy will play out Monday night when Sanders appears at a town hall meeting hosted by Fox News Channel, an outlet many Democrats detest and one the party has blocked from hosting a debate. Sanders says it’s important to talk to Fox viewers directly and tell them Trump misled them.
Sanders’s approach faces a significant test in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all part of his current campaign swing, where many white, working-class voters were drawn to Trump’s fiery populist message in 2016. Sanders argues he can reclaim these voters by convincing them he can deliver the economic relief they were seeking all along.
But many Democrats across the country are unconvinced, even while they increasingly fear Sanders has a real shot at the nomination, given his solid based of support and the deeply fractured Democratic field, which has 18 candidates and counting.
Some worry that a national ticket led by a septuagenarian democratic socialist who wants to transform government will alienate the political center — not only helping help Trump win a second term but erasing recent gains by centrist Democratic lawmakers in suburban areas.
If Sanders “wins the nomination, Trump will be president again,” said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). “I will guarantee it.”…
https://wapo.st/2UyL2WM?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.3bff2471b22d
I thought this article was nothing compared to what is going to come if Bernie wins the nomination. Only the far right Democrats like Manchin — who endorsed Susan Collins — criticize him here. This is the kind of article that has been written about every single Democratic candidate. Look at the stories about one candidate being too mean to her staff!
I think that some progressives believe that Hillary Clinton “deserved” all the mischaracterizations and trashing she got from the media. They believe she “did something” and it was her own fault that the public believed she was the most corrupt candidate of any party to ever run for President.
The right wing propaganda machine is very strong and they need quotes from disaffected voters from the same party to enhance the problems with the Democratic candidate. If the story is “even voters from the same party know how corrupt and dishonest xxxx is”, then those stories have legs.
Bernie was not a threat to the right wing in 2016. He is a threat now. He will get trashed by their propaganda — by the RIGHT WING propaganda. I hope no one ever forgets that is the enemy.
And Rep. Kurt Schrader is a right wing Democrat who OPPOSED Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House and voted for the Republican. He is part of the right wing Democrat coalition.
A quote from far right Democrats who agree with right wing Republicans quite often (like Manchin and Schrader) is not going to destroy Bernie. What will sabotage his campaign is if all the people who wanted some other candidate start repeating those right wing character attacks from the left. What will destroy Bernie is if every follower of Elizabeth Warren starts trashing him and saying he is corrupt and “stole” the primary from the much better and not corrupt Sen. Warren and if those disaffected Warren voters keep repeating right wing attacks for the media.
UNITY. Manchin and Schrader are the type of Democrats who speak at Republican conventions and endorse Republicans. The media will desperately try to equate them with Pelosi and the DNC, but it doesn’t work if Pelosi and the real Democrat leadership don’t join in.
In that article, Elizabeth Warren refused to comment and buy into the story. If her supporters decided that because Bernie defeated her in the primary they should start trashing him, then these kinds of media attacks will have legs. That’s what happened in 2016.
UNITY. There is only one goal. Defeat the Republicans.
I just saw the interview with Nancy Pelosi on 60 Minutes. She called herself a progressive, but she does not think socialism is good for this country. If Pelosi cannot even understand democratic socialism, we have a huge problem. I wish Bernie would call himself a social democrat. By turning social into an adjective and democrat into a noun, the emphasis is on democrat. Using the word socialist is like giving the radical right wing fuel for their fire. By the way one party in Denmark that supports strong social safety nets is called Social Democrats.
Absolutely correct Sanders is “not now nor has he ever been a Socialist”. Sanders and the Scandinavian countries he seeks to emulate are not Nationalizing nor proposing to nationalize any productive industry. They are doing what Bismarck a brutal antisocialist (and Teddy Roosevelt) proposed in response to a rising socialist tide. Taxation funding social insurance and regulation curbing the harshest edges of capitalism.
So here is Teddy Roosevelt on Bernie Sanders. In a quote from Roosevelt’s autobiography. After Roosevelt goes through a litany of criticism about Marx and Socialism he states:
“many of the men who call themselves Socialists to-day are in reality merely radical social reformers, with whom on many points good citizens can and ought to work in hearty general agreement, and whom in many practical matters of government good citizens well afford to follow.”
Sanders not being born yet is irrelevant.
your list is heart-lifting: if Sanders can be the “tide that elevates all boats” and these are the kind of boats he helps to rise, we may see some truly wondrous things
CAP has a legislative agenda. Education is mentioned twice, once as a proposal and the second only incidentally. Here you go…
“This year, teacher walkouts and strikes in seven states brought widespread attention to chronic disinvest- ment in public education over the past decade. Despite their critical role in preparing and shaping our children for the future, teacher salaries have been stagnant for the past 20 years, decreasing by $30 per week when adjusted for inflation from 1996 to 2015. This means teachers are now earning 23 percent less each week than other college graduates. Teacher compensation in high-need schools and districts is particularly problematic, and studies demonstrate that there is a link between teacher pay and student outcomes. The new Congress can help reverse these trends by investing more in schools and teachers, including by passing legislation outlined by CAP to create a permanent $10,000 refundable federal Teacher Tax Credit for teachers in high-need schools. (Who gets the tax credit is not clear). That’s it folks.
Here is the second mention of education: “The House of Representatives must reaffirm our nation’s commitment to equal rights and opportunities for all by passing the Equality Act, legislation that provides vital and overdue protections from discrimination for LGBTQ people in all aspects of their lives, including housing, employment, public accommodations, credit, and education. The legislation also fixes holes in our civil rights laws by ensuring comprehensive protections on the basis of sex and makes it so that our laws bar discrimination wherever it exists, including in retail stores and transportation services. By passing this bill, the House can take a big step toward ensuring no one in this country has to fear for their safety or livelihood simply by going to school or work or by participating in civic life.”
See what else matters here.
Click to access 2019-Priorities-Memo-FINAL-PDF.pdf
I have been looking over who the major funders of CAP are between 2014 and 2018, by tiers of contribution. They certainly have a lot of “anonymous” donors in addition to many who are hell-bent on killing public education. The great absurdity is that loyal and multi-year supporters are unions, including teacher unions.
Tax credits reduce funds available to the government which explains CAP’s support for them. Gates lives in the state that has the most regressive tax system in the nation. Policies that allow the rich to abandon financing the government are not new to him nor the Koch’s.
Window dressing about teacher pay while promoting digital learning and privatization shouldn’t be allowed to destroy democracy.
Laura,
Public teacher pay in wealthy Ohio suburbs is posted in newspapers. There is no way when the median national family salary is less than $60,000 that teachers making $90,000 in Centerville, Ohio, is going to make a winning argument for Democrats.
“Window dressing about teacher pay while promoting digital learning and privatization shouldn’t be allowed to destroy democracy.” Agree completely, CAP’s positions are doubletalk neoliberal crap. But I don’t understand your last para, maybe I am dense this morning. No doubt wealthy red Ohio suburbanites chafe at paying their district teachers a healthy salary— and they’ll be against helping out teachers in underfunded areas as well. But they are not the lower/middle class rust-belt voters Dems are trying to entice away from Trump.
Communication crosses borders. It is not limited to specific communities. If information isolation could be achieved the right wing wouldn’t be as politically effective at extrapolating anecdotes, portraying them to be true of the whole.
To paraphrase Tom Joad, in The Grapes of Wrath:
A person ain’t got a soul of his or her own, just a little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody, and then . . . then it don’t matter. Whatever happens, I’ll be all around in the dark – I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a migrant father walking a thousand miles to apply for amnesty so that his children can eat and live safe, I’ll be there. Wherever people are shouting down some white woman who called the cops on folks for barbecuing while black, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way people stood up to the thugs with badges who came to arrest them at Stonewall. I’ll be in every Pride parade. I’ll be in the way trans kids laugh when they’re accepted for who they are, and in the way women walk out on the company that wants to arbitrate away their right not to be pawed at. I’ll be in the crowd taking pictures when the cops are beating up some black kid. I’ll be standing between the woman on the subway wearing a hajib and the young men taunting her. I’ll be in the cell with the guy talking to the law school students who’ll find the DNA evidence to exonerate him. I’ll be at the factory gates with the poor people sick of being sick, of being poisoned. I’ll be with the pigs in the transport truck heading to the slaughterhouse, with the chickens in the battery cages. I’ll be in the school board meeting where the parents are demanding that teachers get paid a living wage and an end to stack ranking by standardized test. When the old people march on the capitol to protect their healthcare and Social Security and extend Medicare to all because it’s cheaper and more decent and every other country has done it, I’ll be there. And when the young people working at McDonald’s or Walmart fight not just for a living wage but for a union as well, I’ll be there, too.
Is it really too much to expect even one of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination to come out strongly against charters? The NAACP asked for a moratorium — has even one progressive candidate thought of endorsing that?
I know Bernie’s campaign spoke to Diane. If that doesn’t translate into a strong position, then I certainly hope a different candidate steps up.
And whether or not the despicable CAP likes a candidate who supports the moratorium or tries to undermine that candidate with lies, that candidate will be the real supporter of public education.
I just hope we don’t hear the same tired old rhetoric we heard from all the Democratic primary candidates in 2016 like “every child deserves a good school” or “I support public charters”. We have progressives running and they should be standing up for public education – not offering generic statements that are no different than what any DFER Dem would say.
But even if Bernie’s position on K-12 education isn’t what I prefer, I’ll judge him on the entirety of his positions which – like every candidate running in the Democratic primary — are significantly better than Trump.
AOC: A Biden Presidential Run Wouldn’t ‘Animate’ Me
As the second most talked-about politician in the country, any Democratic presidential hopefuls would love an endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s not let slip who she’s backing yet, but has now made clear who she won’t be supporting. In an interview with the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery,” the congresswoman was asked which candidate she would back in the Democratic race. “I truly do not have one yet. I truly do not,” she replied, but added that the prospect of a Biden run doesn’t “animate” her and that she has “a lot of issues” with a potential Biden bid. She was an organizer for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign, and hinted that she may back him again. “I’m very supportive of Bernie’s run … I haven’t endorsed anybody, but I’m very supportive of Bernie,” Ocasio-Cortez said, adding, “I also think what Elizabeth Warren has been bringing to the table is … truly remarkable, truly remarkable and transformational.” Asked if she would ever run for president, she replied: “I really don’t know … I think about it every once in a while, but … this is pretty hard already.”
Read it at Yahoo News
As usual, AOC provides a model response that I hope her elders will follow.
She didn’t trash Biden. She didn’t try to attack his character and call him corrupt or a tool of the financial lobby or CAP or some other smear.
He doesn’t “animate” her. She has issues with his bid — presumably because she has strong disagreements with him on the issues which she never pulls punches about making clear. AOC often criticizes the policies and positions of other Democrats.
What she doesn’t do is attack their character and make spurious claims that the positions they take are entirely because they are only interested in pleasing their corporate masters.
It is okay that Bernie has never been anti-charter. I hope that his campaign’s conversation with Diane will change his mind, but if he continues to give tacit support to the DFER position that “good public charters” are fine, I will be disappointed but I won’t start making spurious claims that he is doing it because his masters in the ed reform movement have ordered him to take that position.
That’s what discussing issues is all about. Democrats that are pro-charter or pro-free trade or pro-affirmative action should have to defend the positions they take and explain why they take them. Democrats that are anti-charter or anti-affirmative action or anti-free trade should have to defend their positions.
But what needs to stop is Democrats or progressives throwing character attacks at other Democrats by insisting that their position on education is because they only do what the teachers’ union tells them or their position on education is because they only do what CAP tells them.
And the reason we should stop throwing out those character attacks is because the Republicans are going to do it anyway and they can’t wait to get some Democrat or progressive on record to help them attack the corrupt character of whoever the nominee ends up being.
That’s why Trump won. He won on character. And that should never have happened,
Dear Diane, I can’t imagine what you find in the ‘Center for American Progress’ … that is ‘democratic’… It’s just a label to cover the Rrepublican’ infiltration of the Democratic Party’s supposed commitment to our Constitutional distribution of power – the best document ever written for a government (so far)… worth following. J. Ellingston, Washington, DC
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 4:11 PM Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: ” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders wrote a stinging > letter to the Center for American Progress, the presumptive think tank of > the Democratic Party establishment. (Sorry, no link available to me, but > the story appeared today in the New York Times.) ” >
CAP is the voice of the Obama-Clinton teams. The media always refers to CAP as “liberal” or “Center left.”
I wish there was some way to close this Orange Buffoon’s Twitter account. All he thinks about is retaliating against anyone who isn’t bowing.
I think they should all be placed in Mar-a-Lago and all of the other Trump resorts. He doesn’t need to go golfing at taxpayer’s expense.
……………………………………………
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just out: The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes!
162K
8:47 PM – Apr 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
81.6K people are talking about this
Exactly my thoughts; the City of NY could build refugee shelters outside the numerous Trump properties. Shelters to house these families while they wait for the disposition of their cases. They could close a lane on Fifth Avenue. On 57th Street and on Central Park West to do it.
They might’ve able to rake the leaves in the forests.
Go Bernie! I know one thing for sure about the billionaires trying to destroy public education — their greed knows no bounds. As such, self-restraint is an afterthought for them. They upend elections with tons of cash and endless attacks. Always. But we’ve all noticed lately that their reckless attacks on democracy and everyday people have been backfiring. People are tired of them, tired of the billionaires. Expect them to attack Bernie. All Bernie has to do is keep following the money and calling out the billionaires for being their maniacally greedy selves.
Mayor Pete’s got it. Of course, he has everything but a policy position on his web page.
But hey who could be better than a Harvard grad a McKinsey Consultant and a Charter lover from small-town America; who talks about social issues and will never ever do any harm to the corporate bottom line. He even made the sewers run on time in South Bend.
Yes, it’s Mayor Pete’s turn. Forget those candidates who are trying hard to formulate policy proposals like Warren or Sanders. Forget those candidates who have long records of supporting these same positions. Pete’s our man; the next incarnation of “Hope and Change”. The corporate media will swamp to him and already are. Why what could a true “Progressive” want that does not align with the world view of the Joe Scarborough crowd.
What does Think Progress have to say?
see what Zaid Jilani who used to work at Think Progress, project of CAP, tweeted yesterday:
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1117514426020708356
Zaid Jilani Retweeted Diane Ravitch
I was once authoring think tank newsletter about school privatization and included references to the Waltons they asked me to take out because CAP was soliciting money from them
I don’t understand how a supposedly Democratic think tank can so,I It funding from the Waltons, who are anti-union, anti-worker, and as-far to the right as you can go until you reach the Koch brothers and DeVos.
dianeravitch
I could not understand how every major piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed was a piece of legislation Reagan only dreamed of. Thomas Franks counts five I count seven. But I think I got the connection, must have something to do with Arkansas. Would any self-respecting Democrat ever sit on the Board of Walmart?
I think perhaps there is a connection there to CAP.
Jilani’s points were confirmed by David Brock’s Media Matters which wrote about privatization and omitted mention of the Waltons and Gates.
Omission in this context is dishonesty. Dishonesty makes the case for lack of trust.
The Walton Family Foundation contributed between $500,000 to $999,999 to CAP IN 2014, 2016, AND 2017. Walmart contributed to CAP from 2013 to 2017, with contributions between $100,000 and $499,999. These are the “tiers” of contribution reported on the CAP website.
CAP has also been the benificiary of multi-year contributions from the National Education Association four years at $100,000 to $499,999, beginning in 2014. The American Federation of Teachers has contributed for five years, with the latest contribution in 2018. Each year the contribution was between $50,000 to $99,000. This information comes from a database I constructed yesterday. CAP receives an amazing number of “anonymous” contributions.. In 2018 five of these were for over $1 million. There are also an astonishing neumebr of contributions from foreign countries–Japan, Germany, United Arab Emirates, Nordic Council of Ministers, Taipei, Korea, and the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industry. More to come on the 2018 contributors. Some of these are also multi-year donors–corporate, foundations, and individuals.
I’m happy to tweet and re-tweet this comment to spread that information, Laura, but I think you need some serious brand-name eyes on this, not to in anyway disparage the work you have already done. This is explosive information.
Perhaps you might send an email to ProPublica, which today was awarded a Pulitzer for their investigative work?
https://www.propublica.org/leak-to-us/
Media reported about the UAE money CAP takes.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, I’m guessing, Citizens United and all.
(Guess I’m thinking of Notre Dame de Paris, too.)
When CAP staff write about accountability in reference to the education sector, they should choke on the word. Where is their accountability to the left, who are supposedly the group they represent?
To an outside observer, messaging from the “liberal voice” culminated in the loss of 1000 legislative seats, governorships and the presidency. Who makes CAP management accountable?
Is CAP succeeding in shoring up an oligarchy and, that is the explanation for no turnover in top management at the organization?
Two red flags-
CAP’s leader, in an interview that followed Hillary’s loss, said that going forward the party was going to become a party of opposition.
Pondering what the party’s role was prior…
CAP’s Board Chair (Tom Daschle) and, its creator (John Podesta), respectively, founded a bipartisan lobby shop and, a bipartisan PR firm. Both types of firms work in behalf of their paying clients. The path for legislation/policies that a client may want is made easier by a Repub.-Dem. shared agenda. Of course, so is oligarchy.
Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank Of Trying To Stymie His 2020 Campaign
…In an email to supporters on Sunday, Sanders’ campaign solicited donations to take on the think tank, which it accused of being “bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance, pharmaceutical companies, and fossil fuels.”
CAP’s leadership, the email continued, “has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie — and for all of us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence.”
Walmart and Citigroup were among CAP’s top donors in 2014, according to a 2015 Washington Post article. Other donors included the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, as well as various labor groups and charitable organizations, the Post reported. In 2018, CAP said corporate funding “comprised less than 2 percent of the budget.”
Article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-cap-2020_n_5cb352ade4b0ffefe3b1e0f1
Any organization that takes money from “Wall Street financiers, big banks, Silicon Valley titans, foreign governments, defense contractors and the health care industry” is NOT a group to be trusted. Wealthy individual who contribute don’t have to be named. How rotten is this? Smash Bernie and CAP thinks it is a Democratic organization?
…………………………….
The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist
By Elizabeth Williamson and Kenneth P. Vogel
April 15, 2019
The blowup reflects ideological divisions among Democrats between a legacy Clinton organization and liberals trying to harness the energy of millennials.
Mr. Sanders, angry about a video produced by ThinkProgress that ridicules his new status as one of the millionaires he has vilified on the campaign trail, sent a scorching letter to the center’s board, accusing Ms. Tanden of “maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas.”
The blowup is another reflection of the ideological divisions among Democrats, this time between a legacy Clinton organization and a liberal wing trying to move the party to the left to harness the energy of millennials. Mr. Sanders’s team remains convinced that the Democratic establishment worked behind the scenes to deprive him of the party’s nomination in 2016; his campaign has cast the group as beholden to corporate interests set on thwarting him in 2020…
The Center for American Progress and its sister political arm, with a $60 million combined annual budget and 320 staff members, have played an outsize role in the Democratic Party for nearly two decades. Founded in 2003 by top advisers to Bill and Hillary Clinton, the organization has sought to rebrand itself as a brain trust for the anti-Trump resistance.
Its donor rolls overlap substantially with those of the Clintons’ campaigns and foundation. The think tank has taken in millions from interests often criticized by liberals, including Wall Street financiers, big banks, Silicon Valley titans, foreign governments, defense contractors and the health care industry. Individual donors can ask to remain anonymous.
Money to the Center for American Progress from the personal foundation of the Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg surged to $665,000 in 2018 from $15,000 in 2017, while Facebook fended off scrutiny for mishandling users’ personal data, fueling violence and providing a platform for Russian election interference.
Last year, the center got $1 million from the family foundation of Jonathan Lavine, a managing partner at Bain Capital, and at least $1 million from the tech industry’s Silicon Valley Community Foundation. It also received $225,000 from the private foundation of a Walmart heir, Sam Walton.
Ms. Tanden, whose salary was $397,000 in 2018, was an unpaid adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign while running the think tank, and was considered a candidate for a top White House job had Mrs. Clinton won the presidency. Ms. Tanden says she has founded six new policy-intensive groups as the center’s president and increased its annual budget by 25 percent….