General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter Leading Cameron's Tories to Victory--Jim Messina is On His Way Home to Support Hillary
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/08/former-obama-campaign-manager-led-austerity-loving-tories-victory
Before his appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday, host Joe Scarborough introduced Messina, who was hired as an official adviser to the party of Prime Minister David Cameron, as "the man being called a traitor by liberals worldwide."
During the interview, Messina credited the victory of the austerity-driven Conservative Party to a "resounding economic mandate for the prime minister."
"First of all, the prime minister laid out a compelling economic vision, and second you had a campaign that tried to take us back to the 1970s and 1980s," Messina said of Cameron's liberal Labour Party challenger, Ed Miliband.
"All elections are always about the future, especially an economic future," Messina continued. "We won that choice by over 20 points last night and that's why we stunned the world. And it looks like he'll have an absolute majority, which I don't think many people thought we'd have."
When asked if he has "seen the light" and plans to support a Republican candidate for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Messina said that he will throw his full weight behind Democratic candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last year, Messina became co-chair of the pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA.
"I am all Hillary all the time," Messina said. "Whatever its going to take to get Hillary."
In a recent profile of Messina, The Intercept's Ken Silverstein wrote that the consultant was known for his "scumminess," and that he rose to prominence after producing "one of the more homophobic ads of modern political times" during Idaho Senator Max Baucus's 2002 reelection campaign. The piece outlines the piles of money that Messina has amassed in speaking and consulting fees, which Silverstein describes as "astonishing, even by Washington standards."
Messina joined the UK's Conservative Party in 2013 as a paid consultant and, as Time reports, "worked to export the latest innovations in American-style campaigning to the UK."
In a much-publicized match-up, Obama's former senior adviser David Axelrod also took part in the UK election, serving as a consultant for Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.
-----snip---
Politico reports that Messina and Axelrod weren’t the only ones taking part in the campaign. Obama’s former body man, Reggie Love, also reportedly helped the Conservatives with their field and social media efforts.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/08/former-obama-campaign-manager-led-austerity-loving-tories-victory
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Wish he was with Labour.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)he's going to help Hillary. Hmmmmm.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… Can you not see what "the money" does to those with affinity for IT in these elections time after time… country after country….
If helping means money, then people must be meaningless above that platform.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'll make it clearer for you, if it isn't by this time.
The candidates who fill up their war chests with BIG money (affiliation that is far right of where the working class, the middle class and the people on who's backs the UK and USA built the industrial age) are not responding to the needs of labor (a.k.a. the UK's Labour Part), who should have heard the cry of the labor class, the socialists cry and joined ranks with the SNP (Scottish National Party) are COMPLETELY out of these candidate's concern.
HRC, like Obama is more concerned with those treaties that have squashed the middle class, all but wiping out decent livable wages.
And that same money that helped Obama is akin to what will save HRC. You can bet on it.
If I have not made myself clear on what I'm saying, I think you'll let me know.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will still support our nominee.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If it's below seven figures, please tell us why you feel you need to vote against your own self-interest.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I want to know how much money you stand to gain from that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Which is exactly the same as support for it, since support and indifference will both get it passed and dumped on us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Could you enlighten me?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Can you tell me why you cannot support a candidate who also opposes it? Thus far Clinton has dodged around questions regarding TPP, only going as far as to say what she thinks it should include (which in all likelihood, it will not include, beign a trade agreement, and given their track record.)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)What do you think Sanders is going to accomplish that another Democrat wouldn't? And how do you think refusing to support the Democratic nominee helps anyone but the GOP and their constituents?
Words amount to fuck all. What matters is what gets passed. I have asked what Sanders proposal for poverty is. I was assured by one of the country club liberals that he would do more than any one else. What does that more amount to? Food stamps, the same food stamps supported by every single Democrat across the political spectrum, including the DLC. You all have created a narrative that Santa Claus is going to transform America with good thoughts, just as I suppose you had for Obama eight years ago. I pity Sanders if he is elected because you all will turn on him in a NY minute. Meanwhile, you have decided Clinton is no different from the Tea Party and believe obviously doctored charts. This narrative exists in y'alls heads, not in reality. If you actually think supporting one Democrat over another is voting against one's class interests, you don't have the first fucking clue about politics or civics. That's just lame. Your little fantasies are worth nothing, and using these narratives created through group think toward ordinary Americans as though there were anything other than an expression of your own collective personal preferences and prejudices is ridiculous. Worse yet, refusing to support the nominee if you don't get your way certainly isn't standing up for working Americans. It serves only your own egos and the GOP.
The median income of the 1 percent isn't even seven figures. The 1 percent begins around 400,000k, and plenty of Sanders supporters are in the upper 5 and 10 percent. Household income starting at $150 k a year is the upper 10 percent. $193k a year is the upper 5%. That is for a family of four.
Tell me why the upper 10 percent are so hot for Sanders if he is going to do so much for the poor? I get that you all think everyone needs to lay down their concerns for the great and noble struggle of the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent, but the rest of us don't see it that way. One country club/soy milk liberal after another tells us that what matters is their anger at Wall Street, not gun violence, not women's rights, not LGBT rights, not the poor (that's covered by food stamps, what more could they want?), but their pocket books. Now, I'm not saying Sanders is on board with that class project, but that is definitely the thrust of the interest here on DU, where average incomes are far in excess of the national average. What you mean to say to Justin is why he isn't putting everything aside for you because really that is who counts, not him.
Additionally, those kinds of insults are guaranteed to turn off voters. If you can't even make an argument to fellow Democrats without turning to idiotic memes and insults, what do you think you're doing other than sinking his candidacy. If I were Sanders, I'd put a gag on the lot of you before you alienate every voter in America. I get you all think you are Superior to the little people, but you aren't, and ridiculous comments like that only prove it.
Firstly, no politician serves the interests of the people under capitalism. NONE. And none ever will. Even if they want to, the system is set up to protect capital above all else. Sanders has already made clear he's perfectly willing to cow tow to the corporate gun lobby, and that's supposed to not matter because they make money from murder as opposed to usury. Sanders may be a perfectly fine Democrat, but the proposals I've seen are no different from Obama's and every other Democrat. This is all about tribalism. He's one of your own and makes you feel good about yourselves. It amounts to no more than that. Railing against Wall Street may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it amounts to fuck all without cooperation from congress. '
Once again we see the so-called left on this site sees the real enemy as ordinary Americans who refuse to engage in their class project. How dare Justin support someone who has promoted his rights for a long time when what matters is you having one of your tribe on cable TV as entertainer in chief?
No wonder there is no real left remaining is this country. You all target as the enemy the people you should be building solidarity. You all work to exclude rather than include and build a movement. Then of course you don't actually identify any cause to accomplish. It's all about your assessment of one member of the political elite vs. another, which amounts to exactly fuck all. That you pretend it amounts to anything is just buying into the charade of capital. Frankly it's pathetic. You buy into the national mythology created to belie the dictates of capital and insult anyone who doesn't share your delusions.
Keep it up. There might yet be a few people in America who haven't been turned off supporting Sanders by your crowd. Who the fuck would want to join in with you people when all you do is exclude and insult.
Oh, and you evidently have no problem throwing the Palestinians under the bus. Sanders is a pro-Israeli occupation and anti-Palestinian as any member of the congress and more than many.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Accomplish? probably not a whole heck of a lot. But i believe i can count on the man to at least give a shot at trying, which is more than I can say for most others. He's been standing at the prow on civil rights for a long time. he actually acknowledges the existence of america's poor and working classes, rather than dismissing us to talk exclusively about the ever-shrinking middle class. I have no illusions that he'll be able to ride past a congress full of right-wingers - Democrat and republican alike - and get everything done. But all I need is for him to try.
There is not a Democratic nominee and there will not be until the middle of 2016. This seems to be a constant struggle for many to understand.
And i think Sanders' legislative record holds up pretty well against the other contenders.
Do you expect there to me a one-word answer for this problem or something? Do you understand poverty is a multi-layered issue that seeps into a great number of issues, and cannot actually be addressed as a sound byte that only addresses issues labeled "poverty"? That there is no way to actually have a singular "solution to poverty"? Please, take a look at Sanders on a broad variety of issues, and think about how they impact the greater problem of poverty.
You could start with the topic you jumped in on, his opposition to the Trans-pacific partnership.
-Pause for studio laughter-
Funny how TANF keeps shrinking, with all that support. it keeps taking cuts, it keeps getting restrictions. it looks a lot like Democrats are willing to say a lot of things, but are more than happy to let Republicans handle all the doing.
You can sniff about TANF if you want, but there are people who depend on it. My mother is one such person, unfortunately. If sanders does nothing besides bring TANF up to date with modern expenses and returns it to where it USED to be before 'welfare reform," then that'll be more than any Democrat has done since Johnson. Which is fucking depressing, yes, but isn't a strike against Sanders.
"You people"?
And no, I had no illusions of transformative change from Obama's election and i have none tied to sanders. I saw Obama as a foot in the door, and nothing more. Sanders might be an arm that gets through the crack that that foot kept open. You see, our system is specifically structured to PREVENT transformative change. It's a slow fucking process, but in my eyes, even halting steps left count as progress.
I've never said anything of the sort. Maybe you are referring to "my people"?
I feel that voting for an opponent of a so-far-as-we-know shit "Free Trade Bill" is more in people's interests than voting for one that either supports it or evades questions about it.
If you can't say "fuck you" in two words, you're either a British comedy or bad at talking.
I don't know. You would have to ask them, assuming they would even have a clue what you're talking about. me, I'm scratching by on $12,000 a year, which only works out because I'm single, no kids, and lucked out on exceedingly cheap rent for where I live. As it is right now I'm in debt to the local grocery store and my landlord because my paychecks aren't actually covering my bills currently due to low hours (I work a factory job, and we manufacture to order. Low order means fewer hours means crap pay.)
If you're worried about well-off people supporting Sanders, I suggest you talk to them about it, not to me. Because i have no idea what they think.
They are not, how you say, "my people."
I see. So anyone who thinks gay people and women might want to fucking eat, is a "country club liberal"? Does Sanders oppose these things, BainsBane?
No, I suppose even you have to realize he does not oppose these things.
Well you see, the major difference between the democratic candidates currently running is economic. Sanders and Clinton (and O'Who?) are on par with each other on civil rights issues - Sanders actually has a better legislative record, but then he's been doing legislation for a very long time. So they agree on things such as gay rights,m women's rights, and the other issues you have brought up. The difference leis in their approach to economics. So that is where people on DU argue.
I don't know about incomes on DU, aside from my own. And i know mine is well below national average. So again, you might want to talk to some of these people wallowing in filthy lucre about it; they are not "my people."
No, what I meant to say to Justin is exactly what I said. That's why I said it to him.
And what, exactly, would Justin be "putting aside"? You say "everything," but wow, that's just unfathomably ignorant and untrue. You seem to have constructed this nartrative where Sanders MUST be opposed to civil rights because you dislike Sanders.
Noting that voting for a candidate who does not oppose bad trade deals is voting against one's self-interest is hardly an insult, it is a plain fucking fact.
However, deriding people as "country club liberals" because they don't agree with you actually is.
I don't think you 'get' that at all. You're so bad at getting things that you've got nothing, and so all you can do is try to play these sad snipes. making note that the TPP will only bring benefit to the wealthiest Americans and will screw the rest, and that supporting a candidate who will also support it is against the self-interest of most Americans is not an insult, it is information.
True enough, but we have the options we have, might as well go for the one that fits the best, even if it's a really rough fit. "Dropping out" really isn't an option.
This is a weird point of attack for someone who opened her post with a tirade against the idea of not reflexively voting for whoever the democrat is. make up your mind.
I'm really starting to wonder who you think "my people" actually are. A tribal people who are all supposedly wealthy and only liberal in fits and patches and look down on others from a point of imagined superiority, who share some commonality with Bernie Sanders...
*cough* Well, that could certainly go in a direction, couldn't it?
I support sanders because out of the available candidates, he stretches the furthest left. of course this is America so "stretching left" means that he's basically a Johnson democrat from 1967. But again, take what you can get.
And does NOT railing against wall street somehow evade congress? These points aren't actually connected by anything. You might as well be saying "You might like puppies but the situation in Darfur is still dire!"
Both Sanders and Clinton have supported Justin's rights. Again you're peddling your narrativethat because you oppose sanders, he must therefore oppose everything you support. Want to talk about tribalism, you might want to have a look at a mirror.
However, Sanders has spoken out against TPP. Clinton has evaded questions about it. Their stances on social and civil rights issues being equal, it comes to economic rights. Justin says he opposes the TPP. Sanders opposes the TPP. Clinton doesn't not precisely oppose nor support the trade deal that may or may not be in discussion. Why not pull for sanders, then?
If I were about seeing "my tribe" on TV, I'd be pulling for O'Malley.
Oh, i could go on for days about the state of the left in the country. While you aren't exactly wrong on the points you raise (particularly the issue of splitting - it's ALWAYS been a problem in leftism, everywhere) your aim is off, as you are concocting this argument to express your futile rage at someone pointing out that supporting a bad trade agreement is against the interests of most Americans.
Weirdly enough that seems like a sentiment you would support. If it weren't backed by Bernie Sanders, at least.
Apparently, "country club liberals" who are all "idiots" and "tribalists" who feel they are "superiror" - i'm sorry, were you sayign something about insulting people?
It's kind of a given when voting in America. The other candidates certainly aren't any better.
For instance, Clinton vowed in 2008 that if Iran attacked Israel (of course Iran has no such plans, but hey, pandering) then her administration would - I quote to you, "OBLITERATE IRAN." Maybe it's just me, but a sane person does not vow national obliteration, even in response to an attack against an ally. Even Vladimir Putin basically stops at "diz a nice kountry you haffs here, be a shame iff zumthingk were to... happen to it, nyet?"
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)why are you so dedicated to insulting someone whose point to you was that he will support the Democratic nominee. Yes, funding for food stamps is important under a system built around rampant inequality, but it is not income redistribution.
I don't care about sound bites. I don't even fucking watch broadcast television. I am commenting on what the keyboard intelligentsia on DU says matters, what they hold up as great change, and it sounds a hell of lot like business as usual.
You wonder why funding for food stamps shrinks? Look at the House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans. Guess who can't change that, a president. Guess who doesn't shit a shit about changing congress, people on DU who care only about which particular figurehead occupies the presidency. You base your decision on Sanders' voting record. Some others have different criteria and they may prioritize different issues. That is their right, and they don't deserve crap from you as a result, particularly when that crap is entirely devoid of any substance on issues. It's a particularly bizarre assumption that disagreeing about a FIGUREHEAD means voting against one's class interests.
If you don't think a single pol is going to transform American, why are you so dedicated to insulting people who diverge from the group think orthodoxy? Talk about sound and fury amounting to nothing. If you want to persuade people, make a case, don't treat them as beneath you. All of this going at each others throats is about a couple of members of the political elite. How people assess a couple of individuals, which is to say it is about almost nothing, yet that doesn't stop you from hurling insults and cultivating enmity, all over which member of the political elite occupies the White House
Justin agrees with you on TPP, but you still insulted him because he had the nerve to say he would support the Democratic nominee. And for that you insulted him. This is the tried and true tactic of Sanders supporters on this site, which only makes it more difficult for people to support him. I don't think it has a thing to do with Sanders himself. They were that way when they were fantasy Warren supporters and before that just plain Clinton haters. It does make it harder to support a candidate when confronted with this level of obnoxiousness, however. I'd like to think Sanders would be revolted by the lot at you. You can't help someone get elected by turning your nose up at people. Nothing turns people off more than that, yet it is ALL you and many others here do. You don't make a case for the candidate. You assume disagreement due to an inflection, adjective, a phrase that doesn't conform with group think orthodoxy, when in some cases they don't even disagree on the issue. But they don't use the approved language sanctioned by the gang of 200 and therefore are targeted as the enemy.
I don't oppose Sanders. I oppose bourgeois elitism. I oppose the attitude of the country club liberals that you have evidently adopted despite not sharing their class advantage. What I support is Justin or anyone else's right to make their own political decisions without being insulted by people like you scouring the site for indications of heresy. You didn't ask Justin's opinion on TPP. and you didn't ask my opinion on Sanders, despite the fact i have a sig line making clear that I remain undecided. You assume because I don't share your contempt for Clinton that I must oppose Sanders. It has nothing to do with positions on issues. It has to do with the group think and absence of critical thinking that has become orthodoxy. Not only that, when you are told someone agrees with you on TPP you don't accept it because they diverge in some way, which seems to be gauged by the failure to despise Clinton on command.
There is no point in engaging with you. You clearly have no interest in what anyone actually thinks. You want to create an us vs. them divide. I happily position myself among the "them," on the outside of the in-crowd. I despise conformity and orthodoxy, and that is the only thing you and many others are engaged in here, certainly not a discussion of issues, since you refuse to take people's word for what they believe. You assume Justin is for TPP because he likes Clinton, so I pulled the same thing on you about Palestine. I could also assume you promote the endless war at home, in communities like mine, resulting in well over a million deaths from gun violence, since Bernie votes with the gun lobby over the lives and safety of people like me. I suspect that like the cavers many here believe that a win/win all the way around.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)First off, I didn't insult anyone. I asked Justin what he stood to gain out of the TPP. After he clarified he does not support it, I wanted to know why he is not then supporting a candidate who is also against the thing. As i have already explained to you, there is no Democratic nominee. only candidates hoping to become the democratic nominee.
No, it's not. I'm not certain why you're trying to argue the point, I never said TANF was wealth redistribution.
And you need to make up your mind whether or not you're fer it or agin it, 'cause you're not making it really clear.
I'd advise you expressing this problem to those people, but i know it won't get through to them - I tried it myself.
Except it certainly does mean that. No, the president cannot wave a wand and make magic happen. but you are going too far i nthe opposite direction and claiming that the president has no power whatsoever.
No, a president cannot simply enact radical immediate change. But a president who is aware of and frequently works for an issue, is more likely to exert pressure towards that issue than one who tiptoes around and never speaks of it.
yes, it's budging the boulder... but a budge is still better than simply ignoring the boulder.
Again, there was no insult.
Kind of an amazing line given the content of your last two posts.
Whom he clearly expects to be Clinton. Who does not actually seem to have any useful opinion one way or the other on TPP. I wanted to know why he is supporting that particular candidate.
His answer is that the issue isn't a big deal for him. I find that hard to fathom, but whatever.
No, again, much like your unwavering hatred of Sanders, this is simply you inventing positions for people you hate, in order to justify your hate to yourself and others.
I've actually made several cases for Sanders. Usually against people who are too settled in their rage and hatred against Sanders to actually pay attention to what is said.
You will just have to forgive if sometimes the frustration peeks out through the threadbare fabric of my patience when speaking to people whose response is screaming at the top of their lungs.
Except for the fact everything you have said towards him or anyone who dares support him on any level has been consitently hateful and hostile.
It's not really looking that way.
Really, while speaking in defense of someone who has glibly said that they do not really care much about a trade treaty that will, in all likelihood, royally fuck people like you and me? That they're rhetorically against it but if it passes, meh? That's why I asked the question that I did.
This is not a first-grade teeball game, BainsBane. not everyone is a winner. Not every opinion is correct. Not every strain of rhetoric is worthy of respect. I'm sorry, I know it upsets you to think that people can be and often are wrong about things, but... they are. And if your response to a trade deal that could do as much damage as NAFTA did, to a country that is still staggering fro, what NAFTA did to it is "I'm rhetorically against it but it won't factor into my vote" then yeah. That's wrong.
it's not an issue of orthodoxy and heresy, as much as you want to cast it as competing cargo cults. There are facts. There are realities. And while everyone is of course free to interpret, ignore, or even try to invent facts and realities (such as you are doing) they really don't have the right to expect people to pat them on the back and give them a ribbon for participation.
No, because you have expressed a consistent strain of anger and vitriol at Sanders and his supporters ever since he declared his candidacy. No matter what.
No, I accepted it, then asked why then Justin supports a candidate who has no position on it over a candidate who opposes it. i think it's very strange that you seem to believe my support for Sanders orbits around some hate for clinton. I think it gives a good insight towards your reasons for hating Sanders.
You've ignored pretty much everything I said to you, in order to continue your pre-planned trajectory of trying to call me a bourgeois Clinton-hater, absent any actual rhetoric of the sort.
How do martyrs nail themselves to a cross? It seems the sort of thing you need a free hand for.
Except I did, and wanted to know the reason for what they believe. it may shock you, but mind-reading isn't actually a thing. You have to talk to people about stuff to figure out what they think about something.
No, because he dismissed it as an issue.
No, actually, you just snarled about Bernie's support for Israel and antipathy towards Palestine which, we can agree, is a pretty standard trait for every politician in this country. You're just going back now to try to turn it into a peaningful barb. it really wasn't, and there's no saving it. Just let it go, because you and damn near everyone else around here knows better, where i stand on both Palestine and Bernie's position on Palestine (specifically, he's wrong and I want him to shape up on that front.)
I'm pretty sure you already did that when you came after Sanders supporters, kicking and screaming because of his vote there. Personally, I don't discuss gun issues on DU, because I find them to be probably the absolutely most inane, unproductive arguments this place produces - and yes, I AM subscribed to the Israel / Palestine forum, thanks for asking. So if you want to hash details on that, I'm afraid I'm not going to be the person for it. However, I've stated before that Sanders' vote on that was wrong.
If you're trying to say something, say it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)How a Top Obama Crony Moved From Idaho To a $2 Million Washington Estate
By Ken Silverstein
Up until 2002, Messina was still largely unknown. But that year, when managing Baucus’s Senate re-election campaign, he released one of the more homophobic ads of modern political times. It featured footage from a 20-year-old TV ad for a hair salon run by Baucus’s opponent, Mike Taylor –who at the time was 20 points behind in the polls and had no chance of winning –who was seen massaging a man’s face while wearing an open-front shirt, and hence was obviously supposed to be gay.
The ad, set to a porn soundtrack, caused Taylor to drop out of the race. When he announced two weeks later that he was resuming a limited campaign aimed largely at “getting the slander out of Montana politics,” Messina issued a public letter that asked Taylor to sign a “clean campaign pledge” for the remainder of the race, saying, “We take you at your word that you want to turn over a new leaf and run a positive campaign.”
This sort of scumminess put Messina on the map in Democratic circles. He also became known as a world class asshole who kept an “enemies” list on an Excel spreadsheet. “Everybody was a douchebag,” says a person who knew him then. “He kept score.”
In 2008, Messina joined Obama’s presidential campaign and after the inauguration was named as a deputy chief of staff under the awful Rahm Emanuel. One of his first jobs was to salvage Timothy Geithner’s confirmation as Treasury Secretary, which was endangered due to tax irregularities. The fact that Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was in charge of Geithner’s confirmation made Messina’s job a lot easier. (The basic story is told in this Washington Post blow job, or “beat sweetener,” as it’s known in D.C. journalism circles.)
By the time he turned 40 in October 2009, Messina was a Washington VIP. His birthday party — “ROCK OUT WITH JIM MESSINA AS HE TURNS 40!”, said the emailed invitation — was held at the Gibson, a trendy D.C. bar, and hosted by Baucus, Emanuel, Pete Rouse, then a senior Obama advisor, and Jim Crounse, one of Messina’s closest friends, a former Baucus chief of staff and now one of the top Democratic direct mail consultants in the country.
Three years later, Messina’s star had risen even further — he was in charge of Obama’s 2012 reelection. He reportedly was one of the few White House officials to become close to Obama, even taking the president trout fishing in Montana.
Last year, Messina immediately hit pay dirt by opening a consulting firm called The Messina Group. (What else? In his firm bio he modestly describes himself as the “mastermind” behind Obama’s re-election.) He’s been retained by, among many others, the American Gaming Association and British Conservative Party leader David Cameron.
Messina also had a $15,000-a-month consulting agreement with the Democratic National Committee and various other gigs with Obama-linked groups. He’s also chair of Priorities USA, the super PAC that raised $85 million for Obama’s reelection and now is drumming up cash for Hillary Clinton.
And then there’s the money he’s raking in for speaking engagements at the American Petroleum Institute and at an energy industry conference in Azerbaijan, whose president was compared in a Wikileak-ed cable to Michael Corleone. His fee is reportedly $50,000, but that’s a bargain to get his insights on topics like “The Moneyball President: How the Obama Reelection Campaign Handled Its Business—and Why It Matters for Yours.”
More at:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/23/how-jim-messina-moved-from-idaho-to-2-million-dollar-washington-estate/
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)At least Hillary is calling the shots.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Wake the fuck up, you're better and smarter than this.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Your reponse makes little to no sense, surely Clinton is not so your self identification and ego to such an extent for that comment to be an insult.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I think there is still some swamp land you may be interested in buying ….
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)how people can ignore Mt. Everest sized piles of evidence about just what and who HRC is and who her masters are makes me want to scream.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)In 2008 we were royally had. McCain would have been even worse, but we were sold a bill of goods and fell for it like a ton of bricks. And I was one of the suckers.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Finding the next step?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)No, it makes him an opportunistic scumbag that can be bought for a price.
This is not a game, elections have real consequences and he just helped elect a party that will hurt REAL people with their policies.
Fuck him.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)LABOUR<------DLC------>HRC
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Then, use the American spelling you were so concerned about upthread…
Hillary wins… Labor doesn't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Support for NAFTA, TPP, which are joined at the hip, which has been injected with super-pac steroids.
Coming to an election near you… More than my opinion.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)I've lived in the UK for 9 years and when I moved here, it was incredibly difficult to decide between Labour and Tory. All the issues I worked so hard on in the U.S. are already sorted here: health care, gun control, death penalty, to name a few. For me, the decider was pretty much hating that Labour sided with Bush on the war and they did really poorly economic wise, with the house price crash/ banking crisis.
I know people won't see it but I really do think the Tories ideological equal is the Democrats. They are in no way like the GOP at all.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)surprised. If I wasn't already opposed to Hillary, this alone, a Karl Rove clone supporting the wrong side, this would be enough to tell me it's time to get busy to defeat this operative, who, the article says 'is known for his scuminess'.
You are known by the company you keep and Hillary's company just keeps getting worse.
think
(11,641 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Labor Party <----DLC---->Hillary
CountAllVotes
(20,875 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I like some of the responses!
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Go Bernie!!!!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)He sure does go where the big bucks are. Reminds me of the character Bruno Gianelli on The West Wing.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)(Yes...it's disgusting. Here is the the "Intercept" Article mentioned in the OP about Messina's homophobic campaign ad when he worked for Max Baucus and his excellent Financial Situation.)
--------
How a Top Obama Crony Moved From Idaho To a $2 Million Washington Estate
By Ken Silverstein
Up until 2002, Messina was still largely unknown. But that year, when managing Baucus’s Senate re-election campaign, he released one of the more homophobic ads of modern political times. It featured footage from a 20-year-old TV ad for a hair salon run by Baucus’s opponent, Mike Taylor –who at the time was 20 points behind in the polls and had no chance of winning –who was seen massaging a man’s face while wearing an open-front shirt, and hence was obviously supposed to be gay.
The ad, set to a porn soundtrack, caused Taylor to drop out of the race. When he announced two weeks later that he was resuming a limited campaign aimed largely at “getting the slander out of Montana politics,” Messina issued a public letter that asked Taylor to sign a “clean campaign pledge” for the remainder of the race, saying, “We take you at your word that you want to turn over a new leaf and run a positive campaign.”
This sort of scumminess put Messina on the map in Democratic circles. He also became known as a world class asshole who kept an “enemies” list on an Excel spreadsheet. “Everybody was a douchebag,” says a person who knew him then. “He kept score.”
In 2008, Messina joined Obama’s presidential campaign and after the inauguration was named as a deputy chief of staff under the awful Rahm Emanuel. One of his first jobs was to salvage Timothy Geithner’s confirmation as Treasury Secretary, which was endangered due to tax irregularities. The fact that Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was in charge of Geithner’s confirmation made Messina’s job a lot easier. (The basic story is told in this Washington Post blow job, or “beat sweetener,” as it’s known in D.C. journalism circles.)
By the time he turned 40 in October 2009, Messina was a Washington VIP. His birthday party — “ROCK OUT WITH JIM MESSINA AS HE TURNS 40!”, said the emailed invitation — was held at the Gibson, a trendy D.C. bar, and hosted by Baucus, Emanuel, Pete Rouse, then a senior Obama advisor, and Jim Crounse, one of Messina’s closest friends, a former Baucus chief of staff and now one of the top Democratic direct mail consultants in the country.
Three years later, Messina’s star had risen even further — he was in charge of Obama’s 2012 reelection. He reportedly was one of the few White House officials to become close to Obama, even taking the president trout fishing in Montana.
Last year, Messina immediately hit pay dirt by opening a consulting firm called The Messina Group. (What else? In his firm bio he modestly describes himself as the “mastermind” behind Obama’s re-election.) He’s been retained by, among many others, the American Gaming Association and British Conservative Party leader David Cameron.
More at:.....................
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/23/how-jim-messina-moved-from-idaho-to-2-million-dollar-washington-estate/
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's more like a bad stomach ache whilst yelling, "Wake UP, America!"
CountAllVotes
(20,875 posts)From the MS Society in the UK:
>>This morning's news set off my stomach issues and I was a little late for work as I had a bad belly 
The prospect of 5 more years of job insecurity, pay freeze, WTC freeze and benefit cuts was so depressing and scary.
I can only hope that some of yesterday's voters are targeted in the next round of cuts or they find their job isn't as stable as they thought and have to claim some of the benefits - it will be no good them looking for sympathy from me.
My own dad told me he doesn't believe there is a need for food banks because he saw a TV programme which showed a woman rejecting ingredients to make a meal as she couldn't cook and another woman who refused to give up smoking but still wanted handouts from the food bank. I did my best to point out that these TV shows about people on benefits do not paint a realistic picture and I told him about people who have been sanctioned for attending family funerals where the job centre were aware but refused to change their appointment but I fear he didn't listen. The media have had a big part to play in the public's perception of benefit claimants, the disabled etc.
What has this country turned into?
and ...
>>NHS scrapped, school funding directed towards academies, massive spend on nuclear weapons that (hopefully) will never be used, breaking trade links and making enemies in Europe, more privatisation of British institutions. i am genuinely upset over this crappy result that has happened due to the politics of fear and ignorance over logic and compassion.
i can't even think how smug and power hungry the tories are feeling now...
and ...
>>i had not even thought about the food banks tracey- christ, how depressing, appalling and truely cretinous a way that success is measured by...
and
>>One comment. God Help Us!!
More from others with M.S. here:
http://community.mssociety.org.uk/forums/everyday-living/oh-what-night
******
Too much of this "monkey see money do" sh*t for me! ENOUGH ALREADY!!
& recommend.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… By the way, how ARE the votes counted?
CountAllVotes
(20,875 posts)and those that did had to have a pencil to vote with and if they had no pencil to vote with they could not do it!
This is indeed horrible! As for how they were counted, I am not sure but all sorts of rumors, etc. are flying in the UK! Lots of people really upset and threatening to leave the UK! Sounds vaguely familiar eh? (c. GWB II post-election). 
More here:
Voters considering fleeing to Scotland, Brighton or abroad following Tory general election victory
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/voters-considering-fleeing-to-scotland-brighton-or-abroad-following-tory-general-election-victory-10238166.html
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
neverforget
(9,436 posts)cold, hard cash.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Did anyone here really think he was a 'progressive' warrior?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)They were flexible but not malleable...They would never work for a Republican.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
IDemo
(16,926 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Get paid for consulting? They will always follow the money.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)positions on the issues are concerned. Not saying that many of them wouldn't go full-on Republican if they thought the U.K. electorate would let them get away with it.
And that isn't meant as a criticism of the Democrats necessarily, it's just a reflection of how out-of-step America is compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)It took me moving here to find this out. My hubby, a Tory voter, actually told me that he feels that the Democrats are more to the right than the Tories are.
The more I thought about it, the more surprised I was. I've voted for pro-gun Dems, so on. I wish people wouldn't do the equating the Republicans with the Tories and Dems with Labour because both Tory and Labour are more to the left of the Dems and the GOP is much much more right wing, even more so than UKIP.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I'm just kidding. But would that be OK as well?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)One more strike against HRC.
olddots
(10,237 posts)will destroy this nice little planet 