THIRD WAY / JELLYFISH DEMOCRATS NOT INTERESTED IN BERNIE VOTERS & Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in third way / jellyfish Democrats

+Mother Jones has a problem with Bernie Sanders. For some reason, the magazine that claims to "hold the candidates and the powerful accountable with relentless journalism" seems to be dedicated to seeing a third way democrat, someone who is being bought and paid for by the powerful, elected. Maybe the real reason Bernie's supporters didn't vote for JoAnne Kloppenburg in Wisconsin is that she ran her campaign to appeal to hillary clinton's supporters instead of appealing to the Wisconsin Democratic Party as a whole. Maybe Kloppenburg and the Democrats failed to learn the lesson of the 2014 Mid Term elections. Like many Sanders supporters, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I volunteered for and donated to Pres Obama's campaigns and feel betrayed. I never thought he would turn out to be the jellyfish democrat he has been. I have learned my lesson and will no longer compromise my vote. If hillary ends up being the Democratic candidate for president and wants my vote and the vote of many other Bernie supporters she is going to have to cut her ties to the 1%, corporate America, wall street funded super-pacs and start campaigning as a candidate running for the 99%, for all Americans, and not just those who can afford her. 

Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in Non-Bernie Democrats

—By Kevin Drum

| Thu Apr. 7, 2016 11:38 AM EDT

Dave Weigel notes that Wisconsin's Supreme Court race was yet another setback for Democrats:

They saw a decent chance to defeat Rebecca Bradley, a conservative justice appointed to the state Supreme Court by Walker. Her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, nearly won a seat on the court in 2011.

…Bradley won the election, a surprise to Democrats. This morning, some progressives picked a culprit: voters who cast ballots for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and left the rest of their ballots blank. According to exit polling conducted by the independent group DecisionDesk and BenchMark Politics, perhaps 15 percent of Sanders voters skipped the Bradley-Kloppenburg race; just 4 percent of Hillary Clinton voters did the same.

Bernie endorsed JoAnne Kloppenburg, so this isn't a matter of him refusing to play ball with anyone running on the Democratic ticket. Nonetheless, it's a serious issue, no matter what you think of Bernie versus Hillary on the issues. Bernie is basing a lot of his campaign not just on anti-Hillary sentiment, but on anti-Democratic-Party-establishment sentiment. That's fair enough, but like it or not, the Democratic Party is all we have to compete with Republicans.

Bernie has been asked before if, for example, he'd raise money for Democrats if he won the nomination, and he responded, "We'll see." That's really not going to cut it anymore. Bernie doesn't have to mindlessly support every Democrat on the ballot, but voters deserve to know what he'd do if he won the Democratic nomination. Would it be all Bernie all the time? Or does he become a fighter for all the down-ballot races Democrats need to win in order to pass all that revolutionary legislation we hear so much about?

KEVIN DRUM

Political Blogger

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. RSS |TWITTER

The 7 Must-Watch Moments From the Democrats' New Hampshire Debate 4FEB16

LAST nights Democratic primary debate was interesting. After her squeaker of a win in the Iowa Democratic caucus last Tuesday, hillary now realizes she is facing a serious challenge from +Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. She continues to tout her experience and states she knows how to get things done. Maybe so, but for who? If she is a true Progressive she wouldn't have stayed in the Obama administration as long as she did, and she would have publicly challenged the administration, her fellow cabinet secretaries and her fellow Democrats in Congress on too big to fail, too big to jail, keystone xl, chained CPI, tpp, stagnant wages, the social safety net, the war on women and voting rights, just to name a few things. Her third way democrat positions give too much away to corporate America, to the rich, the 1% with too little left for the poor, the working and middle class Americans that are still struggling to survive, to make ends meet. If hillary ever finds the courage to turn her back on the demands being made of her by the millionaires, billionaires and corporate America, and so loose their financial support, then she will be able to call herself a Progressive and will find the freedom to work for and represent all Americans. This, including the full video of the debate, from +Mother Jones and +MSNBC ....

The 7 Must-Watch Moments From the Democrats' New Hampshire Debate

The two remaining candidates did not hold back in Thursday night's testy debate.

—By Patrick Caldwell and Pema Levy

| Thu Feb. 4, 2016 11:54 PM EST

David Goldman/AP

Explosive would be an understatement. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t waste any time in Thursday's Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire before jumping into a heated exchange over whether Clinton is a true progressive—a subject that continued to emerge in various forms for most of an hour.

The stakes going into this debate were high, particularly for Clinton, with polls showing her far behind Sanders in the New Hampshire just four days before the first-in-the-nation primary. Clinton eked out a very narrow win in the Iowa caucuses on Monday but underperformed her polling there, setting up what could be a long slog for the Democratic nomination.

The debate itself was the product of a dramatic back-and-forth between the two campaigns and the national Democratic Party over the number of debates scheduled. The tensions that went into scheduling it were evident in the fiery debate.

Here are the must-watch highlights:

Clinton rips Sanders' definition of "progressive." Clinton challenged the idea that she is not progressive enough to be the Democratic Party's nominee by ripping apart Sander's use of the term, claiming that under his definition many mainstay liberal politicians would be excluded. "Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from Wall Street; Vice President Biden is not progressive because he supported Keystone; Sen. [Jeanne] Shaheen [of New Hampshire] is not progressive because she supports the trade pact," Clinton said. "Even the late, great Sen. Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for [the Defense of Marriage Act]. You know, we have differences and, honestly, I think we should be talk about what we want to do for the country. But if we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the Brady Bill five times."

After Clinton's challenge, the debate moderators wondered: Does Sanders dispute the idea that Barack Obama should be termed a progressive? "Do I think President Obama's a progressive? Yeah, I do," Sanders said after a long windup, though still noting that he disagreed with the president on a number of issues.

Sanders wants to change the Democratic Party. Asked about how he would lead the Democratic Party given his long career as an independent, Sanders declared that he wanted to make big changes to the party. "I am running for president as a Democrat," he said. "And if elected, not only do I hope to bring forth a major change in national priorities, but let me be frank, I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party. I want to see working people and young people come into the party in a way that doesn't exist now. And you know what, I want a 50-state strategy so the Democratic Party is not just the party of 25 states."

Clinton fights the "establishment" label. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow quizzed Sanders about Clinton's big advantage in endorsements from fellow Democratic politicians from Vermont. "Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment," Sanders responded. "I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way, who are not all that enamored with the establishment."

Clinton was ready to dismiss that dig, however, noting that her candidacy is far from the norm. "Honestly, Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is really quite amusing to me."

Sanders explains his problem with Clinton's campaign funds from Wall Street. Sanders emphasized that Clinton and the super-PAC supporting her candidacy are taking donations from the financial sector—and argued that it is this kind of political donation that helps big industries like Wall Street avoid tough regulations.

"What being part of the establishment is, is, in the last quarter, having a super-PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said. "To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families."

Clinton goes after Sanders' "artful smears." Sanders' favorite refrain on the campaign trail has been that he wants to talk about issues rather than the nasty personal attacks that normally define political campaigns. Those claims of purity aren't ringing true to Clinton, who termed his attacks against her "an artful smear" that cut against his earlier pledges. "But time and time again," Clinton said, "by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to—you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly."

Emails are…still not an issue in the Democratic primary. (Sorry, moderators.) Moderator Chuck Todd asked Clinton whether she can assure Democrats that the controversy over her emails will not "blow up her candidacy" if she wins the nomination. Clinton's response was unequivocal.

"Absolutely I can," she said. "You know, before it was emails, it was Benghazi, and the Republicans were stirring up so much controversy about that. And I testified for 11 hours, answered their questions. They basically said yeah, didn't get her. We tried. That was all a political ploy."

Todd tried again. "Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to come of this FBI investigation?" he asked.

"I am 100 percent confident," Clinton responded.

Clinton defends the death penalty. The moderators challenged Clinton on one area where she's not quite in step with the Democratic primary electorate: capital punishment. When asked about whether she still supports the use of the death penalty, Clinton said she's skeptical of how it's employed at the state level but thinks it's an important tool at the federal level, highlighting Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as an example where capital punishment was warranted. "I do, for very limited, particularly heinous crimes, believe it is an appropriate punishment, but I deeply disagree with the way that too many states are still implementing it," Clinton said. "If it were possible to separate the federal from the state system by the Supreme Court, that would, I think, be an appropriate outcome."

Sanders, in turn, said he opposed the death penalty in all cases. "Number one," Sanders explained, "too many innocent people, including minorities, African Americans, have been executed when they were not guilty." But even beyond the racial implications, Sanders said he objected to capital punishment entirely. "In a world of so much violence and killing, I just don't believe that government itself should be part of the killing."

PATRICK CALDWELL

Reporter

Patrick Caldwell is a reporter in Mother Jones’ DC bureau. E-mail any and all tips to pcaldwell [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER

PEMA LEVY

Reporter

Pema Levy is a reporter in Mother Jones' DC bureau. E-mail her at plevy [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER

THE 114th U.S. CONGRESS, PROGRESSIVES vs CORPORATE AMERICA 15JAN15

THE 114th U.S. Congress is in session and already the gop / tea-baggers and third way democrats are maneuvering legislation and regulations in favor of the 1% and corporate America while manipulating public opinion to believe Progressives and moderate republicans are the enemies of the state. Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA reminds us what the role of Congress should be.
 
How long will it be before the nation realizes the truth about the the majority of the gop, the tea-baggers and third way democrats? Will it take another recession? God help us all!!!!

If Millennials Had Voted, Last Night Would Have Looked Very Different 5NOV14

IF this, if that....Maybe so many people who didn't vote on 4 NOV 14, especially Millennials, because they felt betrayed by a national democratic party that nominated, promoted, and funded too many candidates who really were little better than their gop / tea-bagger opponents and because our political system is so skewed to keep one of the two major political parties in power that they thought why bother? While republicans and tea-baggers are giddy over their victories nationwide, they should not see these election results as an endorsement of their extremist right wing policies but rather a rejection of jellyfish, blue dog, third way democrats. Proof of this can be seen in the results of votes on marijuana, personhood amendments and increasing the minimum wage in states across the country. This from +Mother Jones ....

If Millennials Had Voted, Last Night Would Have Looked Very Different

—By Jenna McLaughlin

| Wed Nov. 5, 2014 5:13 PM EST

The GOP’s big Election Day victory may have a lot to do with who didn’t show up at the polls—and one of the groups that stayed home at a record rate were young people. According to an NBC News exit poll, the percentage of voters aged 60 or older accounted for almost 40 percent of the vote, while voters under 30  accounted for a measly 12 percent. Young people’s share of the vote is typically smaller in midterm elections, but the valley between age groups in 2014 is the largest the US has seen in at least a decade.

NBC News

And that valley made a huge difference for Democrats, because younger voters have been trending blue. Some 55 percent of young people who did turn up voted for Dems compared to 45 percent of those over 60.
An interactive predictor on the Fusion, the news site targeted at millennials, indicated how Democrats could have gained if young people had shown in greater numbers. Using 2010 vote totals and 2014 polling data, the tool lets users calculate the effect of greater turnout among voters under 30 in several key states.
On Tuesday, according to preliminary exit polls, young voters in Iowa favored Democrats by a slight margin—51 percent—but they made up only 12 percent of the total vote, leaving conservative Republican Joni Ernst the winner. In Georgia, 58 percent of young voters went for Democrat Michelle Nunn, but they made up 10 percent of the total who showed up to cast their ballots. In Colorado, where a sophisticated political machine delivered Democratic wins in 2010, the calculator shows that a full 71 percent of young people voted for Dems in 2010; exit polls indicate that young voters made up 14 percent of the final tally, leaving Mark Udall out in the cold.
If historical voting patterns hold, it's possible that these Democratic leaning millennials will turn out in greater numbers in the future. If so, that will bode well for Dems—as long as these voters don't also become more conservative as they age.

Felix Salmon, Fusion

Jenna McLaughlin

DC Editorial Fellow

Jenna McLaughlin is an editorial fellow with Mother Jones in the Washington Bureau. RSS | Twitter

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Map: Watching Americans Share Their Votes On Twitter

  They came, they voted, they tweeted.

• Millennials Love Hillary Clinton Now

  Hillary Clinton isn't struggling with young voters anymore.

• Obamacare Could Have Turned Millions of Uninsured Americans Into Voters

  If the administration had enforced a 1993 voting law that applies to health care exchanges, more nonwhite voters may have turned out this year.

• Election 2014: Obama's Failure to Communicate

  It's not all the president's fault, but he hasn't been able to buck political trends that led to another disastrous election for his party.

EBOLA VIDEO: Rencontrez les plus difficiles annonce politique en mémoire: "Cuts républicaines tuer." & Ebola Blame Game prend la scène à mi-parcours Débats électoraux 13 et 16OKT14

EBOLA est une menace que nous pouvons traiter, mais il a été rendu plus difficile en raison des compressions budgétaires forcées sur la CDC et les NIH en raison de la séquestration et le Congrès cabale gop / thé-bagger avec le soutien de troisième voie démocrates. Ce qui est pathétique, c'est découvrir les politiciens et les experts politiques qui ont exigé ces coupures ainsi que les Américains ignorants qui les soutiennent sont maintenant les plus grandes bouches qui crient à la menace du virus Ebola et la réponse "inepte" du gouvernement fédéral. Les gens, et nous tous en fait, doivent tenir compte de la réalité exprimée dans cette vidéo par le projet de l'ordre du jour + suivi de ce rapport de  + NPR .....

Rencontrez les plus difficiles annonce politique en mémoire: "Cuts républicaines tuer."

par jem6x

Le Fonds d'action Agenda projet a mis au point la plus brutale, annonce politique directe, je pense que je n'ai jamais vu. Elle lie le mantra de budget républicain couper directement à la réduction radicale désastreux de CDC et NIH fonds, puis les liens que directement à la crise de l'Ébola et la mort humaine inutile.   Jetez un oeil:

Apparemment, cette montre à la télévision dans les principaux champs de bataille Sénat déclare en ce moment. Semble être ce que le médecin a ordonné.
Entre vous et moi, je voudrais voir M. Obama faire le tour du pays reliant gouvernement conservateur à tous ces problèmes, chaque semaine, en apparence après l'apparition, rendant le message couler lentement dans ". Notre problème Ebola est le résultat de coupes conservatrices à la CDC ". «La montée de ISIS est le résultat de l'invasion conservateur, se mêler et maladroit dans le Moyen-Orient." «Nos ponts et des routes délabrées sont le résultat d'étranglement conservateur de notre budget de transport." "La stagnation de l'économie est le résultat d'étranglement conservateur de l'ensemble du secteur public." Etc, etc, je voudrais voir ce message du président et de tous nos dirigeants, à la télévision, chaque semaine. Mais cette annonce - c'est un bon point de départ solide.
lien pour faire un don au Fonds d'action du projet Agenda: http://apaction.com/ .

Ebola Blame Game prend la scène à mi-parcours Débats électoraux

par Juana Summers

16 octobre 2014 05h34 HE

Écoutez l'histoire

Morning Edition

 

Ebola est la dernière question à se répandre dans les débats cette saison. Le sénateur américain Mark Udall (à gauche) a accusé les républicains pour couper les ressources de santé du gouvernement. Son adversaire, US Rep. Cory Gardner, dit le CDC a dépensé inutilement.

Brennan Linsley / AP

Ce fut d'abord ISIS. Maintenant, il ya Ebola.
La crise de la santé Ebola est le dernier enjeu mondial pour devenir un incontournable de cette saison de campagne, déversant dans les débats, la rhétorique de campagne -. et même quelques annonces
. arguments politiques sur Ebola peut être divisée en trois groupes
démocrates soutiennent ce budget républicains -cutting ont privé le gouvernement des ressources nécessaires pour maintenir la sécurité des Américains contre la menace du virus Ebola. C'est l'argument le sénateur démocrate Mark Udall du Colorado a fait lors d'un débat récent.
"Je peux vous dire ce que je ne vais pas faire, et c'est ce que le député Gardner a fait - qui est de voter pour près de 300 millions de dollars en coupures à l' Centers for Disease Control et le budget de la prévention qui finance des équipes d'intervention d'urgence », a déclaré Udall.
Son adversaire, Rep. Cory Gardner, propose l'argument numéro deux. Républicains accaparent la question à des questions plus vastes sur le président Obama et ses compétences. Gardner a particulièrement souligné les priorités de la CDC.
"programmes de Jazzercise, la massothérapie et les jardins urbains," at-il tiré en arrière. "Que diriez-vous nous utilisons l'argent de façon responsable pour s'assurer que nous protégeons le peuple américain au lieu de le dépenser inutilement sous cette administration?"
Troisièmement, certains républicains lien la crise de l'Ébola à la sécurité des frontières.
Thom Tillis est en cours d'exécution pour le Sénat en Caroline du Nord. Voilà comment il l'a mis dans un débat avec titulaire démocrate Kay Hagan.
«Mesdames et messieurs, nous avons une épidémie d'Ebola," at-il dit. "Nous avons de mauvais acteurs qui peuvent venir à travers la frontière. Nous avons besoin de sceller la frontière et le fixer."
Les échanges comme ceux-ci jouent dans les campagnes à travers le pays et dans les entretiens de nouvelles locales et par câble.
Mais jusqu'à présent, cette question est à peine une ondulation dans les publicités télévisées.
Une exception est issu du groupe libéral Le Fonds d'action du projet Agenda. L' annonce moûts des images de républicains dans les courses concurrentiels, y compris la minorité du Sénat Mitch McConnell, Kansas sénateur Pat Roberts, Arkansas Rep. Tom coton et d'autres à côté des images de morts ou mourants Africains de l'Ouest.
Créé par le même groupe qui a créé l' annonce montrant Rep . Paul Ryan jeter "Granny d'une falaise," l'annonce n'est pas diffusée largement encore. Mais il est un exemple de jusqu'où pourrait aller campagnes pour encaisser dedans sur la politique du moment.
"C'est une chose terrible à dire, mais la peur est un diable de motivation», explique le stratège républicain Ford O'Connell.
Même si les élections ne sont que quelques semaines, O'Connell dit qu'il est presque impossible pour un candidat de percer dans ce cycle de nouvelles, sauf si ils parlent de deux choses: ISIS ou Ebola.
O'Connell dit que la stratégie a déjà fait ses preuves pour certains candidats. Il suffit de regarder Scott Brown dans le New Hampshire.
"Il a commencé à parler ISIS ... puis il a commencé à tisser à virus Ebola et tout d'un [sénateur] plomb soudaine de Jeanne Shaheen a été réduit de moitié", a déclaré O'Connell. "Qu'est-ce qui se passe ici est Républicains font une thèse de leadership de la sécurité nationale, si vous voulez, et les démocrates font tout en régissant l'argument ordre du jour / budgets."
Pour une campagne qui a été à la recherche de la substance, le virus Ebola propose un débat sur ​​les questions fondamentales à la fois parties.
Mais Iona College professeur de sciences politiques Jeanne Zaino avertit que les questions de ce cycle ont changé rapidement.
"Si vous pensez que il ya de nouveau un an, nous parlions Obamacare être la question clé de l'élection. Ensuite, il a été question il serait peut- être Benghazi, puis il a déménagé à l'immigration ", dit-elle. Et maintenant, nous semblons avoir évolué très rapidement à virus Ebola. Ainsi, nous voyons ce genre de trains en mouvement rapide. Je ne pense pas que nous savons où ça va nous prendre à ce point. "
Et il ya moins de trois semaines, jusqu'à ce que le train arrive à la station.

EBOLA VIDEO: Conoce al anuncio político más duro de la memoria: "Cortes republicanas Kill". Y Ebola Blame Game sube al escenario de los debates electorales de mitad de período 13 y 16OKT14

EBOLA es una amenaza que podemos manejar, pero se ha hecho más difícil debido a los recortes presupuestarios forzados en el CDC y los NIH por el secuestro y el Congreso cábala gop / té-bagger con el apoyo de los demócratas tercera vía. Lo que es patético es los mismos políticos y expertos políticos que exigían estos recortes, así como los americanos ignorantes que los apoyan son ahora los mayores bocas gritando sobre la amenaza del Ébola y la respuesta de "inepto" del gobierno federal. El pueblo, y todos nosotros en realidad, deben tener en cuenta la realidad expresada en este video por el proyecto de orden del día + seguido de este informe de  NPR + .....

Conozca al anuncio político más duro de la memoria: "Los recortes republicanos matan."

por jem6x

El Fondo de Acción del Proyecto Agenda ha llegado con el anuncio político más brutal, directa Creo que he visto en mi vida. Vincula el mantra presupuesto-corte republicano directamente a la reducción radical desastroso de los fondos de los CDC y los NIH, y luego lazos que directamente a la crisis del Ébola y la muerte humana innecesaria.   Eche un vistazo:

Al parecer, esto está mostrando en la televisión en el campo de batalla clave del Senado establece en este momento. Parece ser lo que recetó el doctor.
Entre tú y yo, me gustaría ver al señor Obama va por todo el país que une gobierno conservador de todos estos problemas, todas las semanas, en apariencia después de la aparición, por lo que el mensaje lentamente hundirse ". Nuestro problema Ébola es el resultado de los recortes conservadores a la CDC ". "El aumento de ISIS es el resultado de la invasión conservadora, la intromisión y torpe en el Medio Oriente." "Nuestros puentes desmoronados y carreteras son el resultado de estrangulamiento conservadora de nuestro presupuesto de transporte." "El estancamiento de la economía es el resultado de estrangulamiento conservadora del sector público en general." Etc., etc me gustaría que este mensaje del presidente y todos nuestros líderes, en la televisión, todas las semanas. Pero este anuncio - este es un buen comienzo sólido.
Enlace a donar al Fondo de Acción del Proyecto Agenda: http://apaction.com/ .

Ebola Blame Game sube al escenario de los debates electorales de mitad de período

por Juana Summers

16 de octubre 2014 05:34 AM ET

Escuche la historia

Morning Edition

 

Ébola es el último número de derramar en los debates de esta temporada. El senador Mark Udall (izquierda) ha culpado a los republicanos para el corte de los recursos de salud del gobierno. Su oponente, el representante federal. Cory Gardner, dice el CDC ha estado gastando pródigamente.

Brennan Linsley / AP

Primero fue ISIS. Ahora hay Ebola.
La crisis de salud del Ébola es el último número mundial para convertirse en un accesorio de esta temporada de campaña, se derrama en los debates, la retórica de campaña -. e incluso algunos anuncios
. argumentos políticos sobre el Ébola o menos se puede dividir en tres grupos
demócratas argumentan que el presupuesto republicanos -Corte han privado al gobierno de los recursos que necesita para mantener seguros a los estadounidenses de la amenaza del Ébola. Ese es el argumento senador demócrata Mark Udall de Colorado hizo en un debate reciente.
"Yo puedo decir lo que yo no voy a hacer, y eso es lo que el congresista Gardner hizo - que es votar por cerca de $ 300 millones en recortes a la Centros para el Control de Enfermedades y el presupuesto de prevención que financia los equipos de respuesta de emergencia ", dijo Udall.
Su oponente, Rep. Cory Gardner, ofrece argumento número dos. Los republicanos están atando el tema a las preguntas más grandes sobre el presidente Obama y su competencia. Gardner señaló específicamente a las prioridades de los CDC.
"programas de Jazzercise, terapia de masaje y jardines urbanos", que dispararon de vuelta. "¿Qué tal si usamos el dinero con responsabilidad para asegurarse de que estamos protegiendo al pueblo estadounidense en lugar de gastarlo inútilmente bajo esta administración?"
En tercer lugar, algunos republicanos enlazar la crisis Ebola a la seguridad fronteriza.
Thom Tillis es candidato a Senado de Carolina del Norte. Aquí está la forma en que lo puso en un debate con el demócrata Kay Hagan.
"Damas y caballeros, tenemos un brote de Ébola", dijo. "Tenemos malos actores que pueden venir a través de la frontera. Tenemos que sellar la frontera y asegurarlo."
intercambios como estos están jugando en las campañas en todo el país y en las entrevistas de la prensa local y por cable.
Pero hasta ahora, este tema es apenas una ondulación en los anuncios de televisión.
Una excepción es del grupo liberal El Fondo de Acción del Proyecto Agenda. El anuncio mashes imágenes de los republicanos en las carreras competitivas incluyendo Líder Minoritario del Senado Mitch McConnell, el senador Pat Roberts de Kansas, Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton y otros junto a imágenes de muertos o moribundos africanos occidentales.
Creado por el mismo grupo que creó el anuncio que muestra Rep . Paul Ryan lanzando "Granny por un precipicio", el anuncio no está siendo transmitido ampliamente aún. Pero es un ejemplo de hasta qué punto las campañas podrían ir a sacar provecho de la política del momento.
"Es una cosa terrible de decir, pero el miedo es una diablos de un motivador", dice el estratega republicano Ford O'Connell.
Aunque las elecciones son tan sólo unas semanas de distancia, O'Connell dice que es casi imposible que un candidato a entrar en este ciclo de noticias a menos que estén hablando de una de dos cosas: ISIS o el Ébola.
O'Connell dijo que la estrategia que ya ha demostrado su eficacia para algunos candidatos. Basta con mirar a Scott Brown en New Hampshire.
"Empezó a hablar de ISIS ... entonces empezó a tejer en el Ébola y, de plomo súbita [el senador] Jeanne Shaheen fue reducido a la mitad", dijo O'Connell. "Lo que está pasando aquí es Republicanos están haciendo un argumento liderazgo en seguridad nacional, si se quiere, y los demócratas están haciendo una agenda / presupuestos argumento de gobierno."
Para una campaña que ha estado en la búsqueda de la sustancia, el Ébola ofrece un debate sobre cuestiones fundamentales para ambos partes.
Pero Iona College profesor de ciencias políticas Jeanne Zaino advierte que los problemas de este ciclo han cambiado rápidamente.
"Si usted piensa que hace un año atrás, estábamos hablando de Obamacare es el tema clave de la elección. Entonces se habló acerca de tal vez sería ser Benghazi y luego se trasladó a la inmigración ", dijo. Y ahora parece que nos hemos movido muy rápidamente al Ébola. Así que vemos este tipo de tren de movimiento rápido. Creo que no sabemos dónde nos va a tomar en este momento. "
Y hay menos de tres semanas, hasta que el tren llega a su estación.

EBOLA VIDEO: Meet the toughest political ad in memory: "Republican Cuts Kill." & Ebola Blame Game Takes The Stage At Midterm Election Debates 13&16OKT14

EBOLA is a threat we can handle, but it has been made more difficult because of the budget cuts forced on the CDC and NIH because of sequestration and the congressional gop / tea-bagger cabal with the support of third way democrats. What is pathetic is the very politicians and political pundits who demanded these cuts as well as the ignorant Americans who support them are now the biggest mouths screaming about the threat of Ebola and the federal government's "inept" response. The people, and all of us actually, need to consider the reality expressed in this video by the +agenda project followed by this report from +NPR .....

Meet the toughest political ad in memory: "Republican Cuts Kill."

by jem6x

The Agenda Project Action Fund has come up with the most brutal, direct political ad I think I've ever seen.  It ties the Republican budget-cut mantra directly to the disastrous slashing of CDC and NIH funds, and then ties that directly to the Ebola crisis and needless human death.  Have a look:

Apparently this is showing on TV in key Senate battleground states right now.  Seems to be what the Doctor ordered.
Between you and me, I would like to see Mr. Obama going around the country linking conservative government to all of these problems, every week, in appearance after appearance, making the message slowly sink in.  "Our Ebola problem is the result of conservative cuts to the CDC."  "The rise of ISIS is the result of conservative invasion, meddling and blundering in the mid-east."  "Our crumbling bridges and highways are the result of conservative strangling of our transportation budget."  "The stagnant economy is the result of conservative strangling of the public sector overall."  Etc., etc.  I would like to see this message from the president and all of our leaders, on TV, every week.  But this ad -- this is a good solid start.
Link to donate to the Agenda Project Action Fund: http://apaction.com/.

Ebola Blame Game Takes The Stage At Midterm Election Debates

by Juana Summers

October 16, 2014 5:34 AM ET

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

Ebola is the latest issue to spill into debates this season. U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (left) has blamed Republicans for cutting government health resources. His opponent, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, says the CDC has been spending wastefully.

Brennan Linsley/AP

First there was ISIS. Now there's Ebola.
The Ebola health crisis is the latest global issue to become a fixture this campaign season, spilling into debates, campaign rhetoric – and even a few ads.
Political arguments about Ebola can roughly be divided into three groups.
Democrats argue that budget-cutting Republicans have deprived the government of the resources it needs to keep Americans safe from the threat of Ebola. That's the argument Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado made at a recent debate.
"I can tell you what I'm not going to do, and that's what Congressman Gardner did — which is to vote for close to $300 million in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's budget that funds emergency response teams," Udall said.
His opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner, offers argument number two. Republicans are tying the issue to larger questions about President Obama and his competency. Gardner specifically pointed to priorities at the CDC.
"Jazzercise programs, massage therapy and urban gardens," he shot back. "How about we use money responsibly to make sure we're protecting the American people instead of spending it wastefully under this administration?"
Third, some Republicans link the Ebola crisis to border security.
Thom Tillis is running for Senate in North Carolina. Here's how he put it in a debate with incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan.
"Ladies and gentlemen, we have an Ebola outbreak," he said. "We have bad actors that can come across the border. We need to seal the border and secure it."
Exchanges like these are playing out in campaigns across the country and in local and cable news interviews.
But so far, this issue is barely a ripple in TV ads.
One exception is from the liberal group The Agenda Project Action Fund. The ad mashes up images of Republicans in competitive races including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton and others alongside images of dead or dying West Africans.
Created by the same group that created the ad showing Rep. Paul Ryan throwing "Granny Off a Cliff," the ad isn't being broadcast widely yet. But it is an example of just how far campaigns could go to cash in on the politics of the moment.
"It's a terrible thing to say, but fear is a heck of a motivator," says Republican strategist Ford O'Connell.
Even though the elections are just a few weeks away, O'Connell says it's almost impossible for a candidate to break into this news cycle unless they're talking about one of two things: ISIS or Ebola.
O'Connell said that strategy has already proven successful for some candidates. Just look at Scott Brown in New Hampshire.
"He started talking about ISIS...then he started weaving in Ebola and all of a sudden [Sen.] Jeanne Shaheen's lead was cut in half," O'Connell said. "What's going on here is Republicans are making a national security leadership argument, if you will, and Democrats are making a governing agenda/budgets argument."
For a campaign that's been in search of substance, Ebola offers a debate about issues fundamental to both parties.
But Iona College political science professor Jeanne Zaino cautions that issues this cycle have changed rapidly.
"If you think back a year ago, we were talking about Obamacare being the key issue of the election. Then there was some talk about perhaps it would be Benghazi and then it moved to immigration," she said. And now we seem to have moved very quickly to Ebola. So we see this kind of fast-moving train. I don't think we know where it's gonna take us at this point."
And there are fewer than three weeks until that train gets to its station.

BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!!! Budget Cuts "Eroded Our Ability to Respond" to Ebola, Says Top Health Official & Weaponized Ebola: Is It Really a Bioterror Threat? 3OKT&25SEP14

MAYBE we'll start hearing that call across America, reminiscent of the call that echoed in the cities, towns and villages of Europe in the plague years. Not really, but there is a real danger to more people getting Ebola and dying from it in this country than necessary because of sequestration and the budget cuts demanded by the congressional repiglicans and tea-baggers, agreed to by the cowardly third way democrats and Pres Obama. Sequestration was a wet dream come true for grover norquist and his cabal of neo-con plutocrats. People are scared, but are they scared enough to remember who made this heath crisis possible in the U.S.? THINK, because it's patriotic and VOTE on 4 NOV 14 because democracy is not a spectator sport. From +Mother Jones & +Scientific American .....

Budget Cuts "Eroded Our Ability to Respond" to Ebola, Says Top Health Official

—By Gabrielle Canon

| Wed Oct. 1, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

The CDC's Dr. Jordan Tappero, about to don his goggles just prior to entering the Ebola treatment unit CDC/Sally Ezra

On Tuesday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States; the infected patient was a man who traveled from Liberia to visit family in Texas. It's the latest development in the ever-worsening outbreak of the virus, which so far has sickened more than 6,500 people and killed more than 3,000. The United States government has pledged to send help to West Africa to help stop Ebola from spreading—but the main agencies tasked with this aid work say they're hamstrung by budget cuts from the 2013 sequester.
On September 16, the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing to discuss the resources needed to address the outbreak. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) asked NIH representative Anthony Fauci about sequestration's effect on the efforts.

"If even modest investments had been made…the current Ebola epidemic could have been detected earlier, and it could have been identified and contained."

"I have to tell you honestly it's been a significant impact on us," said Fauci. "It has both in an acute and a chronic, insidious way eroded our ability to respond in the way that I and my colleagues would like to see us be able to respond to these emerging threats. And in my institute particularly, that's responsible for responding on the dime to an emerging infectious disease threat, this is particularly damaging." Sequestration required the NIH to cut its budget by 5 percent, a total of $1.55 billion in 2013. Cuts were applied across all of its programs, affecting every area of medical research.
Dr. Beth Bell, director of the CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, testified before the committee, making a case for increased funding. Her department, which has led the US intervention in West Africa, was hit with a $13 million budget cut as a result of the cuts in 2013. Though appropriations increased in 2014 and are projected to rise further in 2015, the agency hasn't yet made up for the deficit—according to Bell, $100 million has already gone toward stopping the Ebola epidemic, and much more is needed. The United Nations estimates it will take over $600 million just to get the crisis under control.

Bell also argued that the epidemic could have been stopped if more had been done sooner to build global health security. International aid budgets were hit hard by the sequester, reducing global health programs by $411 million and USAID by $289 million. "If even modest investments had been made to build a public health infrastructure in West Africa previously, the current Ebola epidemic could have been detected earlier, and it could have been identified and contained," she said during her testimony. "This Ebola epidemic shows that any vulnerability could have widespread impact if not stopped at the source."

Still, CDC officials have pledged to do everything in their power to stop Ebola in its tracks. "The sooner the world comes together to help West Africa, the safer we all will be," Director Tom Frieden says in a statement released in early September. "We know how to stop this outbreak. There is a window of opportunity to tamp this down—the challenge is to scale up the massive response needed."

Gabrielle Canon

Editorial Fellow

Gabrielle Canon is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones. Follow her on Twitter @GabrielleCanon. RSS | Twitter

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Ebola Patient in Dallas Had Contact With Several Children

  And the hospital knew he came from Liberia before releasing him last week.

• These Maps Show How Ebola Spread In Liberia

  Infections are on the rise in Monrovia.

• Liberians Explain Why the Ebola Crisis Is Way Worse Than You Think

  What life is like at the epicenter of the outbreak.

• Listen to Some of Liberia's Top Artists Sing about Ebola

  "It's like 'We Are the World' for Liberia."

• The US Military Is Going to Africa to Fight Ebola. Here's What It's Up Against.

  The virus isn't the only threat troops will face.
  

  More MoJo coverage of the Ebola crisis.
• Why the World Health Organization Doesn't Have Enough Funds to Fight Ebola
• New Drugs and Vaccines Can't Stop This Ebola Outbreak
• We Are Making Ebola Outbreaks Worse by Cutting Down Forests

Weaponized Ebola: Is It Really a Bioterror Threat?

What would it take to hijack the virus in west Africa and turn it into a bioterror agent elsewhere?

Sep 25, 2014 |By Dina Fine Maron

Airman Walker/Wikimedia Commons

Ebola's exponential spread has rekindled fears that terrorists may seek to turn the virus into a powerful weapon of mass destruction. Such talk has occurred on Capitol Hill and in national security circles. But the financial and logistical challenges of transforming Ebola into a tool of bioterror makes the concern seem overblown—at least as far as widespread devastation is concerned.

National security and infectious disease experts agree the obstacles to a large-scale assault with Ebola are formidable. For starters, a bioterrorist would have to obtain the virus and be able to grow a massive supply in large vats, an extremely costly endeavor. While the virus is easily spread through personal contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, it would be difficult to manipulate and control.  Put simply, a large amount of Ebola in the hands of a rogue group would more likely end up killing the plotters than making it to the endgame of a bioterrorism mission. To be successful, “it would take a state-type [agent]" with more extensive resources, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a Congressional committee last week.

Already there is historical precedent for states trying—and failing—to tap the virus for bioterror. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was “growing up large amounts of microbes for potential use in bioterrorism. That was known through intelligence,” Fauci told Scientific American. The Soviets attempted to cultivate smallpox, anthrax, tularemia, botulism and hemorrhagic fevers including Ebola, he says. Yet exactly how the country would have deployed the microbes remains an area of speculation. The Soviets eventually dropped the project, but they were not the only ones interested in the microbe’s potential.

The Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo—infamous for setting off sarin gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995—also looked into Ebola as a potential biological weapon. In 1992, they sent a medical group of 40 people ostensibly to help provide aid during an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Their real purpose, however, was to collect some Ebola virus, as Amy Smithson, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted in her 2000 report Ataxia. The effort was a “flagrant failure,” she says. "They did not get their hands on a culture.”

Even if Aum Shinrikyo had managed to gather samples of the Ebola virus, it would have been extremely difficult to kill large numbers of people in countries with a strong health infrastructure such as Japan. Once the virus had been identified and patients isolated, the pathogen would have been unlikely to spread widely. Still, any terrorist attempting to stoke fears rather than accrue a high body count could have some modicum of success with Ebola. “When talking about bioterror, it’s more about the terror than it is the bio,” Fauci says.

Interviews with Fauci and other infection and security experts suggest that the virus could potentially be used for small-scale Ebola attacks in about three different ways—although each approach would run up against substantial logistical, financial and biological barriers. First, Ebola could be weaponized by taking large quantities of it and inserting them into a small “bomblet” that, once detonated, would spray the virus perhaps 30 feet—potentially infecting people as it landed on their faces, on cuts or on hands that they might then touch their eyes with. “That would be like a hundred people simultaneously touching an Ebola-infected person,” says Fauci. Ebola would not need to be altered in any way to make such a plot work. The virus is already so capable of spreading from person to person via contact with bodily fluids that in its natural state it could do some serious damage. “Ebola is a very lethal pathogenic virus," says virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University. "It’s basically weaponizing itself.”

The second, and perhaps easiest, small-scale bioterrorism option would be to recruit individuals for Ebola suicide missions. Such a plan would hinge on injecting Ebola virus into a limited number of people, who would then need to leave west Africa (or wherever the outbreak may be) before becoming symptomatic. Then those individuals would have to get into a public space and projectile vomit or bleed onto others to infect them. Obviously the plot would need to overcome substantial technical challenges including the extreme weakness that arises from Ebola. If it did succeed, this mode of transmission would not kill thousands of people, but it would set off significant fears.

The third bioterrorism method appears to be the most unlikely: genetically modifying the virus to enable it to spread more readily, perhaps through the air. As Scientific American reported on September 16, transforming the Ebola virus from a pathogen that primarily affects the circulatory system to one well suited for the respiratory system would be a major research undertaking. While theoretically the microbe could be manipulated to act in that way, it would be a demanding choice for nefarious actors looking to stockpile harmful materials.

With an Ebola outbreak that has already killed more than 2,800 in west Africa and laid siege to the health care systems of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, it is clear that already Ebola is terrorizing thousands. Nevertheless, the possibility of rogue organizations sowing this terror on a similar scale seems largely out of reach.
FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.....

This article is from the In-Depth Report Ebola: What You Need to Know 

Weaponized Ebola: Is It Really a Bioterror Threat?

What would it take to hijack the virus in west Africa and turn it into a bioterror agent elsewhere?

Sep 25, 2014 |By Dina Fine Maron

Airman Walker/Wikimedia Commons

Ebola's exponential spread has rekindled fears that terrorists may seek to turn the virus into a powerful weapon of mass destruction. Such talk has occurred on Capitol Hill and in national security circles. But the financial and logistical challenges of transforming Ebola into a tool of bioterror makes the concern seem overblown—at least as far as widespread devastation is concerned.

National security and infectious disease experts agree the obstacles to a large-scale assault with Ebola are formidable. For starters, a bioterrorist would have to obtain the virus and be able to grow a massive supply in large vats, an extremely costly endeavor. While the virus is easily spread through personal contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, it would be difficult to manipulate and control.  Put simply, a large amount of Ebola in the hands of a rogue group would more likely end up killing the plotters than making it to the endgame of a bioterrorism mission. To be successful, “it would take a state-type [agent]" with more extensive resources, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a Congressional committee last week.

Already there is historical precedent for states trying—and failing—to tap the virus for bioterror. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was “growing up large amounts of microbes for potential use in bioterrorism. That was known through intelligence,” Fauci told Scientific American. The Soviets attempted to cultivate smallpox, anthrax, tularemia, botulism and hemorrhagic fevers including Ebola, he says. Yet exactly how the country would have deployed the microbes remains an area of speculation. The Soviets eventually dropped the project, but they were not the only ones interested in the microbe’s potential.

The Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo—infamous for setting off sarin gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995—also looked into Ebola as a potential biological weapon. In 1992, they sent a medical group of 40 people ostensibly to help provide aid during an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Their real purpose, however, was to collect some Ebola virus, as Amy Smithson, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted in her 2000 report Ataxia. The effort was a “flagrant failure,” she says. "They did not get their hands on a culture.”

Even if Aum Shinrikyo had managed to gather samples of the Ebola virus, it would have been extremely difficult to kill large numbers of people in countries with a strong health infrastructure such as Japan. Once the virus had been identified and patients isolated, the pathogen would have been unlikely to spread widely. Still, any terrorist attempting to stoke fears rather than accrue a high body count could have some modicum of success with Ebola. “When talking about bioterror, it’s more about the terror than it is the bio,” Fauci says.

Interviews with Fauci and other infection and security experts suggest that the virus could potentially be used for small-scale Ebola attacks in about three different ways—although each approach would run up against substantial logistical, financial and biological barriers. First, Ebola could be weaponized by taking large quantities of it and inserting them into a small “bomblet” that, once detonated, would spray the virus perhaps 30 feet—potentially infecting people as it landed on their faces, on cuts or on hands that they might then touch their eyes with. “That would be like a hundred people simultaneously touching an Ebola-infected person,” says Fauci. Ebola would not need to be altered in any way to make such a plot work. The virus is already so capable of spreading from person to person via contact with bodily fluids that in its natural state it could do some serious damage. “Ebola is a very lethal pathogenic virus," says virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University. "It’s basically weaponizing itself.”

The second, and perhaps easiest, small-scale bioterrorism option would be to recruit individuals for Ebola suicide missions. Such a plan would hinge on injecting Ebola virus into a limited number of people, who would then need to leave west Africa (or wherever the outbreak may be) before becoming symptomatic. Then those individuals would have to get into a public space and projectile vomit or bleed onto others to infect them. Obviously the plot would need to overcome substantial technical challenges including the extreme weakness that arises from Ebola. If it did succeed, this mode of transmission would not kill thousands of people, but it would set off significant fears.

The third bioterrorism method appears to be the most unlikely: genetically modifying the virus to enable it to spread more readily, perhaps through the air. As Scientific American reported on September 16, transforming the Ebola virus from a pathogen that primarily affects the circulatory system to one well suited for the respiratory system would be a major research undertaking. While theoretically the microbe could be manipulated to act in that way, it would be a demanding choice for nefarious actors looking to stockpile harmful materials.

With an Ebola outbreak that has already killed more than 2,800 in west Africa and laid siege to the health care systems of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, it is clear that already Ebola is terrorizing thousands. Nevertheless, the possibility of rogue organizations sowing this terror on a similar scale seems largely out of reach.