When 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren first proposed an annual wealth tax, she claimed it would be just “a little piece,” “a little portion” of the “bazillion” they’ve made.New evidence from her own economists revealed that her constitutionally-challenged two percent (or higher) annual wealth tax would take far more than a little. Try half or more.
The liberal media usually take aim at the libertarian Koch brothers, but now that they’ve launched a venture with George Soros, there’s been an about-face.
Left? Lefter? Leftist? In the quest to see which candidate can be the most liberal, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren called for an “ultra-millionaire tax” to force the wealthy to fork over more to the government.
"Throw the entire Constitution in the garbage." It shouldn't surprise you to find out that this is the secret sentiment of some liberals. However, what is unusual is for them to state it right out in the open as Ryan Cooper did in his January 26 column in This Week. What is different about him is that he flat out stated that we need to get rid of it in America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over.
Many persons have started thinking about President Trump’s re-election campaign. One, of course, is Trump himself. Another is lefty pundit Paul Waldman, who in a September 27 column for The Week argued that while recent approval ratings for Trump don’t augur well for his winning a second term, he might pull it off if he cribs from Karl Rove’s 2004 playbook.
For a real-life example of how to succeed in business without really trying, check out the “Lean Forward” channel, suggests The Week’s Ryan Cooper. Cooper asserts that MSNBC is “attempting to ditch its entire brand as a liberal network just as it is starting to pay off handsomely,” and indicated that the driving force behind the ditchery is Andrew Lack, chairman of NBC News and MSNBC.
According to TNR’s Lovia Gyarkye, one of the less tangible things President Obama has tried to forge is “a liberalism that fuses identity politics with the idea of American greatness.” As for Obama’s successor, “the answer to the Trump presidency is not to abandon the progress we have made. It is not to yearn for the past glories of a nation that has wronged so many people. It is to do the hard work of abandoning this country’s self-serving myths, and realizing that America’s greatness is yet to come.”
There is a conspiracy against Donald Trump, believes The Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, but it’s inanimate: a “conspiracy of facts,” not a “conspiracy of liberals” in the media. The facts, Tomasky claimed in a Tuesday column, “simply do not damn [Hillary] Clinton in the way that [Trump] and his supporters believe they should. Take the new story, about the FBI and State and the alleged ‘quid pro quo.’ As all the news stories state plainly, eventually, in the sixth or seventh graf, there was no quid pro quo.” Tomasky blasted both Trump's “ridiculous whining” about the media and the idea that “the media are in Hillary’s pocket. Lord. The New York Times has been after her since 1992”
Complaints from liberal pundits about media bias against Hillary Clinton have snowballed during the past few days. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had the most high-profile effort, which contrasted “the impression that [Donald Trump is] being graded on a curve” with “the presumption that anything [Hillary] does must be corrupt,” and some of the others have taken aim at Krugman’s newspaper for its Hillary-hounding. For example, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo sniped semi-sarcastically that the Times “appears to be revisiting its 'whitewater' [sic] glory days with its increasingly parodic coverage” of the Clinton Foundation and accused the paper of having “a decades' long history of being [led] around by rightwing opposition researchers into dead ends which amount to journalistic comedy…especially when it comes to the Clintons.”
If Hillary Clinton takes Joel Dodge’s advice, one of Washington’s kings of unintentional comedy might be in the spotlight for a while longer. Dodge, a lawyer who also writes for The Week, thinks Clinton should choose current vice president Joe Biden as her running mate. Biden, contended Dodge, “is virtually risk-free and carries more upside…[He] is universally known, vetted, and unquestionably fit to serve. As America's affable ‘Uncle Joe,’ he is viewed positively by 51 percent of the country and unfavorably by just 36 percent...He also appears to absolutely love being vice president, and is good at the job.”
Angry, embarrassed Republicans went looking for a scapegoat and settled on a man who’s more than a decade past the normal retirement age. That’s essentially the explanation The Week’s Paul Waldman gives for House GOPers’ move to impeach 76-year-old Internal Revenue Service commissioner John Koskinen.
That effort, asserted Waldman in a Tuesday column, stems from Republicans’ “frustration over the failure of [the IRS] scandal to take down Barack Obama...With every controversy during this administration…Republicans say to themselves, ‘Now we've finally got him!’…And then it turns out to be a giant nothingburger.”
Damon Linker, a self-described former “conservative intellectual” (he was an editor at First Things) believes that Hillary Clinton’s policy positions are “good enough” to earn the votes of current conservatives, given that a Donald Trump administration would pose a “national threat” and that most right-wing Hillary-hatred “lack[s] any rational connection to reality.”
Take Hillary’s scandals -- please, take them. “Every single accusation is trivial. Petty. Penny-ante,” Linker asserted in a Thursday column for The Week. “Yes, even the business about Clinton's private email server. And especially the septic tank full of hyped-up, conspiracy-laden nonsense that goes by the name of ‘Benghazi.’ (If well-meaning members of the conservative movement want to explore how the Republican electorate ended up hoodwinked by a transparent charlatan-demagogue like Donald Trump, they could do worse than reflecting on their own complicity in publicizing, or at least failing to defuse, this endless, cockamamie ‘scandal.’)”