From Richard Eskow at the OurFuture blog we get perhaps the best one-paragraph explanation of why you shouldn't support President Trump's boutique infrastructure plan: "If you needed a new stove or refrigerator, you wouldn’t give the keys to your kitchen to Olive Garden, then pay them to let you eat. You’d be opening your wallet for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, that’s the kind of logic Donald Trump and his party are using to give away our shared wealth." The rest of the article's great, too, describing how private corporations would own our roads, our bridges, and our water systems, and charge us obscenely to use them. But please, right-wingers, complain about how TEH LIBRULZ HATEZ TEH JOBZ!!!! as if there are literally no other alternatives to whatever Mr. Trump wants to do. (Like, you know, paying for infrastructure by taxing the rich a lot harder.)
Sen. Risch (R-IA) relies on a very literal interpretation of what Mr. Trump said to Mr. Comey to justify his belief that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice. I'm far from unsympathetic to the notion that our justice system should err on the side of not putting people in jail, but the law instructs us that one might obstruct justice merely by trying to corruptly influence an investigation, rather than issue "orders." Of course, like many Republicans, Mr. Risch seems more interested in saying "nothing to see here" and moving on to gutting Obamacare and our tax code.
Former Bernie Sanders advisor says we ought to connect with voters more traditionally, i.e., by actually going door-to-door and talking to them. Ms. Bond says, quite rightly, that Democrats seemed to think voters were very happy with the Obama era, when in fact they weren't, and if they'd actually talked to as many voters as possible -- their obsession with "big data," she says, leads them to ask "what is the smallest number of people you can talk to and win?" -- they might have seen that. Of course, then they might have had to do something about it, which might have offended their big donors. And that's why we trust people, not politicians.
Ho hum, Connecticut Democratic politicians are trying to destroy their state's Clean Elections Program, which keeps big money out of campaigns. They'll tell you it's because of budget shortfalls, but Connecticut's budget shortfalls are way bigger than the CEP's entire budget, so you know that's a lie (plus, as one observer points out, public campaign financing saves the public money, in corporate welfare tax breaks that don't get passed). More likely they're trying to kill it because incumbents want to stay incumbent, even when many of them got to be incumbents because of the level playing field the CEP instituted. It's hard out there for a pimp.
Finally, President Trump has apparently told the British government that he won't be visiting there until he can be sure his visit won't be met by protests. All together now: waaaaaaah!