Corporate Democrats are preparing
for the midterm elections.
Yes, some of them are focusing on
beating back Republican
challengers.
But corporate Democrats, like
Hakeem Jeffries are more focused on
raising money to beat challengers,
progressive challengers to
corporate Democrat incumbents.
So this is a story published in
The Washington Post.
I'm going to read you a few
excerpts from it, where they write
that, Jeffries has formed a new
fundraising effort, Team Blue PAC,
with Problem Solvers Caucus
co-chair Josh Gottheimer and
New Democrat Coalition co-chair,
Terri A Sewell.
The group will focus on protecting
incumbent members of Congress in
safe, this is key,
in safe Democratic seats that
are not a focus of the House
Democratic Campaign Committee.
So these are areas that are very
blue, you don't have to worry about
a Republican coming in and
taking that seat.
But what corporate Democrats
want to do is prevent a growing
Progressive Caucus.
And when I say Progressive Caucus,
I'm not talking about the current
giant Progressive Caucus which
consists of all sorts of people who
aren't actually progressive.
They want to prevent individuals
who are members of the Squad,
like representative
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or
Ilhan Omar or Rasheeda Talib,
Jamal Bowman, you get the picture.
So Team Blue has indicated that it
will defend at least two incumbents
Representative Danny Davis from
Illinois, and Representative
Carolyn Maloney from New York, two
liberals who face fresh challenges
from younger women of color backed
by the Justice Democrats.
Now, both of the incumbents do
Corporate PAC money,
they take large dollar donations.
And of course, part of being
a Justice Democrat is that
you reject that legalized bribery.
And so, Kina Collins is challenging
Davis in Illinois Seventh
Congressional District, and here's
what she has to say about it.
Quote, I think it is
completely backward and I think
it's hypocritical of Representative
Jeffries and quite frankly
Representative Davis who have both
challenged incumbents before.
He bullied Cori bush and he bullied
Morgan Harper who ran in Ohio, and
now he's trying to bully me and
Rana.
And so Jeffries, by the way,
started his political career in New
York by challenging an incumbent
Democrat in the state assembly.
Just something you should
know about.
Now, who's Rana?
Well, she's the individual who is
challenging Maloney.
Rana Abdelhamid,
a Google employee who also works as
a women's empowerment and
self defense activist, has been
endorsed by the Justice Democrats
to challenge Maloney.
Abdelhamid's campaign announced on
Monday that it raised $411,265 in
the second quarter, which is more
than Maloney has raised in
the first three months of the year.
And so, this is a pretty aggressive
effort, Jeffrey's claims that this
PAC that's meant to protect these
Corporate Democrats has already
raised $1.4 million.
And it is concerning when you want
to pursue this inside
outside strategy, right?
Ensure that we elect real
progressives into Congress who
have priorities like Medicare for
All and the Green New Deal.
And then apply pressure from
the outside, which by the way,
our wonderful members have done in
the form of forcing a Senate floor
vote on a $15 an hour minimum wage
and we thank our members for that.
If you want to be part of efforts
like that you can join and
become a member by clicking that
Join button if you're watching on
YouTube, or going to TYT.com/join.
But Cenk, I know you have a lot to
say about this story.
So take it away.
>> Yeah, so there's two different
parts of this story.
One is what these Corporate
Democrats are doing, and two is how
The Washington Post covered it.
And I'm particularly enraged about
The Washington Post coverage.
I'm going to get to that
in one second.
First, about the people who
are doing this.
Now remember the news paying in
this story is that Hakeem Jeffries
and Josh Gottheimer was one of
the most pro-Corporate Democrats in
the country.
Takes tons of money from payday
lenders, make sure that he passes
bills to help them, etc.
He's part of the so
called Problem Solvers Caucus.
I believe that ExxonMobil lobbyists
pointed out how they use that
particular caucus to kill any
legislation that might hurt oil
companies.
And the Democratic Coalition
co-chair Terry A Sewell that these
folks are getting together to form
Team Blue PAC,
a PAC whose whole point is to
attack Progressives to raise money.
And I've asked The Washington Post
if they can do follow-ups and
then Dave Weigel has said that
publicly that they will do
a follow up to see where they
raise that money from.
I'll guarantee you right now,
it's going to be corporations,
lobbyists, independent
expenditures etc.
So the point of this story is these
folks are getting together to
attack Progressives.
Does The Washington Post frame it
that way?
Not at all, okay?
But one last quote before I get to
them, Gottheimer but
it's part of how they covered it.
They quote Gottheimer as saying,
if you're spending all of your
resources and
time fighting with each other,
instead of fighting the other team,
that is a huge distraction.
Now remember, this is a story about
how he is forming a PAC to fight
other Democrats.
Now did The Washington Post point
that out?
No, they just ran his quote
uncritically.
Here's this beloved Gottheimer
trying to do unity by gathering up
millions of dollars to
attack fellow Democrats.
And you can see how those far left
people are the ones who are at
fault and Gottheimer is the victim.
It's a preposterous quote, you have
to at least, at the very least
point out, that does seem a bit
hypocritical here as we're telling
you a story about how he's doing
a PAC to attack other Democrats.
Okay, now let's get to the heart of
The Washington Post problem.
First of all, the headline.
Democratic tensions surface as
House incumbents plan
defense against
far-left primary challengers.
What the hell kind of headline
is that?
Who are you to determine who's
far-left?
You can call them Progressives,
that's what they are,
they're the progressive wing of
the Democratic Party.
You could call them left wing but
far-left, far-left says,
these people are illegitimate and
you should never vote for them.
>> Exactly. >> Far-left implies
that they are radicals and
they're not credible.
And you think The Washington Post
doesn't know that?
Of course they know that.
The whole point of that headline is
to smear Progressives, and to say,
now remember everybody,
Hakeem Jeffries and these beloved
Corporate Democrats are the
victims, and they're the good guys,
and the others are far-left.
Now they're going to pound that
home throughout here explained
by the way, this is
a hilarious part of the story.
Hakeem Jeffries has accused
the original squad as well as
the Justice Democrats, so
being white interlopers.
There isn't a single white
person in that original squad.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Ilhan
Omar, Rasheeda Talib,
Ayanna Presley,
they're all people of color.
Cori Bush,
Jamal Bowman people of color,
white interlopers?
No, Hakeem Jeffries is a clown.
And by the way another thing that
the article does is it assumes that
Hakeem Jeffries is one of
the legitimate contenders to become
next speaker of the house.
Now, he might be a contender and
that's fair to cover it
in the context of others, but no,
this makes it seem like he is
legitimate and credible.
He's a good Democrat who's going to
be the next speaker, and
poor guy's just starting up a PAC,
a Corporate PAC to make sure
he attacks other Democrats.
>> What can you do?
>> How outrageous is the far-left,
but it gets worse and worse.
Though Washington Post kind of
editorialized in the middle of
the story about how the Democrats,
I have to quote,
avoid the fate of Republicans who
repeatedly found themselves too
divided along ideological lines to
pass legislation when they
had the majority.
Now they don't say that
in the context of the PAC that
started to attack fellow Democrats.
They say it in the context of can
you believe that Justice Democrats
are doing primaries of other
Democrats.
Almost all of these Democrats got
into office by challenging another
Democrats in the primary, right?
But now that they're the
incumbents, The Washington Post's
on their side, because they have
to serve the powerful.
They've made a joke and a mockery
of journalism in this country.
And then they get into fawning
praise of Hakeem Jeffries.
They say, this is hilarious,
he has cast himself as a leader
who can bridge the Democratic donor
community and
the party's activist base.
But wait a minute,
he could frame himself that way,
but then you should point out
the absurdity of that.
That activist base despises
Hakeem Jeffries.
>> Activist in what way?
In what way is
Hakeem Jeffries an activist?
I've seen him be an activist and
advocate for himself.
I mean, he's been eyeing
a leadership position.
I mean, he's fourth in line for
House Speaker according to how they
pay their dues or
whatever they do for
house speakers.
>> How much money they raise?
>> How's he an activist?
He's not an activist for
the people, that's the point.
He's an activist for
himself and his corporate
buddies in Congress that's it.
>> Anna it's about to get way worse
and hilarious.
So since he has absolutely no
support among the activists
he says, in fact, part of the point
of this article is,
he's attacking the activist base.
>> Yes.
>> He started a PAC to attack
the activist base.
But The Washington Post says,
he bridges the divide.
By burning the bridges,
is that how he built it?
So what is their evidence for
him bridging the divide?
They say at the end of Trump
impeachment case where he was one
of the Democrats who were putting
on the case, he ended with
a Notorious BIG quote.
>> I didn't know he
was that activist.
>> So edgy, he was so edgy,
what did he say, Cenk?
>> He said if you don't know,
now you know.
>> My God, he's so activist.
>> What an activist?
>> Whoa, thank you Washington Post.
>> Notorious BIG, wow, edgy, edgy.
>> Well, yeah, well,
look Washington Post I stand
corrected I didn't know he was that
connected to the activist base.
Okay I mean, it's a joke.
And how do they end the story?
Of course with a quote from
Third Way, which they never
clarified is a corporate Think Tank
meant to keep the Democratic Party
under the thumb of corporations.
Look, even if you don't want to
frame it that way, everyone knows
the entire point of Third Way is
that they get corporate money and
they try to do corporate influence
to the Democratic Party.
If you don't know that and you work
in The Washington Post, you should
retire immediately, right?
But the editor gives them the last
line without
clarifying any of that.
And they say, Matt Bennett,
co-founder of Third Way, and
he called it a Moderate Democratic
thinking.
So Progressives are far left
which by the way, if you look at
the policy positions, we stand for
the Democratic Party according to
the bowling on almost every issue.
There's a couple of outliers you
can find out social issues, but
on every economic issue
on most social issues.
But we're the far-left even
though we stand for
about two thirds to sometimes
80% of the Democratic Party,
let alone the country, right?
But the Corporate guys are the
moderates, they're so reasonable.
So what do the reasonable
people say?
They say with Trumpian
insurrectionists so close to power
and our democracy hanging in
the balance, it's absolutely vital
that the far-left, now we can
add our at risk incumbents in swing
districts with defensive primaries.
This is not in swing district.
>> It's not in swing district.
>> Actually The Washington Post
let's Matt Bennett lie to their
readers on purpose.
And then he adds with this, when
the Tea Party attacked vulnerable
Republicans, it cost them dearly.
So that's the editor at
The Washington Post saying.
Now remember,
if you ever think about supporting
a Progressive, never do that,
they're far-left radicals that
are hurting the Democratic Party.
Why don't you just go work for
them already, okay?
This isn't journalism,
this is propaganda,
it is absolute trash- >> It
absolutely is propaganda, it's
funny because you had mentioned it
to me in a comment off air.
You made your case,
you're absolutely right.
And that final example of
a Third Way quote
to wrap up the article, it's wrong.
I mean, you're allowing someone who
clearly has a conflict of interest
here, and a giant bias to close out
the article with a lie.
Because again,
these are not vulnerable Democrats,
these are blue districts and
this is exactly.
Okay, so
I'm going to give you a statement
from a Jeffries spokesperson.
Okay, so The Washington Post
reaches out to her and
here's what she had to say.
It should come as no surprise that
the chair of the House Democratic
Caucus plans to support
the reelection of members of
the House Democratic caucus who
are working hard to enact President
Biden's Build Back Better agenda.
Okay, let's stop right there.
You guys understand what this
is really about.
The only hope we have in finding
members of Congress to fight on our
behalf and ensure that we have
important provisions in things like
the infrastructure bill, for
instance, is to elect people
like the Squad, right?
Members of the Squad.
And what Jeffries and
other Corporate Democrats hate is
that they have to debate,
they have to negotiate.
They have to deal with
individuals in Congress who
hold them accountable and
force them to challenge what their
corporate donors want.
They don't want it,
it's a thorn in their side,
that's what this is really about,
that's all this is about.
They want to be able to provide all
the wins for their corporate donors
without having to deal with anyone
within the Democratic Caucus, who
challenges them, calls them out.
And to be quite honest with you,
I mean, we've had issues with
members of the Squad, right?
And Progressives in Congress in
terms of fighting back and publicly
speaking out against members of the
Democratic party who are clearly
standing in the way of getting
progressive policies accomplished.
But they're the only ones that
are fighting for us at all.
And Jeffries and
other corporate Democrats,
they don't want that.
So Cenk is absolutely right in
that Jeffries is not the activist.
He's the one who wants
to stomp out the activists.
>> Well, a sensible reason for
the story is, he started a PAC to
crush the activists.
>> Exactly.
>> But it was framed in the exact
opposite way.
Last thing, and by the way if you
saw the rest of that quote,
of course, they call anyone who is
a Progressive extreme left,
extreme left, okay?
And they print that.
And guys you should know
the context, I know
hundreds of reporters and editors.
So I know how these stories
are written.
You go and get an opposing quote
here and there, so you say, hey,
I was fair, right?
But basically what you do is you
get the quotes that you want to
tell the story that you want.
Should journalism be done that way?
Absolutely not.
Do they do it all the time?
Yes. Is this a perfect
example of it?
Yes. The reason they end on
the Third Way quote is so that
the reporter and the editor can go,
now remember everybody which
side you're supposed to be on.
You're not supposed to be on the
far-left, extreme left side, you're
supposed to be on the moderate
side, which is the corporate side.
And finally,
this is really important.
Now when you see something like
this, you know that if AOC and
the others object to the so called
bipartisan infrastructure bill, and
they vote no,
this is a warning sign to them.
The Washington Post's and
the rest of the mainstream media
will come to burry you.
They will call you extreme left for
voting no on that corporate bill,
that would make sure that we hand
over our bridges and our roads to
corporations and privatize them.
But if you dare vote no on that,
and you're hurting Biden's agenda
in your far-left, and
you're an extremist, and
poor Hakeem Jeffries who wanted to
help his corporate friends.
I mean, I didn't tell you that,
I didn't tell you that.
Why didn't you tell us about all
this corporate donors?
Why haven't you ever told
us about that?
Because you're not journalists,
you're propaganda for
the establishment.
And every one of those,
we put pressure on
those Progressives in Congress.
But to be fair to them, every
one of them knows that if they ever
dare oppose the establishment,
it won't be other Democrats
as much as it'll be the corporate
media that viciously attacks them.
And tells everyone
that they are the aggressors, and
it is their fault, and
they're not good Democrats, they're
good moderate Corporate Democrats,
those beloved people.
They just wanted to
give everything to corporations and
make sure you never got a higher
minimum wage and make
sure you never got health care.
And you see how moderate they are,
that's who The Washington Post is.
>> Listen, Progressives like
Bernie Sanders cut into Jeff Bezos'
profits and executives at Amazon's
profits by doing an incredibly
successful pressure campaign that
led to them paying their warehouse
workers a $15 an hour minimum wage.
The bitterness toward that knows no
bounds and you can see it
reflected in some of the reporting.
>> Yeah, but Anna to be fair and
unfair, [LAUGH] I mean,
to be objective about it.
The Washington Post was always like
this before Bezos bought it too.
And I don't know that Bezos sends
any memos, but the thing is he
doesn't have to send memos, right?
He hires the top,
they hire all the different layers.
And it was like that before Bezos
came in, and
it's not just The Washington Post.
The mainstream media loves
the status quo, and they think that
their objective position is to
defend what they call moderates.
Some have called it a central
spice, I think it's a corporate
bias, an establishment bias.
But whatever it is, they view it as
their job to say the current status
quo that the rest of us find
deeply corrupt, is wonderful, and
moderate, and decent, and
should never be criticized.
Think about the Kafkaesque
absurdity of that.
They're supposed to challenge
the powerful, instead,
they've taken it as their mission
in life to protect the powerful.
This is the exact opposite of what
good journalism is.