Last night I watched the entire Republican Presidential Debate. My stomach churning at this unbelievable spectacle of no-nothing ignorance, made more dispiriting with the possibility that one of these unfit people may get the nomination. All that these people offer this country is continuing military actions; increasing our already bloated military budget; assurances that the wealthy will pay even less of their fair share for our government; and an oligarchy controlled by the wealth of a few. The litany of what is wrong with any of the possible Republican candidates, based on their stated positions, would be worth a 10,000 word essay on its own and I won’t bore you with it. Suffice it to say that I cannot in good faith vote for any of them. So for me the question devolves on who I can vote for and support in this upcoming Presidential election.
For me the main political issue of this election is whether the control of this country by voracious corporate interests can be reined in. This particularly pertains to our financial and banking industry, which has become an amoral exercise in making money that produces nothing supportive of the American economy. In fact the complete emphasis on profit coming from “Wall Street” has been destructive to our country’s industrial base and from it flows all of the other evils plaguing our country, such as having the most expensive health care in the world. Since this country’s democratic aspects have been severely limited by a self-perpetuating “two party” system, this leaves me with the choice of either voting for the nominee of the Democratic Party, or throwing my vote away on a candidate with no chance of positively affecting this election.
At present Hillary Clinton is seen as the person who will win the Democratic Presidential nomination. For me the problem with Hilary is that the policies she offers represent the failed centrist politics of her husband and of our current President Barack Obama. Their centrist policies are those of the Democratic Leadership Council and bear equal responsibility with the Republican Party for the deterioration of our country.
“The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.
The DLC’s affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC’s philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[2] and Third Way.[3]
On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization’s website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.[5] The DLC’s last chairman was former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair was Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO was Bruce Reed.”
In my opinion the DLC bears direct responsibility for the rightward shift of the politics of our country and has actually empowered the radically Conservative elements within our country, by surrendering to the failed concepts of America made popular in the Reagan Administration.
“It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions.”[9]
The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,[10] President Clinton’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit,[11] and the creation of AmeriCorps.[12] The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).”
As you can see, the political positions adopted by the DLC are those that would be consistent with the positions espoused by the Republican Party in the 1950’s. They are basically corporatist in nature and by these positions representing the formerly Left Leaning American political party, the have allowed the Republican Party to radically swing to the Right Wing of the political spectrum and give the appearance that this radical trend, bordering on fascism, is merely part of the mainstream political process in America.
As you see from the quote above the files of the DLC are now the property of the Clinton Foundation and one must agree that Hillary Clinton represents those values in her race for the Presidency. There is, however, damning evidence that Hilary Clinton, if elected President will be both unwilling and unable to put controls on the American Financial industry, which was directly responsible for the economic collapse in 2008 and whose excesses continue to destabilize our financial system. Here is the evidence:
“Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders this week assailed rival Hillary Clinton for taking large speaking fees from the financial industry since leaving the State Department.
According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015:
“Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.
The following year, she picked up $485,000 for a speech to Deutsche Bank and an address to Ameriprise. Last year, she made $150,000 from a lecture before the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.” The Intercept – Zaid Jilani
When financial institutions pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the benefit of a 45 minute speech you can be certain that they are not looking to expand their knowledge base, but in fact are looking for a return on their investment. In addition you can be certain that someone is not invited back time and again to make these speeches if the content of what was being said wasn’t pleasing to the ears of these bankers. The old term is “Quid Pro Quo” which “means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other. English speakers often use the term to mean “a favour for a favour”; phrases with similar meaning include: “give and take”, “tit for tat“, and “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours”.
The situation gets worse though as the Intercept article shows:
“Hillary Clinton’s haul from Wall Street speeches pales in comparison to her husband’s, which also had to be disclosed because the two share a bank account.
“I never made any money until I left the White House,” said Bill Clinton during a 2009 address to a student group. “I had the lowest net worth, adjusted for inflation, of any president elected in the last 100 years, including President Obama. I was one poor rascal when I took office. But after I got out, I made a lot of money.”
The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.”
So are we really to believe that this couple, who are now worth $139 million dollars from Banks, Insurance Companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses and other financial firms will be in favor of enacting legislation that wold be antithetical to the interests of these institutions that have made them extremely wealthy?
In the last Democratic debate there was an exchange between Hilary and Bernie, where Hilary said it was not necessary to re-impose the “Glass-Steagall Legislation”, which her husband helped to repeal at the end of of his Presidency. From the pages of the fiscally conservative U.S. News and World Report is this article from a former Hedge Fund Manager and Wall Street insider: “Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis”. The article begins:
“The oldest propaganda technique is to repeat a lie emphatically and often until it is taken for the truth. Something like this is going on now with regard to banks and the financial crisis. The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.
In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it’s critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time.”
You can follow the link to see why the author believes we must re-institute something like like “Glass Steagall” to prevent another financial meltdown, which is Bernie Sanders position, but certainly not Hillary Clinton’s position. She has categorically stated a “Glass Stegall” like bill is unnecessary. Call me a cynic but I see a direct correlation by those who have made the Clinton’s ultra wealthy and those who would never want “Glass-Steagall” re instituted. Obviously my choice for the Democratic Presidential nominee would be Bernie Sanders and this pro Sanders piece feels that he can indeed win the nomination “Bernie Sanders Is Now the ‘Inevitable’ Democratic Nominee and Presidential Winner”.
But I am all too aware of my fallibility in prognostication. So what will I do if Hillary Clinton, a person I see as a “Corporate Democrat”, who espouses financial positions I disagree with become the Democratic Presidential nominee? I believe that I will have no real choice except to vote for her, with all her flaws ans with her ties to those people who have played games with our economy to our detriment. Here are my reasons.
All of the Republican candidates hold social platform positions that I think are dangerous to our freedom and to the freedom of women, people of color and LBGT people. All of them hold positions that will hurt Social Security and Medicare, two programs that are essential to my life. All of the Republican group hold positions regarding the financial markets that are even more laissez faire than Hilary Clinton’s positions.
Finally though the most dangerous prospect that we face as a country should arise in prospective nominees for the Supreme Court. Judicial Radicals like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have already deeply affected the political status quo in this country by electing a President in an unprecedented ruling and allowing unlimited campaign spending by the wealthy. We cannot afford to have another SCOTUS judge impaneled, who deems themselves “Constitutional Originalists”. It is these Judicial extremists who have been most beholden to a view of America that has never existed. For me it comes down to the fact that Hilary Clinton is better for my interests than any perspective Republican nominee. Nevertheless, some may call me naive but until the moment of nomination my support will be with Bernie Sanders, who I believe represents the best hope for America
ElephantTail 
January 15, 2016 at 8:40 pm
First thing: When financial institutions pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the benefit of a 45 minute speech you can be certain that they are not looking to expand their knowledge base, but in fact are looking for a return on their investment. In addition you can be certain that someone is not invited back time and again to make these speeches if the content of what was being said wasn’t pleasing to the ears of these bankers.
I believe this reverses cause and effect. The speech fees, I believe, are the payoff for favors already done while in office. Look at Bill’s path: poor while in office, but it was HIM that repealed Glass-Steagal, and the payoff is $17M in speech fees. If the politician takes unilateral action first and doesn’t get paid until he has no power, there is no way to tie the payment to his actions; because obviously the banks did not have to pay him for speeches. But it is 100% legal to pay him for speeches after he leaves office, and they play the long game: By paying politicians for post-office speeches, giving them do-nothing jobs as lobbyists or advisors or spokesmen or “ambassadors” or whatever, they set the example: Be nice to us while in office, we will make sure you are kept in style when you lose office or retire. The $139M the Clinton’s have made is a sub-1% tax on the money they saved big business while in office, so if Bill or Hillary finally does call to ask if they have any part-time work they need done, they say “absolutely, friend, come talk to us over an executive dinner.” Nobody cares what Bill or Hillary really have to say, they could stand at the podium and recite Jabberwocky from 3×5 cards, the audience would laugh hysterically and clap and hand them a check. It is always just an excuse to legally hand over a check, in public so all sitting politicians know that corporation pays for its favors, and bypass any hint of a quid pro quo.
LikeLike
January 15, 2016 at 9:03 pm
Gentlemen,
I am giving you this link. I could explain it all to you but it’s done well enough here and saves me time. I don’t really expect you to agree. It’s part of the appeal Sanders has for you and one of the reasons he doesn’t appeal to me.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hillary-clinton-gets-bernie-sanders-doesnt-wall-street
LikeLike
January 15, 2016 at 10:32 pm
“Gary Sernovitz joined Lime Rock in 2004 and became a Managing Director in 2011 with responsibilities for the firm’s investor relations and business development efforts. Mr. Sernovitz’s role includes overseeing the firm’s fundraising, investor reporting and communications, limited partner co-investing, public relations, marketing, and internal firm strategic development efforts. He also works with Lime Rock Partners portfolio companies on strategic branding and marketing initiatives. Previously, Mr. Sernovitz worked in the Investment Research Department of Goldman Sachs where he had primary coverage of the Latin American energy and chemical sectors. He is also a writer and novelist whose essays and reviews have appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, among other publications. He has had two novels published by Henry Holt and his non-fiction account of the U.S. shale revolution, The Green and the Black, will be published by St. Martin’s Press in February 2016. Mr. Sernovitz is a graduate of Cornell University (B.A.) and based in Westport, Connecticut.”
Blouise,
Just the type of “dispassionate” observer I would go to to get information about the financial industry. “Lime Rock Partners is a creative private equity investment partner focused solely on the upstream oil and gas sector. Our funds have received over $5.5 billion in total private capital commitments including nearly $4.0 billion made to six Lime Rock Partners funds.” This is Lime Rocks PR guy. He probably represents the “Third Way” gang that Hilary and Bill are so fond of. In short I’m not persuaded. 🙂
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 2:59 am
Come on Mike. Do you honestly want some hick advising you? There are plenty of knowledgeable folk out there who will tell you why Sander’s understanding of the financial sector is skewed. I chose this one because his writing is clear and concise. I know what he has to say doesn’t jive with your corporate America bad mantra but what he has to say is on point.
Bernie is not an Elizabeth Warren. He really doesn’t understand the financial sector which is why he says such silly things.
Why is it that the left always goes for the tree huggers? Never mind. Everybody wants a hero that will fit into the myth. Sanders will break up the banks and give us single payer health insurance without raising taxes. Yeah, and Trump will build a walk on the Southern border and make Mexico pay for it while deporting illegals and bad Muslims.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 4:45 am
” Sanders will break up the banks and give us single payer health insurance without raising taxes. ”
Well, the last I heard, no western nation pays more than half what we pay for health care – and by many criteria they get better outcomes. Maybe Bernie is on to something.
“Clinton’s fox-like, forty-eight-hundred-word plan for smaller, wider reforms contains so many details that it’s impossible not to quibble with some of them. ”
For many complex situations there is a critical path that leads on to success. Get that critical path right and it is much easier to accomplish all the other details.
Sanders thinks he has found the lever that moves all the rest.
Clinton’s attention to many details distract our attention and diffuse our efforts – leading to no effective action which is precisely what the finance industry wants.
Is Clinton intentionally doing a document dump to confuse the important issues, or is she just overarchingly arrogant and really believes she can win so many battles?
I don’t know. Does it really matter what Clinton is in her heart of hearts?
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 7:39 am
Maybe Bernie is on to something. – BFM
Ah, but first he has to dismantle, then restructure based on the success of the dismantle, then rebuild based on the restructure, all without disturbing anyone in the process of health treatment. And, of course, in order to even begin he must find a way to work with Congress which is something he was totally unable to do when he was actually a member of Congress. And then he must have a way to do it without raising taxes which even he admits is impossible. It’s all tree hugging.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 7:50 am
On the Republican side we have wall building, illegal immigrant deporting, and guns for all. On the Democratic side we have single payer healthcare, big bank busting, and a chicken in every pot. It’s all tree hugging.
I wish people would get serious and discuss goals that may sound boring as hell but are actually achievable and necessary like infrastructure, student loan reform (Bernie is talking about that but specifics are lacking) etc.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 8:35 am
“Ah, but first he has to dismantle, then restructure based on the success of the dismantle, then rebuild based on the restructure, all without disturbing anyone in the process of health treatment. … And then he must have a way to do it without raising taxes which even he admits is impossible. ”
Nice word salad. But I think we can be a bit clearer than that.
The issue is not whether we have to raise taxes. The issue is whether the current cost that includes premiums + co-pays + tax is greater than or less than taxes in the new system. Other industrial countries pay half or less than what we pay. Why not us? I am pretty sure that we have some people as smart as the leaders and technocrats in other industrial nations.
Why tear anything down and rebuild? That formulation only makes sense if you are trying to make it sound so complicated that it could never be done. .
Surely we can move people into a single payer a bit at a time, a step at a time while maintaining continuity of care. I am not saying it is simple. But, most of the same people are going to be doing the same things. We are just going to change how we collect and disburse the funds. That does not sound like tear down and replace to me – not unless you are hoping to make the project so complicated that it fails.
As for working with congress – the fact is that in politics, goals can never be achieved is a leader does not advocate for them, does not explain how they can make peoples lives better.
Haven’t we seen enough of politician like Obama who starts by giving up half the loaf in the hope the other side will do the decent thing and compromise. We need a politician who will get out there and change some minds and lead for a change.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 10:02 am
The issue is to not ignore the elephant in the room — which is the costs of our perpetual wars.
Little will change until then; most especially phenotypes.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176090/tomgram%3A_david_vine%2C_enduring_bases%2C_enduring_war_in_the_middle_east/
Regurgitated information, long known, but perpetually ignored by the reining technocrats on this blog and in this culture.
There really are no arguments beyond the simple fact that our country is the largest purveyor of violence in the world today. Does that statement ring a bell?
Twitter away, sip your latte; ignorant of the pain allowing your leisure.
How’s that Snowden expose going?
Malthus was correct; short term gains will eventually give sway to brutal physical realities.
As for the dynasty of Clinton:
http://billmoyers.com/story/tell-the-truth-about-bernies-health-care-stand/
It would be such a relief to see this country’s wealth spent on anything other than war.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Blouise: Where to start on that article?
>> Not only are Sanders’s bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less powerful and less problematic by the year.
This is a false assertion. No, they aren’t getting less powerful.
>> To critics, the Problem with Wall Street can be separated into five distinct problems:
1) the Wall Street rich are strangling democracy with money and clout;
This statement is true.
… 2) Wall Street’s inherent recklessness will imperil the economy again as it did in 2008, especially if its financial institutions are “too big to fail”;
Also true.
… 3) Wall Street speculators are a parasite on the real economy;
True but understated, they are gambling with money that isn’t theirs and the result is bankruptcies and defaults that kill otherwise working and profitable businesses, and wipe out people’s pensions and retirement funds. More on this later.
… 4) Wall Streeters don’t pay their fair share of taxes;
Even Warren Buffet agrees with this. About 30% of my income goes to Federal taxes, Mitt and Warren pay 15% to 16% of their income. That is not fair in percentages, and certainly not fair in terms of impact on lifestyle or opportunity. Zero for them, noticeable for me.
… 5) and their super-salaries are a shocking offense against fairness in an era of acute income equality. (I work on Wall Street, in private equity, and while I don’t think that I earn a super-salary, I also know there’s no way to justify how much I make relative to a nurse.)
This author does this throughout the article; admits something is true then dismisses it as immaterial. He cannot justify his salary relative to a nurse. But he doesn’t give a shit because he is used to his big salary and has accepted that unjustifiable inequity and unfairness as the way of the world. As have most of the rich. It betrays his underlying theme of “fuck ’em.”
>> The low interest rates that have prevailed since 2002 have impelled institutional investors, like pension funds and college endowments, to seek higher returns on huge volumes of capital through those funds, which now collectively manage about $7.4 trillion. All of this has unquestionably hurt the sell side.
Right, and why are the interest rates low? Because the banks are too big and carry too much influence, they WANT the interest rates they pay to be low, so they can speculate, and this is how Wall Street speculators are a parasite on the real economy: Low interest rates force everybody into the market where big bank Wall Street speculators can clean out their pockets, defraud them, delude them, and take their money.
I read but do not have time to address the rest of the article, but it is just a hit piece on Sanders. To claim Sander’s “doesn’t get it” is disingenuous; because Sander’s does get what people will get when he talks about Wall Street! 97% of voters will not care about the details of buy side, sell side, hedge fund managers, or anything else on Wall Street, and Sander’s, as a politician that hasn’t lost an election in 30 years, understand how to explain his positions in a populist way. He is taking off on the already-established meme of “too big to fail” that caused the bailout.
But he stresses the “billionaire class” and the greed of the “1%” and their failure to pay their fair share. That covers ALL of Wall Street. Clinton’s plan is obfuscating, the details do not matter. Stop the five points above, it is really is Wall Street greed and the greed of the wealthy that is destroying the economy for the 99%, that is buying the elections, destroying the civil servant unions, driving the wars, and yes, their salaries are unearned income that is offensive and comes out of the pockets of the rest of us. When they win they keep the money, when they lose we pay the bill.
Does breaking them up help? Yes, just like breaking up a monopoly helps, it diffuses their power and increases competition and puts power back in the hands of the consumers.
The real question, to me, is this: Is there a downside to limiting the size of the banks? I fail to see how, just like I see no downside in the more radical tactic of limiting the size of any corporation.
And there is upside: less power to influence elections. Less financial power to try to achieve or enforce a monopoly and suppress competitors. More competition for consumer customers, as there should be, resulting in cheaper and better services for everybody else.
Bernie does get it, he gets that the vast majority of us are being screwed, and given the power to fix that, would use his power to get it done. Breaking up the big banks is a start. Using post office to provide simple consumer banking at cost is another start. Forcing institutions to be either explicitly non-speculative or explicitly speculative investor services is another start, they should not be allowed to mix those functions. Banks should be forced to engage in ONLY loans that they CANNOT sell to speculative investors, period. Mortgages, consumer loans, and business loans they vetted themselves and must suffer the consequences of their own vetting decisions. The repeal of Glass Steagal is what let them evade those consequences, and caused the financial collapse. Sure, Bernie is fighting that war again: Because without G-S it can happen again! The speculators aren’t going to give up those exact same speculations, as long as it is legal they will try to make money again, over-leveraging, lying, and operating on Greed and Fraud.
On politics Bernie is right, Hillary is wrong. Bernie is neither naive or lying. The sound-bite stage of politics requires highly simplified and easily understood statements of policy understandable to people of average IQ. Consider it a metaphor; “big banks” is every giant institution on Wall Street that wields political influence and can cause a national financial problem. That is what needs to be broken up, and there is no easier way to say it. And the guy writing this article would be in another industry or back to earning about what a nurse earns, because small banks and investment firms cannot afford high priced PR firms, and do not need full time spin doctors anyway.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Hillary Clinton is still a say anything liar.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Very little of what needs to done with the banks is under the president’s purview.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 3:02 pm
SwM: The modern president has far more bargaining power than is apparent by his Constitutional Power. Even Teddy Roosevelt was “The Trust Buster”. And like Teddy, the president also has a bully pulpit, more important now than even when Teddy was in it.
So Sanders can, unilaterally, get himself on air every month, even every week. He can also unilaterally research and expose politicians that are corrupt, lying to their constituents, getting rich in office, and so forth, and provide the evidence to prove his case to the American public. Any news outlet that refuses to publish or air such missives can be banned from the White House Press briefings. In fact the President can force them to air his addresses to the nation. And Sanders wouldn’t have to be even-handed, he can focus his research and the DOJ and FBI on whomever he wants, and should do so to root out the corruption and expose self-serving behavior.
I believe there is much more power there than most people think.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 3:57 pm
“Why is it that the left always goes for the tree huggers? Never mind. Everybody wants a hero that will fit into the myth. Sanders will break up the banks and give us single payer health insurance without raising taxes. Yeah, and Trump will build a walk on the Southern border and make Mexico pay for it while deporting illegals and bad Muslims.”
Blouise,
After all these years how little attention you’ve paid to what I’m saying. Why is it do you think that I write about the mythology that drives this country? Why is it that I write about the fact that we live in an oligarchy, saved from the total disaster of totalitarianism, by dint of the egos of the oligarchs? Is is so hard to understand my position that all of what we call politics is illusion. Do you really believe that when I hear a candidate talk about their programs and their platforms, that I believe they are magically going to implement them when elected?
The Socialist Party Platform in 1920, with its standard-bearer Eugene V. Debs became FDR’s New Deal in 1932. In this country any valuable change is incremental. Bernies value, as stated by MM:
“On politics Bernie is right, Hillary is wrong. Bernie is neither naive or lying. The sound-bite stage of politics requires highly simplified and easily understood statements of policy understandable to people of average IQ. Consider it a metaphor; “big banks” is every giant institution on Wall Street that wields political influence and can cause a national financial problem.”
The problem with Hilary and the problem with Obama is that they are supremely intelligent people who actually believe in the system. Given their lives both of them have every right to believe in “the system”, but because of that, they are ignorant of the reality of the country. Bernie and Trump have been so effective thus far because their non-wonky messages resonate with the public. A public that is turned off and tired by “political speak.”
I don’t believe that any President can come into office and turn it all around. However, the two Roosevelts certainly focused enough attention to get their messages through. Let’s take the example of “single-payer” health care. Hilary’s program in the 90’s was a failure and her new program would be a failure because she assumes that we need the large Health Insurance Industry, from which she has profited. It is the log in her eye, since I don’t doubt her sincerity in wanting to provide “universal health insurance”. However, she doesn’t get it because she is “of the system”, a part of it.
I’m looking for someone, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Sherrod Brown, who sees beyond the “system” and understands the Emperor is naked. The important thing for me is not any candidates specific programs. It is their ability to see and clearly articulate what is wrong. Change is incremental and takes time. However, before change comes the message. Hilary and Barack were/are both unable to articulate the needed message, because their experiences have shown them that for them the system works. .
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 4:04 pm
“There really are no arguments beyond the simple fact that our country is the largest purveyor of violence in the world today. Does that statement ring a bell?”
GBK,
Do these pieces ring a bell with you?
https://mikespindell.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/american-empire-why-we-have-troops-around-the-world-and-its-origins/
https://mikespindell.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/the-battle-for-american-empire-a-never-ending-war/
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 4:26 pm
“As for working with congress – the fact is that in politics, goals can never be achieved is a leader does not advocate for them, does not explain how they can make peoples lives better.
Haven’t we seen enough of politician like Obama who starts by giving up half the loaf in the hope the other side will do the decent thing and compromise. We need a politician who will get out there and change some minds and lead for a change.”
BFM,
Well said. When Obama was elected he mentioned “A Team of Rivals”, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book about Lincoln’s Presidency,, where his cabinet was made up of political opponents. I read that book and frankly like most of Goodwin’s work it was political pablum. Even in his last SOTU ths week Obama talked wistfully about not being able to work with the Republicans. I accept that Obama believes that there was ever a chance that they would work with him and that indeed was a failure of his terms. You can’t make deals with people who force you to unilaterally limit your own needs before they even deign to talk to you. I think Hilary suffers from the same illusion and she of all people should know better. When she was laughed at by claiming a “vast Republican conspiracy” to get the Clintons, she was stating the reality. I’ve done a bit of negotiating in my time and I’ve learned that you must negotiate from strength and never assume the good will of the other side. American politics, as is all politics, is a battle for power.
My point in this article is that America’s financial institutions represent a strong power base that wants to dominate. Hilary, like most American politicians is beholden to that power base and so has little incentive to take it on. My guess is that she thinks she can achieve change via cajoling these oligarchs into “doing the right thing”. They’ve shown with their obscene raises that they really can’t be “cajoled” when it comes to their perquisites. The truth is that all of the leaders of the major investment banks should have done jail time for fraud, not paid their way out of fraud charges. It is very difficult though for someone to send people to jail with whom they’ve broken bread as friends.
LikeLike
January 16, 2016 at 10:01 pm
An interesting justification of Bernie over Hilary, which I think nails the point without attacking Hilary.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Populist-Path-Out-of-P-by-Siegfried-Othmer-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Gridlock_Partisan-Politics-160110-700.html
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 12:12 am
Mike,
The bottom line for me is that Sanders does not have the level of successfully accomplishing anything other than running for office. We have years and years of his experiences in office from which to judge. He isn’t a new kid on the block, like Obama was. He’s been in the Congress (representative and senator) for many, many years always talking and playing the same game but accomplishing very little. He’s good at the talking and it keeps getting him re-elected but that’s it. He says what so many want to hear but that’s all he does … says it. Why in the world would I think he is actually going to change now and accomplish anything once elected? I would have to tell myself that okay, he didn’t have enough power as a congressman to get anything done so let’s give him the Senate chair. Okay, he didn’t have enough power as a senator so let’s give him the Oval Office. Keep kicking him upstairs and maybe one day he’ll actually do something?
And then the things he says about banks, healthcare, even student loans … it all sounds great but break it down and that’s all it is … sound.
We laugh at the right with their myths about walls and illegal immigrant solutions but we have our own “daddy will save us” myths here on the left and Sanders fits the mold beautifully.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 12:17 am
Hopefully Blouise got paid up front for her shilling/trolling for Rodham. Those cheap white trash are known for not paying bills.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 12:23 am
GBK,
I read an interesting study the other day by a couple social scientists who did some research into Nam vets and the impact of their time spent in military service across future generations of their offspring and compared it to the impact on the future generations of those who didn’t serve in the military during Nam. It wasn’t pretty.
If I can find it I will cite it for you.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 12:47 am
Blouise: The bottom line for me is that Hillary is a liar, a conservative republican by nature, constantly favors the rich, intentionally circumvents the law, is a terrible campaign manager and most likely will be a terrible president, will undoubtedly perpetuate the “war forever” model we have been trapped in since 9/11. It sounds to me like you will vote for her just because she is a female and you want to see that barrier broken no matter how terrible the fallout. She totally screwed up her 2008 campaign, and according to her own staffers is doing the same thing again in this campaign. She is not fit to be president.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 1:51 am
It sounds to me like you will vote for her just because she is a female and you want to see that barrier broken no matter how terrible the fallout. – MM
You would be wrong in that assessment of my motives but I suspect it’s comforting for you to believe so.
I have told you before and I will reiterate … I want someone with real experience who can hit the ground running and she is it.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 2:06 am
t sounds to me like you will vote for her just because she is a female and you want to see that barrier broken no matter how terrible the fallout. – MM And the fallout being there is no President Trump…….
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 3:09 am
SwM,
😉
But then females can’t possibly think past gender identity let alone hold opinions not grounded in gender identity. On that premise I should have been a Sarah Palin fan or Carly Fiorina this time around. The funny thing in this is that I would feel absolutely ridiculous if I even tried to mount the argument that MM only supported Sanders because he was male.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 3:29 am
Politics always trumps sex with liberals. That was a stupid strawwoman erected by the Rodham shill. How else could Mr. Rodham have gotten so many absolution for being a sexual predator. Rodham will not be President. Feel the Bern. It’s Deja vu all over again with the incompetent Rodham shitting her pantsuit.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Doubt Franky is for the Bern in the general. I have friends and family that are for Bernie and friends and family that are for Hillary. Neither one needs to be vilified. The Bernie people who are democrats will vote for Hillary in the general and should Bernie win which I still don’t think is that likely because he certainly does not have Obama’s organization or the minority vote. The goal is to stop Trump from becoming president. That will depend largely on the Hispanic turnout. They really really dislike him and so do most people of Mideastern descent. Hillary has been vilified since the cookie baking incident in the 90’s.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 1:26 pm
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/theslice/men-who-hate-hillary-clinton
Here’s what happened the last time Hillary Clinton ran for president: she drove men wild. Well, certain men. Especially certain men on the right. You could recognize them by the flecks of foam in the corners of their mouths when the subject of her candidacy arose. And they’re already girding themselves for the next time around, because there’s something about Hillary that just gets them all worked up.
But what exactly? Despise her they do, yet they’re also strangely drawn to her, in some inexplicably intimate way. She occupies their attention. They spend a lot of time thinking about her—enumerating her character flaws, dissecting her motives, analyzing her physical shortcomings with a penetrating, clinical eye: those thick ankles and dumpy hips, the ever-changing hairdos. You’d think they were talking about their first wives. There’s the same over-invested quality, an edge of spite, some ancient wound not yet repaired. And how they love conjecturing upon her sexuality! Or lack of, heh heh. Is she frigid, is she gay? Heh heh. Yes, they have many theories about her, complete with detailed forensic analyses of her marriage, probably more detailed than their thoughts about their own.
My point is that you can tell a lot about a man by what he thinks about Hillary, maybe even everything. She’s not just another presidential candidate, she’s a sophisticated diagnostic instrument for calibrating male anxiety, which is running high. Understandably, given that the whole male-female, who-runs-the-world question is pretty much up for grabs
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 1:26 pm
SwM: It isn’t a claim females cannot possibly think past gender identity, it is a claim that gender identity is a factor. Do you think blacks cannot think beyond their racial identity? I do not think that, but 96% of the black vote went to Obama, because of racial identity, because they wanted to break a barrier. That doesn’t mean their racial identity was ALL they could think about, it means for an historic barrier it trumped all other considerations of whether Obama would be a good president or a bad one. In 2008 only 74% of blacks identified as Democrats, but 96% of blacks voted for Obama, and black turnout was 2% higher. Racial identity overrode all other considerations, including for many a lifelong family loyalty to Republicans.
Are any of us humans that different? Including me? I don’t think so; I think anybody that feels they are being systemically treated as 2nd class citizens would feel the same. The closest I can come is atheist socialist, and IMO Bernie Sanders is clearly a fellow traveler, but my oddities are in the realm of belief, not physical identity like race, gender or sexual orientation.
So I am sure I was hyperbolic, I don’t think Blouise would vote “Palin for President” on the Republican party ticket versus Bill Clinton on the Democratic party ticket. Fallout would matter.
But I do think her conviction that Hillary will “hit the ground running” and not be a disaster, and her flip-side conviction that Bernie will be an ineffective President, are both heavily influenced by her gender identity preference. They certainly do not, IMO, make any objective sense and are not informed by the facts, laws or precedents of Hillary’s losses and lies, or what a President Sanders could do. Hillary is an incompetent manager, she proved it for her failed health care plan under Bill, she proved it again for 2008, and is proving it again now for 2016. She may hit the ground running, but it definitely will not be in a direction good for this country or the 99%.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm
SwM: The Bernie people who are democrats will vote for Hillary in the general
Not me. I go to the polls every election; I will write in Bernie Sanders for President. I will never vote for Hillary, she cannot be trusted, and she proves it time and again. She makes millions of dollars in campaign speeches and defaulted on her campaign debt to hundreds of small businesses that got screwed by her 2008 campaign, while she paid her multi-millionaire incompetent advisor Mark Penn in full. She doesn’t give a shit about the middle class or anybody hauling porta-potties for a living or rigging a sound stage. She’s an asshole and she surrounds herself with assholes.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 1:44 pm
MM I don’t consider you to be a democrat based on your past support of Ron Paul.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 1:47 pm
SwM: As for your memo; it is a lie. I would vote Warren for President in a heartbeat; I contributed to her campaign for Senate. The talkingpoints memo is itself engaged in gender bias, assuming men don’t want a woman in charge. Bullshit. Men that vote reliably for Democrats and want government to provide a stronger social safety net and better services, don’t want a lying asshole in charge that is also a formerly devout Republican and war hawk surrounding herself with neo-conservatives and is personally taking millions from banks and private prison operators that oppress young blacks.
What we hate about Hillary isn’t her gender, it is her pathological lying and greed.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Polls show 20% of Bernie supporter, which includes myself, would vote for Trump instead of Rodham. There is much in the box thinking here. There is a new paradigm and the duopoly is the last to see it.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 2:13 pm
And, the guilt tripping, sexist attacks are bullshit, as stated by a fellow Bernie supporter. “Never let them see you sweat” and you Rodham shills are “sweating like a whore in church.”
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 2:22 pm
SwM: I won’t argue that most Democrats that want Bernie would vote for Hillary if they had to; but not all of them, there are a significant number that will stay home. Out of habit I go to the polls because there is more at stake in the county and state than just the Presidency, but by writing in Bernie, I would effectively be among the significant percentage of those that won’t bother to vote if Hillary is the candidate. 60% of voters do not trust Hillary.
In a poll, the word most frequently associated with Hillary is “liar”. She tops the Democrats’ “no way” list with 11%.
That will translate into reduced voting participation, and could well result in losses in the general election in purple states where a point or two actually decides the outcome.
For the record, I’m not alone!
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 2:32 pm
“That will translate into reduced voting participation, and could well result in losses in the general election in purple states where a point or two actually decides the outcome. ” Not necessarily. voters in states like Colorado with large Latino populations could very well have big turnouts. Speaking of trustworthiness why would anyone consider Trump, Cruz or Rubio to be trustworthy.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 2:39 pm
New national NBC/WSJ poll among Dem primary voters: Clinton 59% Sanders 34% O’Malley 2% If I were the dreaded pantsuit lady I would not be too worried. Looks like all those Bernie supporters that could possibly vote for Trump are voting for Trump in the republican primary.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 3:39 pm
SwM: why would anyone consider Trump, Cruz or Rubio to be trustworthy.
That statement is just demonstrating tunnel vision and an inability to understand people. People obviously do consider them trustworthy, your inability to comprehend that is an inability to comprehend humans that aren’t exactly like you, and that is why you don’t understand why Bernie is better than Hillary. You cannot be objective about it.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Elizabeth Warren in my estimation would be my ideal choice for President. My differences with Hilary are based solely on the fact that she is a “Third Way Democrat” and while that position is preferable to anyone in the Republican Party, it will never address the issues that are turning this country into a full-blown Authoritarian Empire, based on greed and bigotry.
I have more to say but my internet service is out due to the Florida weather.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 3:57 pm
SwM: As of last week, Quinnipiac puts Sanders ahead of Clinton in Iowa for likely Democratic voters 49% to 41%. Nationally, CBS and The NYT put Hillary ahead of Bernie 48% to 41%.
More importantly, she has once again (like 2008) lost a gigantic polling lead among Democratic voters to a virtual unknown, and turned it into a single digit lead before the first vote could be cast, at least in some very respected polls. Hillary can be unconcerned all the way to her concession speech and I hope she is, Bernie would be far better for the country than another four years of corrupt rule for the rich. He will have veto power, appointment power including over the DOJ, he will have pardon power, he will be Commander in Chief and Executive in Chief over all civil servants and can unilaterally set policy there throughout, he will have executive order power the Republicans have so kindly made incredibly powerful, he will have the bully pulpit and extreme influence with the media, he will have enormous influence on foreign policy. Bernie can help the country in myriad ways even if Congress is opposed to him. And as far as nominating SCOTUS appointments, I trust Bernie miles more than I’d trust Clinton.
Polls here.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 4:06 pm
As of Jan-4 to Jan-8, by IBD/TIPP, Hillary 43%, Bernie 39%, nationally.
Here, in Iowa it is Bernie over Hillary 49/44, and in New Hampshire Bernie over Hillary 53/39.
Barring something explosive, Hillary is going to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and Bernie will get all the headlines, in print, radio, TV and Internet. My hopes are up that Hillary will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 4:22 pm
“The bottom line for me is that Sanders does not have the level of successfully accomplishing anything other than running for office.”
Blouise,
This will have to be where we differ. Hilary undoubtedly has more experience, but I’m not looking for a President with experience. I believe that things are so terribly wrong in this country that nothing short of a “national uprising” will even permit the possibility of change. There is no one that currently exists on the horizon that can change the downward spiral of this country into a militaristic oligarchy seeking empire, simply by being elected President. Things are too far gone for that. In my estimation we need someone who is willing to tell the truth about what this country has become, not an efficient manager with some compassion for the downtrodden.
Yes I’ll vote for Hilary if need be, but that vote will only be as a holding action to stave off the further collapse of the country into a Christian Libertarian nightmare, with police state tendencies that would make the Soviets seem like ACLU members. I do believe things are that bad. Hilary is both unwilling and incapable of using the Presidency to mobilize the people of America against the corporate takeover of the country.
Bernie has kept on with a clear message about how unfairly this American System treats 99% of its citizens. His success is based on the fact that it resonates with them and gives voice and direction to people who up until now felt an extreme anger towards what was happening politically, but were unable to focus exactly on where that anger should be directed.
Donald Trump is succeeding in just the same way since he has given voice to the reality that the curse of the Obama Administration for too many Americans was the color of his skin and nothing else.
Sanders and Trump are tapping into a potentially powerful force in this country and that is the people’s rejection of the way things are done. My belief is that those who find Trump’s bigotry an attractive focus of their anger represent about a quarter of the population. On the other hand, despite all the odds against it, when it comes to the issues I think about 60% of our people are in favor of what Bernie is proposing. I do believe that if Bernie get the nomination that he will have larger coattails than Hilary. This is because Hilary’s message is just a milder version of the Corporate Democrat take on things. She is part and parcel of “The Third Way”, which is basically a right of center position that says “let’s share a little more of the crumbs with the peasants, but keep our wealth intact”
.
My hope is that Bernie will awaken people out of the “American Dream” and into the American reality. Is that a longshot? Absolutely. However, that “awakening” is the only chance we have before the Fascist tide that is overtaking us.
Sadly, there is too much that I agree with in this Chris Hedges column. Hedges maintains a very pessimistic view of the future. I refuse to let myself turn to despair about the future, but given the evidence it is a constant battle to keep my spirits up.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Great-Forgetting-by-Chris-Hedges-Artists_Corporations_Great-Power-Game_Intellectuals-160111-688.html
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 4:49 pm
From Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton’s Administration:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robert-reich-six-responses-bernie-skeptics
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 4:51 pm
Hedges said it better than I could: Presidential candidate Donald Trump may be boorish, narcissistic, stupid, racist and elitist, but he does not have Hillary Clinton’s carefully honed and chilling amoral artifice. It was she, and an ethically bankrupt liberal establishment, that created the fertile ground for Trump by fleecing the citizens on behalf of corporations and imposing the neoliberal project.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 5:05 pm
On Bernie’s Socialism: http://www.salon.com/2016/01/16/bernie_sanders_is_no_socialist_socialism_is_his_brand_but_hes_a_democrat_in_every_way_but_name/
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Mike: My “socialism” is also a milder form of capitalism, corresponding to the Nordic Model, as exemplified by Norway.
They use “aggressive progressive” taxation to provide life-critical products and services. The state does own hospitals, the equipment, and employs medical professionals, but the employees salaries, up to and including doctors, can be determined by market rates. The state doesn’t own everything; but it does own much of what our country owns: infrastructure elements. Even “state housing” is just paying a certain amount of market-determined rent in existing commercial for-profit apartment buildings (for good and obvious reasons they avoided government built-and-operated “poor” housing.)
Norway doesn’t even prevent private for-profit hospitals and medical care; in fact they exist there. They have to compete with a pretty good level of free care, but there are people with money that want a private room, personal doctor on call or care at home. Norway doesn’t prevent citizens from becoming rich, and they have their own 1% in a population of 5M.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 10:09 pm
Here is a fact that DNC and Rodham people know. The more people see and hear that shrill Rodham, the less they like her. So, unless you are part of the Rodhamites, you here, enamored with Rodham, would understand this well known fact. Why the fuck do you think they have debates on when no one is watching? She’s a proven loser.
LikeLike
January 17, 2016 at 10:11 pm
If you feminists here wanted a female President you should have shitcanned Rodham and put Warren on the ticket. People tend to like her. Even Rodham’s family hate her.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 1:05 am
“GBK, Do these pieces ring a bell with you?” — Mike S.
Of course they do.
But why do you perpetually think that your writings are the first I’ve heard/read of issues of empire? And why do you always think my comments are directed at you?
You have issues with my participation, and always have. That’s ok with me, I don’t mind.
But you should understand that my comments are rarely directed to you, and that when they are they are specifically addressed to you — like this comment is.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 1:27 am
But I do think her conviction that Hillary will “hit the ground running” and not be a disaster, and her flip-side conviction that Bernie will be an ineffective President, are both heavily influenced by her gender identity preference. – MM
Bollocks.
Check the history. Sanders has accomplished next to nothing in spite of all the decades he’s served. He talks a good game but can’t get anything passed. It’s all there on the record, literally dozens and dozens of bills that never made it out of committed over dozen and dozen of years. I don’t know why he couldn’t lead but lead he could not. What he can do, and do well, is campaign.
What SwM wrote about his chances in the general is another reason I won’t support him in the primary but that’s secondary.
But do carry on for you have invested heavily in the gender identity bit … “Randy lay there like a slug! It was his only defense!”
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 2:50 am
Mike – forgive me – but it is time that you learned how to spell her name. There are two Ls in Hillary.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 4:25 am
“And why do you always think my comments are directed at you?
You have issues with my participation, and always have. That’s ok with me, I don’t mind.
GBK,
Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate, if so I would venture to say that we are both at fault. Sometimes in the broadness of your statements, many which I agree with, I get the feeling that you are globally critical of the comments being made and so perhaps that makes me defensive. As for the fact that I have an issue with your participation I know you are not only wrong, but are being somewhat defensive yourself. I’m grateful for your participation here, as I am with everyone else who also commented on my stuff at Jonathan’s and at Gene’s place. I’ve always found you to have very interesting things to say and a unique viewpoint. However, you are a very prickly person in my experience and sometimes that causes misunderstanding.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 4:26 am
DamnedPedant,
I always thought it was Hillary who didn’t know how to spell her name…….who knew?
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 4:30 am
DamnedPedant,
Can you imagine how embarrassed I am at my misspelling. It’s mistakes like that, that show me I can never take myself too seriously..
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 4:54 am
“However, you are a very prickly person in my experience and sometimes that causes misunderstanding.” — Mike S.
Thanks for clearing that up, Mike.
I don’t require your gratitude, nor your agreement. All I want is for you to stop thinking every comment I make is directed at you while responding with links to prior postings.
You might find me less “prickly” if if you could accomplish such a thing.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 5:06 am
Blouise: As I said, he doesn’t have to pass a thing to be a good President, he can get shit done unilaterally. In fact, one of the things he would get done is not letting Hillary get anything done, because anything SHE gets done is going to cost the 99% ever more. She’s a liar, she would not be in it to serve anybody but herself and her ego.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 8:57 am
As I said, he doesn’t have to pass a thing to be a good President, he can get shit done unilaterally – MM
That’s the difference between you and me. In my opinion the President serves all the nation so he/she needs to think and act multilaterally. Since your guy has a proven record of not being able to accomplish anything he promises I guess unilateral “my way or the highway” is your only option with him in the Oval. Why ever in the world would you expect me to support a throwback to Thus Saith the King? That’s Trumpism.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 8:59 am
I always thought it was Hillary who didn’t know how to spell her name…….who knew? – Mike
LOL. You’re a good sport, Mike.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Blouise: I expect people to support what is fair and helpful or generous, and to reject what is evil and harmful and hateful, regardless of the numbers on either side. Yes, I know, I am usually disappointed.
If Sanders uses the power of pardon to unilaterally release tens of thousands of non-violent drug offenders, that is morally right, and an act of courage if using his constitutionally granted power to defy Congress and the corporations that control them.
And that would offend you if Sanders used the legally granted power of his office to salvage what is left of these thousands of lives wasted and tortured in a war on drugs begun by tobacco and alcohol corporations bribing politicians (successfully) to make their marijuana competition illegal?
It is the Constitution that grants the President unilateral powers and unilateral command over both armed forces and civil servants, along with some accepted traditions going back to the founding fathers.
Many have abused those powers, I know, and should have been impeached for it as a high misdemeanor. But now you are saying just using those powers offends you, even if they are used as intended in the service of good, of justice, of fairness, as a corrective for the ills of the system?
This isn’t an instance of an end justifying a means, it is an instance of using what you own and what the law has (thus far) agreed you have the right to use in order to achieve justice and fairness, to relieve unearned misery and undo corruption in the name of greed. And it is the only route to undoing those evils when the majority of the House and Senate are corrupt and/or thoroughly dedicated and enthralled by the wealthiest people in the world, to the point of having a majority unassailable by vote or political bargain. Hillary is one of them, and in office she won’t do a damn thing that puts any kind of serious dent in their income or their march to world domination.
If you think using such legally granted powers for any reason should be prohibited, then you have taken a seat in the same room as the evangelicals and Ayn Rand acolytes and cow-liphates that want to dissolve the government and start over from a blank page. The unilateral powers I am talking about have been used by dozens of POTUS and are part of the fabric of our country. Were I President, I would not deploy them judiciously, but as liberally as possible, as quickly as possible, to effect as much positive change as possible before they were taken away from me.
Looking at the next four years; a Sander’s presidency that does nothing is better than a Clinton presidency that perpetuates corruption and advances the erosion of fairness, justice, and civil rights in this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 18, 2016 at 5:24 pm
“LOL. You’re a good sport, Mike.”
Blouise,
What’s a person to do? It really is an embarrassment that I did an article on Hillary, where I had quotes about her with the right spelling of her name, yet I misspelled through the entire piece. One of the advantages of being the editor is that I can go back and correct my mistakes, which I’ve done. Yet I want to make sure that people understand that a mistake was made by me.
BTW, I assume you watched the debate last night, which was such a contrast to those other people. You’ll note though that Bernie’s line of attack directly followed the argument of my piece. Of course that was not due to my perspicacity, but the fact that his campaign’s anti-Hillary PR is in attack mode on that issue and I picked up the results being written about.
Regarding the debate I thought Lester Holt did a great job. As for Andrea Mitchell, I find her impossible to trust given who her husband is. Chuck Todd continues to frame hings in terms of conflict, which is the kind of faux “newsman” he is. Did you know he wrote an anti-Obama book?:
“He is the author of “The Stranger: Barack Obama in the White House.” Published in 2014, the Jersey Nightly Journal described the book as “improperly sourced and deeply uninformed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Todd
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 7:55 pm
MM,
You are back pedaling.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 8:18 pm
Mike,
I don’t watch the debates. I was President of the League of Women Voters and as such organized many debates. We used to run national debates but the ridiculous demands of the candidates and the comprising media made fair and honest debating impossible. Here is a quote from our press release in 1988:
[“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter,” League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.
“It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions,” Neuman said. “The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”
Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on
September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns’ agreement was negotiated “behind closed doors” and vas presented to the League as “a done deal,” she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.
Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called “outrageous” the campaigns’ demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues. …]
(The League continues to offer voting info through Vote411.org)
After years of experience I find the present debate format almost laughable and a gigantic waste of time. Winning or losing is not the objective of a debate in politics, at least not for the League. Education is the objective so that the voter can make an informed decision based on issues. Hyperbolic preening is just not my cup of tea.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm
Further …. Many, if not all, candidates will tell you what they think you want to hear. The trick is to look beyond what they tell you to their actual plan for implementation and their history of accomplishment in implementing. Donald Trump says a great many things certain people want to hear but what is his actual plan for accomplishing those things and what is his history in accomplishing political goals on said issues? Once one knows the answer to those questions one is in a position to make informed decisions in casting one’s vote. A good debate format takes what the candidate has said and subjects that to tough questions geared to illuminating just exactly how the candidate intends to accomplish that which he/she has promised. It’s an examination, not a contest.
For instance: Donald Trump wants to build a wall on the Southern border and have Mexico pay for it. You want to build a wall there too so Trump, the candidate, has said something you want to hear. Great, now you need to examine his intentions with questions. He’s had experience in building large structures so he should easily be able to answer specific questions about agencies to be used, bidding processes, State and Federal governments coordination etc. You really don’t want to pay for the wall with your tax dollars so you really like his plan to get Mexico to pay for it. Thus you ask specific questions geared to getting answers as to how he intends to get someone who isn’t his client to pay for the project and what experience he has in doing so. Based on his answers to those specific questions you can determine whether or not Trump is full of shit and only telling you something he knows you want to hear or whether he has a solid plan that will get your wall built free of charge. Now you are an informed voter. That doesn’t mean your guy will win the general election for a free wall may not be what the majority of your fellow voters want but your vote was based on knowledge, not just emotion. You voted on the issue.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 1:39 am
“As for Andrea Mitchell, I find her impossible to trust given who her husband is. Chuck Todd continues to frame hings in terms of conflict”
Guess it’s just that old “liberal media bias”.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 3:11 am
“I don’t watch the debates.” Perfect. Blouise is the type that critiques movies she hasn’t seen and books she hasn’t read. Of course Blouise need not watch the debates, Rodham tells her and all the Rodham Heads what to think and say. Again, I hope you’re at least smart enough to have gotten paid up front. But, I’m guessing not. You are smug, not smart. Just like Rodham.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 4:48 am
blouise was right – you are a very good sport. And it was certainly not my intent to embarrass. Very sorry if that was the result.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 5:04 am
IP,
Thanks, but I’ve long learned that embarrassment dissipates with honesty. I make mistakes and if I’m not told of them to spare my feelings, well then I can’t learn from them..
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 11:06 am
Blouise: You are back pedaling.
I don’t think so. FWIW, when I was ten I rode a bike while sitting backwards on it; which felt like back-pedaling. I have two witnesses to that event: First My younger sister, by ten months, that refused to believe it could be done. So after just two false starts and falls, I figured it out, and was on my wobbly backward ride. My other witness is the woman that hit me with a car. In my defense, riding backward on a bike you cannot see where you are going, I had not practiced or considered braking, and your sister yelling “car!” is not an aid to clear thinking. A few thoughts going through my head while flying through the air.
Fortunately the woman was coming to a stop at the intersection, so it wasn’t so bad. Nothing broken but parts of my bike.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 11:38 pm
Interesting discussion.
I think Hillary is probably guilty of something. Whether it be due to the emails or her conflicts of interest between the Clinton Global initiative and her work as secretary of state. She is like pigpen from the Charlie Brown comics strip; a cloud of dirt follows her almost every move.
I tend to agree that she would probably not rein in business as usual on Wall Street. Although I don’t see Bernie Sanders doing any better. But I think his failure would be one of ineffectiveness in general rather than malfeasance.
I do understand that there are some people who did/do not like Barack Obama because he was black and there are probably some people who do not like Hillary because she is a woman. But I think most people (at least that is my personal observation) on the conservative side of the spectrum are more interested in ideas than the race and sex of a particular politician.
I don’t think Bernie or Hillary would be good as president but then I don’t much care for Donald Trump but I would, although it is not a metaphysical certainty, hold my nose and vote for him if he is the nominee. Personally I think that the 3 are probably very similar in their basic political ideology. So I think that Democrats would not necessarily be disappointed with a Trump presidency although I think conservatives probably would be.
In any event we basically have the same crappy choices for president as we have had for most of my lifetime.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 1:28 am
Rodham’s server had documents above Top Secret. The type documents that have the names of CIA assets and sources. Snowden did not have access to this highest classification documents. And, we know her server was compromised by foreign intelligence agencies. What a stupid, incompetent, liar.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 1:46 am
Nothing broken but parts of my bike. – MM
What a picture in my mind!
I am not certain that any of my brothers would have put such trust in me.
I loved bike riding but have a problem with balance so suffered many falls. It was the same with roller skating and ice skating. But living on a small lake meant lots of ice skating during the winter months. After the inevitable early season injuries, I contented myself with minding the fire and making gallons of hot chocolate. I always went to the ski lodge with my friends but never put on a pair. God only knows what sort of injuries I would have sustained had snowmobiling been popular in the 50’s and 60’s. I even ran into a tree once on my sled.
I became quite a spectator enthusiast and even went on tours with my friend who was winning ski championships out west. I gotta tell you, Aspen Colorado in the early 60’s was … fun.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 1:53 am
So I think that Democrats would not necessarily be disappointed with a Trump presidency although I think conservatives probably would be. – bron98
Yep … I suspect you’re right about both
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 5:48 am
Boy! Did you see Palin’s ‘endorsement’ of Trump? I guess that’s what he’ll call it. It sounded like the ore-commitment rant before being admitted to the looney bin.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 5:51 am
what the hell is an ore-commitment? Pre commitment is what was intended. No matter. The speech was a doozy.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 1:12 pm
The speech was a doozy. – InsufferablePedant,
It just keeps getting better and better.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 3:26 pm
Bron: … a cloud of dirt follows her almost every move. Funny. I agree. The only thing I think voters could trust Hillary to do is probably fight for gender equality; probably more aggressively than Bernie but then I don’t think Bernie would be at all negligent in that battle.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 3:40 pm
I remember the 2008 campaign and all of the hype about Sarah Palin being the next conservative hope and then I heard her to debate Joe Biden and I was very disappointed because she was nothing but a populist. She also wasn’t much on economics. So it doesn’t surprise me that she is endorsing Trump.
And then Ted Cruz appeared to be the conservative hopeful but more and more it seems that he is more like the conservative Christians that I used to hang around with in my younger days. I came to dislike those people because of their willingness to impose their views on other people. I want to be clear though, there are many Christian conservatives who do not wish to impose their views on others and maybe Ted Cruz is actually one of them and really does believe in the Constitution.
I’m still not clear if Cruz is a budding theocrat or just pandering for the votes of the Christians who would definitely impose some sort of biblical morality on the rest of us. I don’t like abortion, I’m not into porn, I don’t drink very much, I don’t smoke, and I don’t do drugs. But God dammit if you want to do it I’m all for it. It ain’t any of my business and it sure as hell isn’t the governments business.
I think Palin is endorsing Trump just a poke a stick into the eye of the Republican establishment. Payback is a bitch.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 4:14 pm
“I’m still not clear if Cruz is a budding theocrat or just pandering for the votes of the Christians who would definitely impose some sort of biblical morality on the rest of us.”
Bron,
He is definitely a Theocrat. Google his father if you want to know where Cruz is coming from. Knowing you as I do, the only real hope for you in that nomination race was Rand Paul and he seems to have been kicked to the sidelines. Also to some extent Kasich might appeal to you. Rubio, is no real theocrat, but he bows whichever way the wind blows and that goes for Jeb as well. Ben Carson is a 7th Day Adventist who believes Armageddon is coming. Maybe you should just sit this election out? 🙂
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm
IP,
I put the “endorsement” up in a new post today along with commentary on Trump being endorsed by John Wayne.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 4:47 pm
Bron: But God dammit if you want to do it I’m all for it. It ain’t any of my business and it sure as hell isn’t the governments business.
Ha. You have New York Values! On Tonightly, Larry Wilmore’s show, they were talking about Cruz’s code-worded “New York Values”. He asked New Yorkers what real New York City values were; the response was, “Number one mind your own business. And number two the sidewalk is for walking so don’t stand there gawking at a skyscraper, get the fuck out of my way, I got shit to do.”
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 4:55 pm
MM,
Some stuff to smoke.
The Gallup poll question (Gallup has asked the same question [using slightly different response choices] in 14 different polls dating back to 1958.) to which so many pundits are referring reads:
“Between now and the 2016 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates–their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be (fill in this blank with the following), would you vote for that person?”
A woman … 8% would not
Muslim … 38% would not
An atheist … 40% would not
A socialist … 50% would not. (Gallup does not supply a meaning for socialism … just the word and you can bet Republicans are going to use that word a lot if Sanders is the Democratic nominee and they’ll couple it all the time with references to his honeymoon trip to Russia in 1988)
And MM, here is a study that rather fits into the charge you tossed at me of “gender identity”:
… the “daughter effect” on Clinton support is consistent for all kinds of parents. Mothers and fathers alike, regardless of how many children they have, are more likely to support Hillary Clinton in the primaries if they have a daughter. Additional analyses also uncovered a statistically significant effect of daughters on support for Clinton among white, African American, and Hispanic parents. (CHILD REARING AS A MECHANISM FOR SOCIAL CHANGE. The Relationship of Child Gender to Parents’ Commitment to Gender Equity
REBECCA L. WARNER and BRENT S. STEEL … Oregon State University)
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 5:12 pm
(And yes, my silent friend, I sometimes do this just to get ol’ SFB’s Rockin’ and Rollin’) 😎
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Blouise,
The fact that she would be a female President is one of the reasons I would vote for Hillary. Then again it was a big factor in my voting for Obama, who has been a disappointment in my estimation. My real candidate would have been Elizabeth Warren who I was thrilled with when I first saw her on Bill Maher’s show. I think to her credit Warren isn’t interested in the Presidency because she might be to sane a person to want to live a life like that.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Bron,
BTW regarding your comment above here is the problem with Marco Rubio: http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/exposing-marco-rubios-bizarre-religious-faith-and-his-plan-use-it-guide-white
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 6:13 pm
With sadness here is an article by the brilliant historian Rick Perlstein about the missed opportunities of Barack Obama’s administration: http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/where_has_this_barack_obama_been_if_obama_had_governed_like_this_in_2009_hed_be_a_transformational_historic_president/
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 6:15 pm
Mike,
Sherrod Brown endorsed Hillary Clinton back in October/November. He knows both Hillary and Bernie and has aligned with Bernie and Warren on several issues but feels Clinton will have real impact in the Oval. It was something of a surprise as people expected him to go with Sanders. His endorsement was strongly worded.
But then he is married to a very strong woman, Connie Schultz, and he has three adult daughters … no sons. 😉
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 6:23 pm
Blouise: They failed to ask about a committed Christian Evangelist, an anti-abortionist, an obviously racist candidate, etc. As you know, I reject the “lesser of two evils” argument is childish and stupid, but the fact is it does prevail: Which is the lesser of two evils for Hispanics: A socialist as explained by Bernie Sanders, or a racist Donald Trump? How about for Blacks? How about for Muslims? How about for the clear majority of American voters (46/41) that agree more with Democratic principles than Republican principles?
This election will come down to turnout for the Democratic party. Hillary is not inspiring, and is making the same anti-inspiration mistakes as she did in 2008. She is inauthentic, she bogs down in details nobody cares about, 60% of people say she is neither truthful or trustworthy, and she is making proposals that sound like tokens instead of change, like an additional 4% tax on the wealthy. Bernie is offering reform. The stigma of his self-imposed “socialist” label will evaporate, because when he explains it people embrace it, as have about 70% of young voting age adults.
Bernie as candidate would win this election. Hillary, maybe not, because (as I have recently read) since we’ve been keeping polls of sentiments toward candidates, America has not elected a candidate with unfavorable polls as bad as hers are. Every bit of Bernie’s rise comes out of Hillary’s pocket, he was 50 points behind in Iowa, and is now even and rising. There are signs her advantage in South Carolina among blacks is eroding too, and may well collapse if Bernie wins both Iowa and New Hampshire; he will have 25 days to campaign in SC.
I’m rooting for Bernie to sweep Iowa and NH. That would wake up SC, and as I have heard multiple black leaders say on Wilmore’s show, Bernie is clearly the better choice for blacks. If Bernie can prove he is a credible candidate, perhaps SC voters will change their mind in the course of three weeks.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 7:14 pm
Blouise,
I have two very independent daughters, a granddaughter and a wife whose always been her own person. I love women, but like everything else it depends on which particular women I would want to be President based on her politics. As I said Elizabeth Warren would be my first choice even now. However, it is Hillary’s embrace of DLC politics and the antics of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as Party Chairperson, that puts me off. I’m not just interested in the Presidency, I’m also interested in the Congress.
This from October 2015: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-ready-to-dump-debbie-dictator.html
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/07/another-exceptional-candidate-debbie.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/17/debbie_wasserman_schultz_says_debate_schedule_maximizes_exposure.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 7:26 pm
Gender equality has to be a two-way street: Gender is not a valid reason to elect one person over another, all that matters is policy and behavior, and Hillary’s behavior is reprehensible. I know, I reprehend it!
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 7:50 pm
MM.
In 2012 Santorum took Iowa and Gingrich took SC. Bernie has to win Iowa to stay in the race and he has to take it big. NH is his just as it was Romney’s in 2012. Clinton can lose all three and still be strong just as Romney lost Iowa, SC, then Colorado, and Minnesota, then Georgia and ND, then Oklahoma, Tenn and Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana but after that … well you know who won the nomination because it sure wasn’t your guy, Ron Paul.
And, I am going to give you something else to chew on. Sanders winning Iowa is a good thing for Clinton. People want to see her work for it.
Okay, you can now resume the Hillary bashing. I’ll meet you on the next street corner.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 8:02 pm
Mike,
I remember when nobody liked Terry McAuliffe or Howard Dean either.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 8:11 pm
They failed to ask about a committed Christian Evangelist – MM
I think Evangelist might have been on the list, I know Jew and Catholic were.
As I noted, this is a question they’ve asked 14 times since 1958 and they are tracking the changes in attitude. More than likely bigot and abortionist would be placed in a categorically different question.
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 8:17 pm
MM,
As an atheist and a socialist you’ve lost 90% of the country so probably a good thing you aren’t running. If you were female you’d only have 2% left.
(Yes, yes, I know … it was a joke, Slarti)
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 9:08 pm
Blouise: I’d look at it differently. The chance of a vote for me as an atheist is 60%, the chance of a vote for me as a socialist is 50%, presuming those are independent judgments and we can just multiply 0.6 x 0.5 == 0.30, so my chances as an atheist socialist are about 30%. They probably are not too independent however, so the truth likely lies in the 30% to 50% range.
On the other hand, as I have mentioned before, often people’s minds are made up in a few seconds of exposure to a candidate; and on those grounds I may appeal in a weird way to some people no matter what I say!
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 9:14 pm
I think Rubio has good rhetoric but not much else. And I believe like Mike believes that he would be the establishments lapdog. He hasn’t done much of anything in his life except run for political office.
He sounds good but there is not much substance there as far as I can tell. Something always bothered me about him.
I think he really is an empty suit.
I don’t know why the American people keep voting for shit heads. I wish someone would explain it to me.
Anyone on this blog or on FFS, while I don’t agree with them politically, I believe they could do a better job than most of the people currently holding office. So why is it when there are so many competent people who could run we get these nincompoops and empty suits? And when someone with some kind of substance does run well they get shit canned with 15% of the vote.
Are people so shallow that they fall in line behind the pretty face, the red tie and the hollow rhetoric?
LikeLike
January 20, 2016 at 11:06 pm
Bron: I think the problem with people is that they are trusting, and for most of them, their experience with liars and con-men are either very limited or they don’t even realize they have been having such experiences.
Here is why that is a problem: It is easier to succeed as a politician by lying to people, misleading them, and creating doubt, fear or disgust in their mind vis a vis lying about their opponents. Just look at Hillary lying her ass off about Bernie Sanders in their last debate. Just look at Chris Christie, or Donald Trump.
This makes it difficult for a person with morals to compete; their amoral opponents will do or say anything to win and make shit up about them, while their own rhetoric is limited by their conscience to the truth. A person without conscience may even try to frame them or get others to bear false witness against them (see the neutralization of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks).
People believe that shit, and it marginalizes people with substance. Politics is the perfect playground for sociopaths; the payoff is a job with virtually no duties, fame, respect, and at the higher levels unlimited opportunity to take bribes in all their various forms. People with a conscience could not partake of many of those perks, making the job less attractive, are not as egomaniacal as many candidates, and don’t want to subject themselves to the lies and character assassination that will undoubtedly ensue if they compete for a seat against one of these specimens.
The political election process is a filter that screens out responsible people with good ideas that would actually like to serve the people. That attitude handcuffs them and leaves them at a real competitive disadvantage against the worst kind of people on the planet. Some good people may still succeed, but the majority of the time, it is the do-and-say-anything with complete disregard for the truth or the law candidate that wins.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 6:13 am
Just finished watching The History of the Eagles on Netflix. Excellent
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm
Blouise,
Saw that last week, it was excellent. Felt bad about the death of Glenn Frey.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Excellent article: Will Labeling Bernie Sanders a Socialist Stop His Rise?
Excerpt: … Democratic primary voters aren’t worried [about the socialist label]. In the same 2015 Gallup poll, 59 percent of Democrats said they’d vote for a socialist. Or just look at key Democratic demographics like young people and African Americans. Broken down by age, 69 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds agreed, as did 50 percent of those from 30-49. Gallup didn’t break those numbers out by race, but a Pew survey in 2011 found that more than half of black Americans had a positive view of socialism.
Excerpt: Some honest-to-God socialists have lambasted Sanders for offering what they see as socialism-lite; he’s really more of a European-style social democrat, they argue.
Also; there is strong evidence that Sanders is changing the acceptance of socialism in a positive direction; people like his proposals and are accepting his definition of “Democratic socialism” as a robust social safety net (universal health care, etc), a level playing field (free college), and the rule of law with the risk of prison sentences against police and Wall Street fraud and law breaking.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 6:04 pm
See Clinton’s up in Iowa in today’s polls. I really can’t see Bernie winning more than 8 small states. He will get wiped out in Florida and Texas which have huge amounts of delegates. Personally I like him though. Just can’t see him out on the golf course with his contributors which is a good thing. I don’t think Hillary golfs, either. Looks like as we move closer to the primaries Clinton and Trump are the probable candidates.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-3556.html
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 6:34 pm
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-big-reason-to-be-less-skeptical-of-trump/ The Republican Party is more concerned with stopping Cruz than it is concerned with stopping Trump.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 7:14 pm
This article expresses my qualms with Hillary and her ability not only get elected, but bring out the voter turnout to at least take back the Senate. The attack on Bernie by Sen. Claire McCaskill, is an example of political stupidity coming from a Senator who is only a nominal Democrat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/hillary-and-bernie-the-cr_b_9038508.html
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 7:21 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-republican-establishment.html“The Republicans who dominate the right-leaning magazines, journals and political groups can live with Mr. Cruz, believing that his nomination would leave the party divided, but manageably so, extending a longstanding intramural debate over pragmatism versus purity that has been waged since the days of Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. They say Mr. Trump, on the other hand, poses the most serious peril to the conservative movement since the 1950s-era John Birch Society.”
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 7:47 pm
MM,
RE the word socialism (these polls do not define the word as they are only testing reaction to the word)
The polls I’ve read all show the least negative response comes from the the 18-29 year old subset. In fact, one PEW poll shows that group slightly favoring socialism over capitalism. One theory offered is the relatively poor economy … “the poor economy has had any number of effects on young adults — keeping them at home with their parents, making it difficult for them to get jobs, and likely depressing their earning potential for years to come — that might have dampened enthusiasm for the free market among this crowd.”
That might help explain Sanders appeal for the younger set. He’s telling them what they want to hear regarding their future under his leadership. The problem is that the leadership he promises is something he’s proven he can’t deliver. That is one of the main differences between him and the “Yes we can” Obama from eight years ago. Obama had no real record of success or failure so “Hope” was plausible. Sander’s record is firmly established. Even Dennis had a better record of success … well, until he hooked up with Ron Paul. That hook up displeased his liberal constituency to the point that they went with Kaptur.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 7:51 pm
The attack on Bernie by Sen. Claire McCaskill – Mike
I can’t stand that woman
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 8:47 pm
SwM: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
Among Likely Voters last week, Hillary 50, Bernie 41. Even if Bernie ties in Iowa (and I think he will win), when Bernie wins in NH, I think Hillary’s “inevitable” crown falls off. Again.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:00 pm
MM Still say she goes on to win South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida. Bernie is going to have to pick up some black and latino support to have a chance. Has not happened yet. These small white states with more than a few socialists are where he does well. He is running out of time to change that dynamic and diversify his support.. Black voters largely left Hillary to go with Obama. No reason to that happening for Bernie.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:08 pm
Blouise: The problem is that the leadership he promises is something he’s proven he can’t deliver.
That is patently false, and something you cannot possibly know: Bernie has never been President or had anything remotely like the power of being President, or the national recognition of being President. Nothing has been “proven.” The power of being a House Member is negligible, the power of being a Senator is negligible. And as it turns out, Yes We Can turned into Hmmm, I Guess We Can’t. Why? Because Obama refused to use the power of the Presidency, and as Mike said, was exactly like a moderate Conservative of old. He tried your route (and Hillary’s route) of compromise, talk, and working with Wall Street and corporations, and it failed completely on every economic front, including health care. That is why he broke his promises of White House transparency, and broke his promises of protecting whistle blowers, and broke his on-camera campaign promise of a public option, and broke his promise of closing Guantanamo, and on and on. He was cowed by the corporate money. Hillary would do no different, she’s a desk hawk, and we would be waging war and killing kids for another 8 years at least, with her at the helm or a Republican in the WH when she loses her second term. Not that the kids will miss much when the planet is fried by global warming and the resultant displacements and disruption produce Great Depression style economics world wide. And not that Hillary will mind, she’ll take her speaking fees and buy a nice retirement ranch house on 500 acres in the newly green North Alaska.
Hillary, in her first campaign and in this one, is proving that she is an awful leader. Both her former and present campaign staff have said so. But that isn’t terribly important, because we don’t need leadership. We need heroics. We need unilateral action against an entrenched resistance that does the bidding of the wealthy. Hillary is incapable of that, too, but Bernie is capable, and smart enough to know exactly how to do it, and selfless enough to not care if he has a second term if he can break the back of moneyed politics in his first term.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:15 pm
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/poll-sanders-gains-stop-short-of-minorities.html# “Monmouth University has a new national poll out that casts some fascinating, if very preliminary, light on this subject. Compared to its poll in December, Monmouth shows Sanders making pretty big gains: Clinton was up 59-to-26 last month, and only 52-to-37 now. But among black and Latino voters, Clinton has actually expanded her lead from 61-to-18 to 71-to-21. In other words, a legitimate “Sanders surge” nationally has coincided with a deterioration of his standing with the voters he will most need for a breakthrough after the first two contests of the primary season.”
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:25 pm
… because we don’t need leadership. We need heroics. – MM
Oh please, you need to remember I am not a 22 year old neophyte. Heroics without leadership is nothing more than an Echo … a voice without a body vainly searching for Narcissus.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:34 pm
MM,
Just released CNN poll:
However, among those who say they participated in the 2012 Republican caucuses, the race is a virtual dead heat, with Cruz at 30% and Trump at 28%. And among those Democrats who say they turned out in 2008, Clinton holds a 55% to 38% lead over Sanders.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:37 pm
The above refers to Iowa
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:40 pm
SwM: MM Still say she goes on to win South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida.
No I don’t. All I have said is he needs to win 2 of 4 (Iowa, NH, SC, NV) to be a viable candidate after those four. I think (and hope) he can win the first two. I think he can do credibly in NV, and because of that, credibly in SC too, even if he doesn’t sweep all four. I think it has to be a 50/50 contest on March 1st or Bernie is in trouble; perhaps irrecoverable trouble. But, if he is down but still a viable candidate (say over 40%) when all the results are in for March 1st, I think then it goes all the way to May or June. As Obama’s primary campaign did.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:41 pm
And regarding the ability to get bills out of committed on onto the floor … Dennis could do it, Sherrod Brown could do it, Hillary could do it, Bernie ppfftt
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:46 pm
I hope Bernie wins Iowa because then Hillary has to really work and that perception of not being anointed is necessary for November. In fact, if I were a real cynic I would posit that that’s been the whole purpose of Sander’s campaign. But I’m not that much of a cynic.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm
Blouise: No, by heroics I mean the opposite of leadership, I mean taking unilateral action with the power one has and abandoning any hope of Congress going along. I mean forgetting any chance of re-election, and strong-arming in any [legal] way possible the outcomes desired. I mean sabotaging any second term or post-office career for the sake of doing what he knows is right, and what any American that believes in helping others knows is right.
Leadership is getting other politicians to follow you. That is impossible in the current political climate because, as Bernie said in the debate, the polarization isn’t really due to hatred, it is due to political career financing by the wealthy. Leadership is a crack pipe dream. It will not happen. You cannot lead Republicans or Democrats to political suicide. Which leaves the President alone, and the only way to save the country is not “leadership” but an act of political suicide: bringing all the unilateral force possible, by any means possible, without any regard for public or media opinion, and without any regard for a second term, and indeed without any regard for assassination. That would be heroic. Not leadership.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 10:04 pm
SwM: I think I misread your post; I read “he” instead of “she” and thus missed the hypothetical nature of it; I thought you were making a claim about something I said. Sorry.
As for Hillary’s support among blacks and Latinos; I watch Wilmore, who makes a point of having Blacks and Latinos prominent in his show. I don’t think he is being biased in choosing them, and several celebrities have expressed support for Bernie over Hillary. Because they don’t trust her either.
I think it is a matter of exposure. Bernie is far from peak exposure, Hillary is already there. If he wins in Iowa and NH, the media (and ads) will cover the “upset” and make a major advance for him toward peak exposure, and peel away Black and Latino voters in NV and SC that realize they have a viable choice. If they listen to Bernie and Hillary, in polls both Blacks and Latinos like Bernie’s policies better. I don’t think they are loyal to the Clintons. This is a change election and Hillary is offering incremental changes, a continuation of Obama’s policies that are not working for them, and no revolutionary talk at all. Blacks and Latinos (I have both in my extended family) are pissed off, they want justice, and (IMO) Hillary is not making them a credible offer of it.
LikeLike
January 21, 2016 at 10:19 pm
That would be heroic. Not leadership. – MM
Sound and fury …. Act V
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 5:21 am
“And regarding the ability to get bills out of committed on onto the floor … Dennis could do it, Sherrod Brown could do it, Hillary could do it, Bernie ppfftt”
The claim seems to be that demos are so ideologically committed that even if Sanders had a good idea and important legislation that the demos would not cooperate.
Really? I am not sure I believe that. But if true, that certainly speaks volumes about today’s party.
Actually the claim reminds me of that GOP Kentucky governor who is shutting down state ACA market place over ideology, despite near certain harm to Kentucky citizens.
Regardless of how plausible the statement may sound to some ears, doesn’t it gloss over the different ways that senators and presidents work to promote legislation. How common is it for presidents to get deeply involved in moving legislation through committees? Don’t presidents usually work through surrogates who are either committed to the legislation due to merit or through horse trading – the many perks that presidents can bestow on supporters?
I don’t know, but my guess is that one of the least of President Sanders’ worries will be moving legislation through committees.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 6:29 am
MoreMozart
January 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm
I will never vote for Hillary, she cannot be trusted, and she proves it time and again. She makes millions of dollars in campaign speeches and defaulted on her campaign debt to hundreds of small businesses that got screwed by her 2008 campaign, while she paid her multi-millionaire incompetent advisor Mark Penn in full. She doesn’t give a shit about the middle class or anybody hauling porta-potties for a living or rigging a sound stage. She’s an asshole and she surrounds herself with assholes.
——————————
My feelings exactly. Told a friend I would vote for Trump, the unknown evil, over the known, doubling down evil of Hillary, he was aghast!
Also, I know Trump, if good, will break up the duopoly somehow, the only way things change for this country. If bad, it will cause the unavoidable revolution to force a change.
Bernie is not the one I feel will change much, as Blouise writes. The same way I never was enamored of Obama is the same way I am not on the Bernie bandwagon. Some of it is tangible things he says or doesn’t, and others are from intuition.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 8:56 am
How common is it for presidents to get deeply involved in moving legislation through committees? – BFM
Oh good Lord. After dozens of years in office and dozens of bills submitted but never getting to the floor, your response is that it’s everybody else fault, the party’s fault, anybody’s fault but Bernie’s? And as to Presidents getting involved in the process, well … read up on Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Obama, etc. … they got very, very involved because they wanted their proposals to become law and for that one needs to follow the legislative process. Civics 101
But the point, which you wish to gloss over, is that getting legislation passed was his job as a congressman and senator and he couldn’t get it done, not once, not twice but over and over and over again. And yet I should believe that through the process of inauguration old laws that govern healthcare, finance, and social programs will be replaced with new ones by a magically transformed Bernie Sanders leading the way … without the House or the Senate? Wouldn’t that be a dictatorship? I may not believe that Bernie Sanders would be a very good President but I sure as hell don’t believe he wants to be a dictator. I think Bernie Sanders wants to work within the bounds of the Constitution so I doubt he would agree to do things any other way. So we get back to the issue of his leadership track record.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 9:09 am
BTW. Bernie didn’t become a democrat until 2015, before that he was the longest-serving independent in U.S. Congressional history.
I kept waiting for one of you to answer my argument regarding his lack of success in getting legislation out of committee with that fact, i.e. he wasn’t in an established party though he caucused with democrats and was endorsed by the Democratic party when he ran, as an Independent, for the Senate.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 11:37 am
Mike,
Going on vacation for the next three weeks. See ya after the primaries.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Blouise: I think Bernie Sanders wants to work within the bounds of the Constitution so I doubt he would agree to do things any other way.
As currently interpreted by the SCOTUS and by unchallenged precedents set by Clinton, Bush/Cheney and Obama, the “bounds of the Constitution” give the President sweeping powers that border on dictatorial, including the power to nullify laws by pardon and commutation of sentence. Our culture (and some law) has granted him further unchallenged power, such as the ability to command time on broadcast media.
I think you are right about Bernie, but I also think you wildly underestimate how much the President can do with complete power of choice over who is in charge within the military and intelligence agencies, and who is in charge within the various departments (beyond just the 15 cabinet members). The POTUS is also the Executive in chief of all federal agencies and has at-will removal authority over the head of every federal department. Article II is clear about that; and although the question of “directive authority” over the details is still being debated, the Constitutional authority of removal and the influence of the President is not; Elena Kagan has made explicit and detailed arguments that the President has executive authority over all federal programs and all civil servants (which does not include the authority to command or aid an illegal action or violate rights) without restriction. Marshall argued similarly.
As for Bernie just recently becoming a Democrat, he isn’t stupid. If you want to be President you have to be a Democrat or Republican, I suspect that will be true for at least another two generations (40 years). So what?
That is NOT the reason his legislation was thwarted, the reason his legislation was thwarted is because a majority of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate, particularly the senior level politicians with control in both chambers, are corrupt and depend on the wealthy (persons and corporations) for both the money to fund their campaigns and the favors that fund their life style and “retirement” payoffs. (investment inside knowledge and arranged “good deals” while in office, and speaking fees, lobbyist jobs, talk-show jobs, joint ventures and other do-nothing partnerships and job appointments that serve as conclusive proof to all sitting politicians that the rich will reward them handsomely in their post-elective life for being loyal servants while in office).
The majority of Congress has a financial self-interest in preventing any erosion of the power of wealth, so serious legislation doing that is not going to pass Congress.
I am convinced that electing “good” representatives or senators is a hopelessly deluded approach. Congress is too compromised for that to work, too gerrymandered, and it is nearly impossible to replace a filibuster proof majority of both houses with people committed to the poor and middle class. That would be a fifty year project.
The only solution to peacefully prevent the victory of the 1% over the 99% is through legal unilateral actions without regard to the political fallout. I thought Obama would keep his promises to do that, I was wrong. I think Bernie could do that. Maybe I am wrong again, but I feel absolutely certain that former-conservative-Republican Hillary will not do that and will do the opposite, implicitly supporting the domination of the wealthy over everybody.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 2:35 pm
The majority of Congress has a financial self-interest in preventing any erosion of the power of wealth, so serious legislation doing that is not going to pass Congress. – MM
I am leaving for the train in 15 minutes but I will give you this because it is what it is. The congress has been the way you describe from the get go. The country has always been this way. Slavery was an economic institution and it mattered not to the foundings or the “gentlemen” that followed them in congress that human beings were treated like animals because money/power was more important. Nothing has really changed.
Amadeus, back in ’45 we dropped the second bomb. Think about it. We didn’t need to do that at all but all that money/power spent on research demanded that the second bomb be tested. That’s who and what we’ve always been. Why not use them as the test monkies … they were the enemy, right? Nam, Iraq … scratch the surface and that’s what we are.
Am I cynical about Sander’s candidacy? And I ask myself, why did the DNC give him permission to run as a democrat? Back in 2006 they endorsed him for his run at the Senate seat and they didn’t demand he become a democrat but by endorsing him that meant no other democrat would get any funds to run in that race. He ran as an Independent. Oh yeah man, I am deeply and sincerely cynical and I don’t believe in saviors.
Now I’m off. It is what it is.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 3:46 pm
“I hope Bernie wins Iowa because then Hillary has to really work and that perception of not being anointed is necessary for November. In fact, if I were a real cynic I would posit that that’s been the whole purpose of Sander’s campaign. But I’m not that much of a cynic.”
Blouise,
Well I am a cynic and there is much I can agree with in your idea. Here’s the points I see.
1. The system is far too corrupt fo any savior to change it within my lifetime.
2. The Conservative movement has become destructive in that they no longer are interested in a status quo where everybody benefits, but a total focus on this country becoming a feudal society, with wealth as the determinant of aristocracy.
3. Parts of the Democratic Party have capitulated to a corporatist vision (the DLC) and they have move to a sort of centrist liberalism that puts them on a par with the politics of Republicans like Eisenhower and Rockefeller.
4. Since the news media is corporate in nature they have for the most part given up on informing the public and unknowingly parrot conservative memes as if they were true. i.e. “We need a balanced budget”.
5. Barack, Bill and Hilary all started out wanting to do the right thing as younger people, but they found it easier to accept the blandishments of those who courted them with money and their perspectives have been skewed to where they are “Corporate Democrats” and really have a difficult time seeing what’s wrong with that.
6. Congress has failed and will remain mired in stasis the Presidency goes Democratic, therefore limiting any Democratic President’s ability to function beyond the norms already set.
7. If any of the Republicans win the Presidency then the country will further slide into an aristocratic satrap of the Billionaire oligarchy.
Therefore their are two main issues that are important to me in this election.
A. The SCOTUS appointments.
B. Waking the consciousness of the people of this country to the fact that the American Dream as we believed it no longer exists and that there are real “Left Wing” alternatives that can save capitalism while applying socialist principles.
My hope for Bernie from the beginning was that his being in the race would force Hilary’s message to the Left. Unfortunately, the opposite has taken effect as she’s been scared into believing she must move Right in order to counter him. This is the same old DLC narrative that has proven false. The lesson she should have learned by now is tat Bernie’s message resonates not because of his charisma, but because it makes sense to a majority of the American people. Populism for the American masses is a real thing, because people have realized their government is corrupt. The problem is do you have the Fascist populism of Trump, or the Socialist populism of Bernie.
In short I want the prevailing political discussion in this country changed and if it does then perhaps in the future we can swing back towards the Left as envisioned by FDR.
AS an example: Bernie has brought single-payer health care back into the discussion. He has no chance of getting it done as things stand and he knows it. BY pushing it he is bringing it back into the mainstream where it belongs, because it is actually the best system not only for the people, but even for most corporations who are too blind to see their own costs falling.
Hillary attacks Bernie as if this is something he will try to do in his first 100 days and in effect defends the Health Care and Pharmaceutical companies who’ve given her money, but also screwed her in the 90’s. If she and her advisers had been smart they would have countered Bernie by saying their ultimate goal is single payer, but for right now we must concentrate on improving ACA for the short term. While some might say tht is what she is doing, it really isn’t because she is staying with a centrist message and not educating the people as to what the real solution is. This is similar to Barack Obama conceding at one point that Social Security and Medicare cuts “were on the table” when the Congress threatened to shut down the government,
I want the right messages to resonate with the people and become part of the political discussion, so that we can reverse the years of conservative PR paid for by the Billionaire class. Eugene V. Debs Socialist Party Platform in 1920, became FDR’s New Deal 12 years later.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Mike: He has no chance of getting it done as things stand and he knows it.
Incremental progress might be made toward that goal, however. Can we lower the age of eligibility from 65 to 60? How about 55? Can we get autistic children and adults covered for free by Medicare? Can Bernie rally the people and out the politicians of BOTH parties that stand in the way of that? He has the power of veto; if I had that I would use it transparently and publicly and explain I had to veto bills and budgets because particular congressman from specific cities were blocking legislation necessary to the health of Americans. Off the top of my head, I’d tell them we are no longer taking half a loaf, or a tenth of loaf, and that might be painful for us as a country, but the blame is on these specific people hijacking the will of the majority of Americans out of greed because their campaigns are funded by greedy pharmaceuticals and insurance companies that would rather let people suffer and die than lose a dime in profits. He would have the power to start a class war, and in his position I would not hesitate to do so.
That is the magic of being elected in America, there is no recall and you get the whole term no matter what you do. It has been dark magic until now with broken campaign promises and explicit violation of our rights, like assassinating American citizens. But it can be turned to good, if the elected official doesn’t mind not getting re-elected. And if he forced change he might get re-elected out of populism anyway.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 5:18 pm
About Hllary’s anti-gun position and why it’s hard to trust her: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/?_r=2
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 6:03 pm
“Oh good Lord. After dozens of years in office and dozens of bills submitted but never getting to the floor, your response is that it’s everybody else fault, the party’s fault, anybody’s fault but Bernie’s? And as to Presidents getting involved in the process, well … read up on Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Obama, etc. … they got very, very involved because they wanted their proposals to become law and for that one needs to follow the legislative process. Civics 101”
The sum total of your argument seems to be that we can predict presidential effectiveness from effectiveness as a senator. Maybe so, but you have given us no reasons to believe that is true. Presidents have may more perks and punishments to use and their interaction with congress is different from the interactions of senators.
I never claimed it was anyone’s fault – your said that. I pointed out that for us to believe your argument that President Sanders could not pass legislation, we would have to believe that much of the time a democratic congress would vote against the issues they presumably support.
The fact that there is great overlap between what most democrats support and what Sanders supports suggests that he would have the support of most democrats most of the time. That does not sound like a formula for President Sanders being ineffective to me.
I have no doubt that presidents do get involved supporting some bills – a once in a generation Great Society bill, for example.
But exactly what percentage of bills do you think garner active presidential involvement? Even in the very lean recent years, passed bills, resolutions, and failed bills with a vote on the floor number near 1,000/year. How many of those bills do you think rated so much as a phone call from the president? I’ll wager not many.
It seems to me the most reasonable believe if that the presidents voice matters mainly on his key, land mark legislation. To believe that he would be ineffective you have to believe that after decades of being out maneuvered by horse traders he learned nothing and that now with with a full array of presidential powers, perks, and punishments he would remain powerless.
Well, maybe so. But that argument seems wildly overblown to me. It seems to me that the record of an outsider in the senate tells us little about the potential success of a president. It is inconceivable to me that the powers of the president would not greatly increase the success rate of whoever holds that power.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 6:57 pm
This article sums up what is going on as our DLC favoring “illiberal,” pundit class bashes Bernie. It shows not only the illogic of their position, but also an assumption that Congress will ALWAYS be controlled by Republicans: http://thebaffler.com/blog/pounding-sanders-lehmann
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 7:03 pm
It is by the way the attitude of the DLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council ,
that got Howard Dean and his 50 State Strategy fired, to be replaced by the vile Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Take the fact that in the Race for Kentucky Senator, the Republican is running unopposed, as an example of the commitment the Democratic Corporate Establishment has to returning Congress to Democratic control. This attitude is what frightens me about Hillary.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 7:43 pm
(I am waiting for the train, which is late)
The sum total of your argument seems to be that we can predict presidential effectiveness from effectiveness as a senator. – BFM
No, my argument is that we can judge the leadership abilities of a man who spent 15 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate by how many bills he brought to a successful conclusion as chief sponsor during that 23 year span. Now what were the three bills that were signed into law for which he was the chief sponsor during those 23 years? Two renamed U.S. Postal Service offices in his home state of Vermont and one increased the annual cost-of-living raise for veterans’ benefits. He wasn’t lazy for he introduced a total of 353 bills during that 23 year time frame. His campaign tends to talk up his amendment prowess but what they don’t mention is that the greater majority of those amendments were on spending bills and not at all controversial and required very little prowess.
I do not believe that the Oval office will magically infuse him with leadership abilities that he has not exhibited for the last 23 years. It is upon that basis that I suspect he will be as ineffective in the Oval as he was in the House and Senate and why I do not support his candidacy.
LikeLike
January 22, 2016 at 7:56 pm
Mike,
I’m confused. I thought Dean retired as chairman after Obama’s election in 2008 because new Presidents want to put their own man/woman in the chair
LikeLike
January 23, 2016 at 6:02 am
As I mentioned before I do not believe that any convincing argument has been made that Sanders as president will be ineffective getting legislation through congress.
But there are two sides to the claim that President Sander’s would be ineffective. Sanders skills set passing legislation is largely irrelevant if he has to engage a hostile congress. If the next president faces an intransigent congress then no level of legislative skill will make much difference.
It seems to me the more you believe that the next president will face a hostile GOP congress the less important legislative skill become.
My point is a slight reformulation of some remarks by Mike.
When the president faces an intransigent congress the most important skill set is the ability to engage in ideological battle, to advocate to ordinary voters for reforms and reasonable new legislation, to convince voters for the next election.
If the next president faces an intransigent congress the last person we need is an easy compromiser. How many times has Obama give the GOP half the loaf before negotiations even start?
Consider, the GOP has not backed away and hidden their objective from voters. On the contrary the position of the GOP has been if they present their conservative position to the voters, then the voters will want it. How many times have the Laura Ingrahams and Sean Hannitys of talk radio made the claim that if the GOP gives voters an alternative then the voters will take it.
I was struck in one of Kerry’s remarks in one of his presidential debates. When he was challenged as a liberal, Kerry backed away and said it was unfair to call names. He refused to defend a major component of the democratic party.
Can you imagine any GOP candidate turning their back on conservatism? Can you imagine any GOP candidate who would not take the time to defend and place conservatism in the context of the party? I cannot.
I don’t know when it began, but in recent decades we have seen a refusal by demos to embrace and advocate for traditional demo values.
How can demos possibly believe that people will support them if they fail to engage in open discussion advocating for their positions? It really makes no sense.
If you believe the next president will face an intransigent congress then what we need a president who will carry the ideological battle to the voters, engage the issues, and change minds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm
BFM: Well said.
LikeLike
January 23, 2016 at 10:14 pm
Who voters think can win a general election.
However, only 8% of Democrats, and only 7% of Republicans, say they are going to vote in the primary based on a candidate’s electability (specifically, whether they will vote for somebody that is not their favorite, in order to have a better chance of winning the general election.)
Which I suspect might mean, particularly in early primaries, that voters might not care if Bernie is electable or not, they will vote for him anyway, perhaps thinking their support for Bernie will move Hillary more toward his camp.
Currently 54% of Dems think Bernie could win the general election; and that is enough to make him the nominee: but I suspect that number is dynamic and will increase if Democrats see him winning early primaries. In fact Bernie’s chances of winning the General would depend entirely on who the Republican nominee turns out to be; running against Trump I think he’d be a lock.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 4:54 am
MM,
With me you’re preaching to the choir, though I don’t think that’s the metaphor most pleasing to you. :}
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 11:00 am
… we need a president who will carry the ideological battle to the voters, engage the issues, and change minds. -BFM
And if I thought Sanders had the leadership abilities to do that, I would vote for him.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm
Mike: I love choirs! Including church choirs, and especially around Christmas, and children’s choirs; we tape and watch several in the season. Music and singing does not have to reflect anything real to sound perfect.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 4:12 pm
Blouise: And if you understood that leadership in this situation is an ineffective tool against the obstacle of corruption, and thus a moot point, you would vote for him regardless of his leadership. Instead you will inexplicably vote for a woman with several major leadership failures that is obviously a corrupt and lying politician herself, in the hope that she will inexplicably turn on her own kind after they get her elected. The only thing Hillary does if she gets elected is become the first woman President, while perpetuating, extending and entrenching the conservative religious plutocracy we have become, because her base ideological state was revealed when she was a freshman at Wellesley and President of the Young Republicans; when she publicly claimed she was “a mind conservative and a heart liberal.” Oh hooray, somebody that thinks conservatism and religiosity is the logical choice for this country, but has some sympathy for the poor. What shall we call that? Compassionate Conservatism? Where have I heard that before?
Leadership won’t matter. A veto-proof majority of politicians will not negotiate their seat or their retirement away, no amount of “leadership” will convince them to forgo the sure thing their campaign funders offer in return for loyalty to their bottom line. That obedience is their insurance premium for lifetime financial security, and no matter what the fallout for the American people, they will not violate the implied terms of those contracts-of-understanding.
The only way forward, politically, is by singular action and effort. The Presidency may be the only elective office that has any chance of moving the needle on corruption; A Representative, Senator, or Supreme Court Justice can be out-voted by the corrupt. The President has enough powers and leverage that cannot be out-voted, which can be used in concert to make a difference.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 7:49 pm
MM
It’s okay, darlin’. No one has even come close to to convincing me that Sanders has the leadership skills to work with Congress in ‘confronting the issues of immigration, health care, increased threats to national security, the disappearing middle class, the growing deficit, Social Security solvency, gun control, renewable energy, sentencing reform, dealing with ISIS and other terrorists, climate change, the containment of nuclear threats posed in North Korea and Iran, the Russian incursions in Ukraine … and foreign trade.’
Thus far the response has been, she stinks and you’re voting for her based on gender preference, and you don’t know what leadership is and he doesn’t need it anyway because he’s going to by-pass Congress with magical Presidential powers and inspire others to do the same or elect people who will and a less than 1% success rate during 23 years in office should be good enough proof of his ability to do what he says he’s going to do.
Here’s a good example in real time: healthcare reform. He tells everyone he wants single payer so he is asked for the actual plan as to how he’s going to go about implementing it. Well, shucks, he doesn’t actually have one on him but give him a few days and he’ll produce it. Two hours before a debate he releases a plan chocked full of errors which, of course, will be fixed once he has time to sit down and work it all out. No need to actually have the plan ready, even though he’s had years to work on it, because saying he wants single payer should be enough.
I remember back in 2008 I kept saying to my friends and colleagues, “I know Obama is telling you what you want to hear but where is any indication at all that he’ll be able to actually do it? We’re talking a guy out of the Chicago system with very little National experience.” Their responses were similar to what I’ve gotten on this blog. The only difference is that they didn’t deny the necessity of leadership and they didn’t try to redefine the word to accommodate failure at same.
Way back towards the beginning of this thread I asked, ‘Why is it that the left always goes for the tree huggers? ‘ It was a rhetorical question. Obviously.
However, now Bloomberg says that if Sanders looks like he’s going to be the nominee he, Bloomberg, will run as an Independent. Great. Three angry old white men yelling at each other and everybody else. Colbert will love it.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 12:38 am
Rodham is too weak and sick to be CIC. She just had to walk off a stage in Iowa. Word is she has MS. Bernie is in much better shape, more honest[damning with faint praise] and much smarter.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 4:36 am
We don’t have to be ‘civil’ here, do we?
Unless franky can post a credible link about Hillary and MS, I’m going to make a huuuge guess here that franky spinelli is a fucking liar.
And Spinelli – save us the bullshit about a ‘traumatizing’ experience with links. We’re not stupid here. Post a credible link!
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 5:16 am
Watched some of CNN talking heads discussing the demo candidates.
Twice they played Clinton laying claim to Bill’s economic record of creating 23 million jobs.
The clip sounded entirely plausible and was gangbusters politic.
But really, how much credit does the first lady get for economic policy? Does that make any sense – at all?
Further, how much credit do presidents deserve for economic gains and declines during their terms? The fact is that the main levers of economic control include monetary policy, fiscal policy, tax policy and trade policy. Presidents don’t control monetary policy – that lies with the FED. Presidential influence over fiscal, and tax policy is shared with congress and requires their cooperation. Trade policy is mostly tied up in long term international agreements. We give presidents credit or criticize them for the economic events that occur during their term – but really how much credit do they deserve.
Finally, many of the 23 million jobs created during the Clinton administration resulted from the run up during the dot com bubble – which set the stage for the subsequent recession. To the extent that Clinton was really responsible for 23 million jobs that reflects really bad economic policy – at the least Clinton should have jaw boned down the excesses of the dot com years.
If Hillary really wants to claim partial credit for Bill’s 23 million jobs, she is claiming a reputation for real economic incompetence – not policies that anyone should hope for today – but it sounds good if you don’t think too carefully about what she is saying.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 5:21 am
“We don’t have to be ‘civil’ here, do we?”
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 1:13 pm
BFM: how much credit do presidents deserve for economic gains and declines
I agree, very little, except in one respect: Wars. War can impact domestic economics for good or for ill, and in recent decades mostly for ill. Under Bush/Cheney we threw away trillions of dollars for very little gain; because in the modern world technology means we no longer have to employ more people to make more weapons.
However, the profitability and well-being of the country, like that of a corporation, is attributed to its leader, and that is entrenched in the public mind. Neither is true.
BFM: how much credit does the first lady get for economic policy? Does that make any sense – at all?
Little to None. In Hillary’s case, I think one could argue she had a negative impact by accelerating the health care crisis as First Lady, with her clumsy political failure of “being in charge” of fixing it.
(I am using that to segue to a different topic:) She was the first First Lady expressly given a significant political job to do, working with Congress (as opposed to advocacy, charity, diplomacy and such done by previous FL). She failed miserably at it, and showed us then the theme that would bring her down again and again:
She is a bad manager. She keeps her underlings in the dark, she is domineering, she is overly secretive to the point of raising suspicions about her motives. She tries to compartmentalize tasks so people work in the dark. (I am not being sexist here, these qualities bring down male leaders too). It is what brought down her first Presidential campaign, what current staffers are complaining about in this campaign. It is what caused her server-gate.
And speaking of “gates”, Hillary actually played a corrupt role in Nixon’s Watergate:
She is just a liar. (remember duck and cover in Bosnia? remember her impossibly accurate futures calls as a novice that turned $1K into $100K over dozens of trades in less than a year?) Not the regular politician soft lies about what they will do or accomplish once in office, or how much they care. It is lies of fraud, thievery, corruption, illegally siphoning money from campaigns and supposed charity (The Clinton Foundation especially).
Taking credit for the economy when Bill was President is like her first campaign, lies trying to take credit for Bill’s diplomatic advances, as if she personally engineered them. I remember that. The only reason she became SoState was to take another run at the White House with better credentials, but apparently it isn’t enough, Hope and Change is beating her again: So her go-to strategy is more lies, more fraud, and more yelling, bullying, bad campaign management.
I hope it brings her down, again. If it doesn’t, there probably is not enough time left in my life to see the shrinking middle class rescued in America. Hillary will help destroy it, and after Hillary comes hard-right profit-driven Republican rule for at least eight years. That would be game over, for the American middle class.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm
“Here’s a good example in real time: healthcare reform. He tells everyone he wants single payer so he is asked for the actual plan as to how he’s going to go about implementing it.”
Blouise,
That certainly is one take, but from my perspective there is another side to that coin. One of the things, from my perspective, that I’ve become most skeptical of is the detailed plans presented on the campaign trail. The reality of the legislative process is that nobody’s “detailed plans” are ever enacted in the manner they were presented before the election. When I judge a candidate, the more detailed the plans, the less I trust them, simply because they should know that is not how things work. When you talk of Hillary, she more than most understands that as shown by her own health care difficulties. I don’t want to know the specifics, because prior to actually taking office no one knows the parameters they will face at that time of inauguration. I want overall policy perspective, rather than fine print. With Obama his message was a Progressive one, rather than Hillary’s which is quite similar this time around, except she is no longer a pistol packing Mama. The problem with Obama is that he ran to the Left, but was a right wing Centrist at heart and in action. I think I can expect better from Bernie as illustrated by his refusal to fudge being a Democratic Socialist, when it would be politically expedient to do so.
BTW, at last night’s debate a young woman asked a question to the effect of “from a woman’s perspective wouldn’t a female President be a more self-interested choice”. That is a valid point to be made. However, what ran through my mind is doesn’t it depend on what woman. Carly Fiorina, for instance, would be a disaster for women. In that respect, Cruz, or Rubio, would be a disaster for Latino’s.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm
“We don’t have to be ‘civil’ here, do we?”
IP,
I feel civility is merely a pretext for euphemism. There are no rules here, save for my own tolerance and I’m extremely tolerant. Though having said that, no doubt people some would take that as a challenge to test my tolerance. 🙂
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm
BFM and MM,
It is a curious result when you really parse what is being said in any political discussion, like last night’s Town Hall. Hillary attempts to take credit for Bill when it is in her favor and yet declines to take criticism for Bill’s failures. Some First Ladies have played a very large role in their husband’s terms, like Eleanor Roosevelt. However, the depth of those roles are really matters of speculation after the fact and the true relationship between any husband and wife are always speculative.
I thought last night’s forum was a very good one because it allowed each candidate greater time for presenting themselves. The problem though with today’s politics can be seen by how many false Republican memes have entered the conversational arena as if they are eternal truths. Two from last night were “raising taxes” is a negative thing and “big government” is bad.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Here is the essence of the point I was trying to make to Blouise, only much better, from someone I see as one of the best people around today, Robert Reich. He sums up my thinking on this election:
“Not a day passes that I don’t get a call from the media asking me to compare Bernie Sanders’s and Hillary Clinton’s tax plans, or bank plans, or health-care plans.
I don’t mind. I’ve been teaching public policy for much of the last thirty-five years. I’m a policy wonk.
But detailed policy proposals are as relevant to the election of 2016 as is that gaseous planet beyond Pluto. They don’t have a chance of making it, as things are now.
The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a “recipe for gridlock.”
Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock.
This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system.
I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.
But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.
The upcoming election isn’t about detailed policy proposals. It’s about power — whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.”
Here’s the link for the rest of it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-volcanic-core-fueling_b_9071694.html
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Mike
Here is another disaster lying in wait for us – the call for a constitutional convention. Maybe you’d like to post about it
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/_liberals_and_conservatives_are_teaming_up_to_call_a_new_constitutional.html
And goddamn Lessig for teaming up with ALEC and the Tea Party on this.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 7:12 pm
IP,
Yes I have been aware of it and it would be a disaster if held any time soon. with the amount of money in our political sytem, who know where the finished product would bring.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm
I think a president can impact economies, particularly in unstable financial environments.. What if Obama had let the auto industries go belly-up? What if Bush had vetoed the 2008 bailout? What if you get a Tea Party president that only wants austerity and small government and slashes many social and safety net programs? What if you get a Tea Party president who vetoes any budget that isn’t balanced? I think those actions can, and did, have big consequences. Yes, Congress plays a role; but even with the Republicans holding both houses, Obama’s veto will most often prevail.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 8:12 pm
Mike
The first thing it would bring is a balanced budget amendment, term limits, and state legislatures electing senators.
What do you think about term limits? I think they are a bad idea – too many know-nothings running loose in the House as it is.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 8:52 pm
IP,
I’ve always been against term limits as not only an anti-democratic idea, but also one of those “quick fix” ideas, that fixes nothing. I think it would invariably lead to money becoming even more of a controlling factor.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 1:42 am
I prefer public financing of elections. They spend too much time now try to raise money for their next reelection campaign to actually read what they’re voting on. Of course that assumes they’ll spend their newly freed time doing their jobs.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Pete: I doubt public financing of elections would change a single thing, the politicians will not spend any more time “doing their jobs.” They will continue to curry favor with the rich because campaign finance is not the only point: Personal profit through insider connections is the point. That includes, while in office, tips and legal “investment” activities that make most in Congress multi-millionaires; and when out of office, high-paying do-nothing jobs (like lobbyist, political consultant, ambassador, talk show host) speech fees that amounted to over six million for Hillary, etc.
About the only thing that would “fix” politics is if taking Congressional or state-wide office required a lifetime vow of absolute income restriction to something like twice the median wage in their state, enforceable with a prison sentence of one year per violation. That is the only thing that would protect us from the current culture of legalized bribery.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Well, maybe not the only thing. We could have a Constitutional amendment that prohibited any company of any form anywhere from engaging in any form of political advocacy, donations, or lobbying any state level politician (including governors, representatives and senators). Even more restrictive than repealing Citizen’s United. Restrict any right to political speech of any kind for any non-human entity.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Mike: I think it would invariably lead to money becoming even more of a controlling factor.
Exactly. Consider the extremum: Imagine if politicians were restricted to a single term. They can’t make a career out of their office, so (a) those inclined to spend their life in service are less likely to choose politics as a carerr, and (b) those inclined to self-enrichment will use their office as a stepping stone to something more lucrative in the commercial world, which requires adhering to the golden rule: For them, the owners of the gold make the rules. And the owners of the gold will pay off once these one-termers leave office and cannot help them anymore, just to prove by example to those one-termers still in office that they pay their debts handsomely. After all, giving up 1% or 2% of profits to pay off retiring politicians that always took their side is better than paying a 50% tax rate on profits, and since the politician’s new job is legal and above board it can be “advertised” to other politicians via lobbyists and such, to ensure somebody else will step into the void and start taking their side instead.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Though I agree with much of Blouise says about Bernie, and I also agree with everything MM says about Hillary.
I have been engaged lately in showing the wife why she shouldn’t vote for Hillary…and I suspect if she still wants to, I ‘ll pull the card she owes me from “”ä vote for Nader is a vote for Bush””.
And if she still decides to go ahead with Hillary, …then…then… um…she’ll become a stranger to me.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 2:27 am
People…Just one thought
Remember the Supremes. Several new Scalia’s ought to set us back 100 years for the next twenty years. That judge in KY who ruled a tax subsidy for a creationist museum would be a fine choice for President Cruz.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 2:55 am
IP, interestingly, I do not see that as a problem. In order for a change to happen, which it must, we have to have a president whose agenda galvanizes most people to push back and push back hard. As long as we have a moderate whose policies affect those at the fringes of society, the very poor, the illegal immigrants, the small towns, poor pregnant women, Americans would keep upholding the status quo, not unlike the boiled frog. This was evidenced by the Occupy movement, which was undermined by the fact that most of its members were of those who elected Obama. Had Mitt Romney been in power at that time, the occupy movement would have been much more effective.
Another example is that even under Obama, we have a war on women that makes abortion the next on the line of rights being taken away from us. This to go with the war on information that targets journalists and whistle blowers, along with the war on terror that keeps expanding. Obama has lulled us to sleep with a liberal rhetoric that meanwhile allows extremist, conservative, right wing ideologies to assert themselves, this because the masses that voted for him still cannot identify that he is the face of that which they are fighting against, or he is the front that pacifies them.
With President Cruz, or Trump, most people will be on edge, impatient and distrustful. His conservative supreme courts nominees will be scrutinized similarly. Whatever ruling that would have passed ignored under Obama will instead be challenged heavily.
I can foresee then a bigger Occupy movement, more civil disobedience, more coalition buildings between all the downtrodden groups. But this is the only way we can take back control of our country, through general pressure upon all the seats of power and their allies.
Most people however are afraid of that unknown, but the alternative, Hillary or Bernie, is simply more of the same, even if their aim was really to change the system.
If Obama couldn’t do it, neither Hillary nor Bernie could.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 4:08 am
“IP, interestingly, I do not see that as a problem . . . “; . . . ad nauseum — po
Of course you don’t, po, no budding theocrats do.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 4:19 am
BUDDING???? I take offense to that, gbk, Budding?
I am an established theocrat!
Sheesh!
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 1:31 pm
po: For the most part I agree, for different reasons. I do not agree that Bernie is the same as Hillary; Bernie would be a complete policy change for the good from Hillary, Barack, Bush, Clinton … really since FDR and the New Deal began in the late 1930s.
But logic does support the premise that electing more of the same, either Democrat or Republican, will result in more of the same social trend toward a vanishing middle class and governance of the 99% by the rich, for the rich, and the perpetuation and widening of the economic, legalistic, and social separation between the wealthy and all the rest of us.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 7:18 pm
po
If you do not see the difference between Kagan, Sotomayer, and Scalia, further discussion is useless. If you do not quake at the loss of Ginsburg being replaced by a Scalia, further discussion is useless. If you do not see that the Court has long lasting and great consequences, further discussion is useless. The House can be changed in two years. The executive can be changed in four. The Court is a lifetime appointment. If you do not consider that a formidable difference, further discussion is useless.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 8:27 pm
IP
WE come at this from very different angles,obviously. I believe that every problem humanity faces comes from voting out of fear. Every power grab, every constitutional corruption, every relinquishing of natural rights, every sacrificing of the future for the today, and the today for the future, comes from making choices out of fear.
We are caught up into a trap of our own making, that we are unable to escape anymore. To choose the least harmful candidate is the norm nowadays, but it is practically and morally a flawed methodology, and it is one that actually enables exactly what we fighting against. The least worse candidate is not the best candidate, and to keep voting for the least worse candidate is to acknowledge that it is the only option afforded to us as society and as a politic system.
How do we then fix that? Wait until the perfect candidate comes in? There is no perfect candidate! And even the perfect candidate is bound by an imperfect system!
Yes, the Court is lifetime appointment, but what is lifetime appointment in a crashing system? What is the worth of the arbiter when the parties it is to arbitrate are dysfunctional? What is the value of the supreme court to us when the congress and the white house do not abide by the public will? What role will the supreme court play when the system they depend on is no longer effective? They are the emperor without clothes!
Every supreme court decision opens up another quagmire. and we are soon ending up where we will be in a standstill while every issue of note waits to pass before the supreme court in order to be resolved. Meanwhile, people will simply bypass it and will assert their agenda either individually (cops shooting and overall citizen abuse/ ecoterrorism), communally (the bundy gang) or politically (the koch bros).
Do we really think that the supreme court is such a valuable entity anymore? When people, pols and judges themselves no longer play by the rules (of law?) When people are increasingly bypassing it to assert their agendas? When the koch brothers have built a parallel system that rivals the supreme court and has a stronger effect on our societal lives than the supreme court, if it does just not recruit them into that system outright?
I am no nihilist, nor an anarchist, but history tells us that all empires end up right here, on the edge of collapse, and the supreme court is just another facade of stability as the innards are rotting surely. No matter who sits on the court, and how conservative they are, the moment they see the winds of changes are whipping and that the population is not likely to take their BS anymore, they will self-correct in favor of the population and what it calls for.
Then again I am much far gone than you are, but I just do not see things changing peacefully. An American spring is afoot/needed and will be redeeming, but it will only happen when we stop fearing the consequences of doing the right thing and just vote for the best candidate no matter what piece of the sky we are told would fall.
LikeLike
January 28, 2016 at 10:14 pm
po: Voting for the lesser evil creates a ratchet of ever increasing evil, that much is true. That is the trap we are in, and the reason we may soon be faced with choosing between two candidates that are both adamantly elitist and in favor of helping the 0.1% that “matter” to them no matter what they must do to the 99.9% that “don’t matter” to them.
However your “solution” is just more of the same: “…when we stop fearing the consequences of doing the right thing and just vote for the best candidate no matter what …”
Isn’t that exactly the same thing as voting for the lesser of two evils? Isn’t “the best candidate” just the lesser of two evils?
The only way voting provides a solution is to do what people already do, and stay home if their party nominates the wrong candidate, so their party loses, and their party management loses their jobs and their sitting party politicians lose their jobs, all so that their party will re-organize itself and nominate candidates that we want.
It isn’t a shooting revolution that we need, but it is pain that we must suffer to set things right. The pain of intentionally losing a round, to punish the party, so they do not nominate a corrupt liar the next time around.
If Bernie is not the nominee, then I will vote and write him in. I will not cast a vote for Hillary. That probably will not make a difference, but I hope Democratic dissatisfaction with Hillary will prevent her from becoming president, so the Democratic Party will wake up and nominate somebody LIKE Bernie Sanders instead of a shill for the rich.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 29, 2016 at 2:59 pm
One of the things, from my perspective, that I’ve become most skeptical of is the detailed plans presented on the campaign trail. – Mike
You missed my point or ignored my point or I didn’t clearly illustrate my point … he had nothing, nada, zilch. He stumbled around a bit and then promised his campaign would deliver something and two hours before the debate they presented a plan so flawed that it was dismissed by everybody. He’s been talking about single payer for years so why the fumbling, why the ignorance, why the inability to verbalize even a basic knowledge of how to go about it? It’s that failure to lead that has kept his success rate in the House and Senate at less than 1% over these last 23 years. He talks a good game. He says all the things people want to hear but that’s all it is. Talk.
Hope is a wonderful thing; false promises are not. Confusing the two is a destructive fantasy. Political Dopamine.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Neither Hillary nor Bernie will be able to keep their campaign promises; just as Barack Obama was not able to keep his (or in my view, never intended to even work in the same direction as most of his campaign promises, which is what I think of Hillary too).
Hillary will make no more headway than Barack or Bill Clinton did in convincing Congress to join with her on progressive issues, most of which she clearly does not believe in at all. All we have to go on is the intent of the rhetoric. Detailed plans are just more lies and false promises that Republicans will fight to the death to prevent. They are fairy tales that serve no purpose other than deception, they won’t be implemented.
The decision of an intelligent voter is not based upon relying on campaign promises to be fulfilled (except those that can be unilaterally fulfilled by a President acting alone), the campaign promises just illustrate the character and belief system of the candidate, and the intelligent voter chooses based upon that.
For example, I am not angry with Obama for failing to deliver on campaign promises he could not accomplish without the cooperation of Congress. I am angry with him for failing to take unilateral action when he could. He could have had a transparent WhiteHouse, he could have pardoned whistle blowers and prevented those like Bradley Manning from being tortured by the military he commands, he could have shut down Guantanamo as Commander in Chief, he did not have to purposely send Rahm to recruit Lieberman to sabotage the public option, he did not have to cut a political deal with pharmaceuticals and insurance companies to preserve their profits.
The destructive fantasy is believing that this time, Hillary is telling the truth despite a lifetime of lying and self-serving behavior.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm
Neither Hillary nor Bernie will be able to keep their campaign promises; just as Barack Obama was not able to keep his – MM
Once again … the point is he was stuck for an answer because he had no real knowledge what he was talking about. He knew it sounded good and sounding good was good enough. Dopamine for the masses.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 4:01 pm
My point is that sounding good IS good enough, because details are just fantasies. I want to know what they truly believe, because I don’t expect a leader to know the future in any detail. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy anyway. No general leads an army into battle with certainty, or knowing who will live and who will die. The broad outline of what is RIGHT is all that matters. Sounding good IS good enough if I am convinced the candidate believes in their principles and will not waver from that belief. I can’t trust Hillary to do a thing for me or anyone I care about, I think she is a corrupt liar.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 4:10 pm
My point is that sounding good IS good enough, because details are just fantasies. -MM
But don’t forget, he’s going to have all those magical Presidential powers to make the fantasies real. Leadership by magic wand. He really should buy a tuxedo cause waving a wand and yelling “Abracadabra!” just doesn’t have quite the impact when dressed in tweeds.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 4:17 pm
You know, MM, you would be able to formulate an argument based more on fact than fantasy if he had actually accomplished something during his 23 years in office. And I would read it and consider it with serious concentration. But all this pie in the sky stuff is too quixotic for me.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 4:49 pm
Presidential powers, including veto power, pardon and commutation power over federal crimes, executive order power, commander (and Executive) in chief power over millions of federal workers, the unilateral ability to classify or declassify anything at any time, control over his Cabinet, the ability to demand resignations and conduct investigations, the sole authority to nominate new Justices and to make lifetime appointments of new federal judges (Obama has appointed 321 so far), command of hours of time on broadcast TV, how he chooses to handle the press and white house briefing room — Those are all real unilateral powers. They are not magical. Your casual dismissal of the real powers unique to the President of the United States is a little too quixotic for me, or more likely you are grasping at straws because you cannot counter a valid argument.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 5:24 pm
I agree with Blouise here, MM. Sounding good is NOT enough. As you say, No one sounded better than Obama, and the better he sounded, the more doubtful I was because I realized pretty early on that either he was lying or he was clueless. I did not think he’d take us out of Iraq, or that he would close Guantanamo.
Either way, everyone sounds good running. And since we are unable to hold anyone accountable for their campaign promises, either we have to raise the bar on what we need to be shown BEFORE voting for a candidate, or devise a tool to actively hold them accountable for their promises, actively, daily, and the only way we could do that that I can see is through civil disobedience.
Again, Blouise is right that Bernie, by now, ought to have a very clear and detailed plan about EVERY aspect of his presidency. We can safely assume that whatever issue the candidates cannot frame well right now, they won’t be able to frame well while president. We know Bernie will meet great opposition from the other side, and even from his side, but unless he is planning on recruiting people to do just that, civil disobedience in order to help him enforce his agenda, they really is No excuse for his failure to be clear and specific.
I was reminded by this article http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a41615/the-dean-scream-oral-history/?mag=esq&list=nl_enl_news&src=nl&date=012916 , this morning, that Howard Dean was Bernie before Bernie was Bernie, and even before Obama was obama. They both used his wheel and his template. And in terms of courage, I think Dean was even more out on a limb that both were.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 6:03 pm
po: Well, I qualified it with whether I believe they are sincere about advancing the nation in the direction of their campaign promises. It is not enough to sound good, I have to believe it sounds good and they believe in the cause.
I DID believe Obama could get us out of Iraq and close Guantanamo, because he has had the unilateral power to do so for 7 years! Congress never declared WAR in Iraq, Obama can threaten to PARDON every prisoner in Guantanomo if Congress tries to prevent him from closing it. That is a Constitutional power, just like Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon for any and all crimes he MAY have committed.
I see little point in wasting time inventing some fiction about how things will get done, other than the broad strokes. The Nordic model, particularly the Norwegian model, proves the efficacy of Bernie’s proposals. It does not bankrupt the government, it does not end Capitalism, it does reduce crime and poverty and increase the lifespans and the productivity of the populace. Again and again, in one Social Democratic country after another.
HOW would it be done here? Well it WON’T in one term or two terms, the point is to set the goal and work to make it happen. I have worked on and been in charge of major technical projects for decades, they get done incrementally. Grand plans and schedules almost never work for creating something really new. Trying to look ahead more than two years is a complete waste of time, what we do is look at the goal, find parts or things or knowledge that obviously (or almost certainly) will have to be done or learned or invented that are within our current grasp, and then we work on those things. If possible, things that will have offshoots we can sell or use elsewhere. Then when we finish one of those things (or abort one of those things as unfeasible) we try to see where the target should be two years from then.
That is how the real world works to create real success. Not by wasting time. By keeping eyes on a goal and open to finding paths or projects that will likely advance us toward that goal. If I want to travel East, I get up every morning and try to move myself in the direction of the rising Sun, as best I can, detours around obstacles, stops for problems or sustenance and all that. I don’t need any more plan than that. The goal is Single Payer. The means? Constant pressure to increase Medicare to more people and force for-profit insurance companies into ever lessening profits and ever increasing regulation to ensure they are doing no harm. Wake up every morning and try to take steps toward the Light, no matter what mountains or rivers are in your way. That’s the plan.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 6:12 pm
P.S. The reason it matters is because if Congress declares war then the President is obligated to prosecute the war until the war is over. Instead, Congress “authorized the use of military force”, but that is at the President’s discretion as Commander in Chief. Being authorized to do something does not require the President to do something; it just gives him the legal right to do it (like he has the legal right to pardon). At his discretion (and barring any treaty signed promising to do otherwise), he can also cease the use of force, withdraw some or all troops, etc. Obama has the power to get out of Iraq. And while he may not have the power to outright close Guantanomo, he does have complete power to ensure no prisoners are held there. They are not held there by any act of Congress, so those are his constitutional powers as CiC.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 6:26 pm
Your casual dismissal of the real powers unique to the President of the United States is a little too quixotic for me, or more likely you are grasping at straws because you cannot counter a valid argument. -MM
What I dismiss, with a specificity that is not at all casual, is Sanders’ leadership ability to appropriately use said powers effectively. That ability is lacking for I do not consider 2 bills to get 2 Vermont post offices renamed and one bill to adjust Veteran’s cost of living (his name was on that Bill as sponsor because he was chairman of the committee that term) in 23 years of service to be an indication of actual leadership. That lack of leadership was further evidenced on the campaign trail by his response to the questions regarding his single payer healthcare plan. I like practicality, preparedness, and leadership in the Oval Office, not squirting flower boutonnieres and white rabbits jumping out of hats.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 7:38 pm
Then there’s this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-gough/i-support-bernie-sanders-not-stupid_b_9103152.html
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 8:05 pm
I thought Obama did take all the troops our of Iraq. Unfortunately, that ran into some problems and now they are back but I think it is obvious that was not Obama’s hope.
And pardoning all the prisoners in Guantanamo is like pardoning Nixon? Do you live in xenophobic, racist, Islamophobic, warrior worshiping America? Nixon may have had around 100 million Americans (Republicans) who were willing or fervently wanted him pardoned. There were probably another couple of millions, who hated his guts but didn’t want to put the country through imprisoning a president. Now how many Americans do you think would support the unilateral pardoning of all prisoners in Guantanamo? In America, MM, numbers count and public opinion counts whether we like it or not. And there are a hell of a lot of conservatives out there and they have one hell of an effective propaganda machine and I can guarantee you a lot of PAIN – that hoped for ‘remedy’ of yours.
You’re a man of principle, MM, but an uncompromising one. Politics and governing and democracy requires compromising. Yes, it’s a lousy system. Let me know if you’ve a better one.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 8:49 pm
The presidency isn’t our only challenge. What about all those red states so firmly in the grip of conservative Republicans – even states that not so long ago were not crazy like Wisconsin and Michigan.
Pain? We’ve plenty of pain as we see voting rights and reproductive rights disappearing. Do you see any remedy on the horizon? If we lose the presidency and even one Supreme justice is replaced, are you willing to live through that pain? Have you ever listened to Fox News or Rush or other right wing radio? Those people or those who share their positions will be running the show if we lose the presidency. That’s the kind of pain you are willing to consign us. It’s as if you’re willing to let the baby stick her hand in the fire in order to teach her not to stick her hand in the fire. That’s one hell of a terrible teacher.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 9:21 pm
Regarding the Nordic model…
You’re right on not ending capitalism and reducing crime and poverty but you neglected to mention another thing it also does – it hikes taxes. You’ve got about 250 million Americans who think their present LOW taxes are much too high. And you’ve got about 300 million that think socialism is communism. And as far as I can see, there is no effective propaganda machine on the left to teach the millions otherwise. Christ, even the NYT is frequently center right.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 9:41 pm
In the current NYT, Elizabeth Warren tells us that “The lesson is clear: Personnel is policy.”
By that she means that the individuals appointed by the president determine how rules and laws are enforced. She gives several examples in which the SEC and DOJ have allowed major corporations to pay fines to avoid criminal prosecution.
If you think these policy decisions by agencies and departments like the DOJ are little more than licenses to steel then it is clear that Hillary Clinton must not be the next president.
Elections matter, in part, because appointments and nominations matter. Hillary Clinton, with her pecuniary relation to Wall Street, is the wrong person for the job.
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 10:52 pm
The problem, MM, is that politics is not the real world and the president is not a CEO. I give you that no candidate knows for sure what they will be able to accomplish, for that will depend on the many things outside of their direct control, but it is necessary that they have a detailed plan about what, who and how they would like to accomplish it, otherwise it is just Trump saying “Trust me!”
The difference between 1st world and 3rd world countries is found in an absent structure as well as in a lacking vision. There has to a comprehensive vision as well as a detailed plan about what the structure will look like.
If Bernie cannot come up with a plan re single payer healthcare, the fact that he keeps harping on it taints his message. Why would he attack something he cannot offer a solution for?
Is he just playing politics?
And if he really intends to fix healthcare when elected, is he just gonna bog himself down in a stubborn fight to create something no matter the costs?
And Blouise has a real point here, what about Bernie’s record makes us believe he can change the system?
Based on record alone,and taking dangerous steps in support of a global vision, O’malley is a much more valid candidate than Bernie is.
And regarding foreign policy, either Bernie is not knowledgeable enough or he is mistaken, but all he is suggesting is to still bomb people, but to do it alongside others. He sounds almost as hawkish as Hillary, and is surely on the right of Rand Paul on this.
Pretty odd than Rand Paul is the standard for moderate foreign policy, even for the Democrats.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 12:43 am
If Rodham is so smart why is her fat ass in a wringer over these emails. Chauvinism? Vast right wing conspiracy? She’s dumber than the people who support her. Plus, the MS will make her incapable of being CIC. Blouise is going to be very sad soon.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 12:50 am
Franky, only dumb people and too smart people get in trouble. Hilary is either dumb or very smart, I go with the latter, perhaps even smarter than any of the candidates running.
Yes, chauvinism AND right wing conspiracy…those have always accompanied her.
Doesn’t excuse here, but certainly explains here.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 1:27 am
This article is quite insightful in regards to its claim that Bernie can’t win. The two main arguments it makes echo the ones I brought up earlier, about the Democratic party’s refusal to be taken off course, and the foreign policy issue.
What obama had, was to offer change from within the democratic party…Bernie is offering change against the Party while using the party. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/27/bernie-sanders-isn-t-electable-and-here-s-why.html?source=socialflow&via=twitter_page&account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Pedant: Now how many Americans do you think would support the unilateral pardoning of all prisoners in Guantanamo? In America, MM, numbers count and public opinion counts whether we like it or not.
I do not think any of us would, but the point is that it doesn’t matter. It isn’t up for a vote. It is an imperial unilateral power of the American President. The threat to start pardoning them and sending them home is entirely up to the POTUS. Nobody can stop him. How many times do I have to say that?
Numbers and public opinion only matter if a president wants to be re-elected. Period. Once given power by election, a POTUS is accountable to nobody except by impeachment. There is no crime, high or low, that can be violated by using the power of pardon; it is both unlimited and unqualified.
Pedant: Politics and governing and democracy requires compromising.
Not really. I don’t accept your dogma. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a President to compromise on exercising their Constitutionally provided unilateral powers. Pardon is one of those. Besides, I said he could threaten to do that if Congress did not let him shut it down. I did not say he should do that, I said he can use the power of pardon as leverage, and use it if necessary. Personally I would use it, after reviewing cases, I would pardon any prisoner for whom it was impossible to prove any wrong-doing. That is supposed to be the American system, no matter what the fallout, and fear and islamophobia should have been put aside long ago.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 1:39 pm
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192“Noam Chomsky would “absolutely” choose Hillary Clinton over the Republican nominee if he lived in a swing state, but her primary challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, “doesn’t have much of a chance,” the MIT professor and intellectual said in a recent interview.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192#ixzz3yjcD7JZa
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Pedant: Pain? We’ve plenty of pain as we see voting rights and reproductive rights disappearing. Do you see any remedy on the horizon? If we lose the presidency and even one Supreme justice is replaced, are you willing to live through that pain?
Obviously, yes. That kind of pain only matters to progressives and liberals; it is not pain to authoritarians. One of the pains that would matter to more than 90% of people, a pain that would bring them together, is economic pain. It took the Great Depression for people to realize they needed and should support FDR and the New Deal: a degree of socialism still widely revered in the USA.
So let me ask you: How did our politics get to this point that replacing just one of our Supreme Court justices should cause us such pain? Why are we hanging on to progressive liberty with one hand losing its grip?
The answer is simple: Choosing the lesser of two evils, instead of refusing evil. The terminology of “choosing” is important, to distinguish from evil being forced upon us, because a conscious choice is not the same as a coerced outcome or a fraudulent outcome. Every time we choose the lesser of two evils in politics we have accepted for ourselves a serving of evil that is incorporated into the new status quo: The new level of evil that the American people will actually choose for themselves. That is the “ratchet” I keep talking about, in a corrupt system like ours here in America, choosing the “lesser of two evils” will result in an ever-increasing threshold of acceptable evil: Because psychologically the majority chose it for themselves and accepted it when they cast their vote.
Yes, it is to avoid an even greater evil, that is the evil beauty of it, because all it takes to make them accept their shit sandwich is inventing or propping up some bogeyman to scare them into falsely believing the lesser evil will only cost them a finger instead of a hand.
In America, our politics is corrupted by money. Money unabashedly backs the greater evil and the lesser evil; the former designed to lose, the latter to win, but regardless of the outcome the American people will have accepted an increase in the standard of evil they have chosen for themselves. That evil is sociopathic profit seeking at the expense of lives, virtual slavery, and constant war in pursuit of commercial profits.
However, remnants of the original American system still allow a way out of that ratchet. That is to stop thinking in the short term and think in the long term, and instead of voting for the lesser evil or greater evil, vote for the candidates that are not bought even if they increase the chances of the greater evil prevailing.
There is no logical way out of the trap without taking a risk of losing the cycle du jour. In this election, I have Bernie as the unbought candidate, that will be my vote. Hillary or any Republican will increase the level of evil, encroach further upon our rights, spill the blood of our soldiers for profits, suppress the votes of progressives and liberals, and promote further wage slavery in the USA to increase the income gap and ensure the supply of cannon fodder used to take by force the resource wealth of less developed countries.
So yes, I am quite willing to suffer the pain of fucked up Supreme court or a largely ineffective President in order to prevent the ratchet from advancing, with some small chance of reversing it. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils, that is what has gotten us here in the first place, ever since WW II.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 2:16 pm
po: If Bernie cannot come up with a plan re single payer healthcare, the fact that he keeps harping on it taints his message.
No it doesn’t. Does anybody have a plausible plan to stop terrorism? To stop crime? To stop rape? Harping on problems that need solutions doesn’t taint the message that some ideal should be achieved. I claim there should be no raping of children. Do I have a solution to prevent all raping of children? No.
po: Why would he attack something he cannot offer a solution for?
Because people agree with him that “thing” should be attacked, just like people agree that armed robbery should be attacked. They are more interested in voting for somebody that agrees with them and has the right attitude than they are in some precise (and likely bullshit) idea about how to do it.
po: Is he just playing politics?
No, because he intends to do something about it. Like I said before, the “plan” is to wake up every morning and try to take steps toward the goal. One is only “playing politics” when they have no such intent.
po: And if he really intends to fix healthcare when elected, is he just gonna bog himself down in a stubborn fight to create something no matter the costs?
The intent to fix healthcare is, in Bernie’s mind and in mine, to erode the profit in healthcare and in insurance to the point that sociopathic business is no longer interested in pursuing. The point of that is simple: All for-profit heathcare and for-profit insurance has an irreducible conflict of interest that pervades the business model: Saving lives costs them profits. Paying claims cost them profits.
It is not the government healthcare and insurance that has death panels, it is the for-profit systems that make rules and regulations that effectively are automated death panels. A non-profit model funded by the government has triage: They need to save the most lives and relieve the most misery they can with the budgets of time and money provided by the government. They have no profit motive, and this motive is not the same thing as a profit motive. There is no self-interest involved in the allocation decisions; no person in the decisional matrix gets to keep any more or less of the revenue as personal gain by deciding one way instead of another.
For-profit systems make a profit that enriches some people with the power to make decisions, in particular decisions that will cause suffering in order to increase their personal wealth. That is morally repellent and unavoidable in any for-profit system; the profit takers demand less revenue be spent on care so more will be left for them to enjoy as profits.
So, no matter the costs? Sure. I have worked in the health care industry, I met my wife, long ago, when we both worked in the same hospital. I regard for-profit health care and health insurance as vampiric evil profiting off of human death and misery, it is worse than war profiteering in my book. It should be outlawed. It kills people.
po: And Blouise has a real point here, what about Bernie’s record makes us believe he can change the system?
His record without any real power does not tell us how effective he would be if he had real power, which I believe he would really have as President. What I believe his record does show us is his lifelong belief system, which in many respects I share. I think Hillary’s record of failures, lies, and scandals also show us her lifelong belief system, which I despise. Although I despise the Republican belief system even more, I will not vote for the lesser of two evils.
po: And regarding foreign policy, either Bernie is not knowledgeable enough or he is mistaken, but all he is suggesting is to still bomb people, but to do it alongside others. He sounds almost as hawkish as Hillary, and is surely on the right of Rand Paul on this.
First, I won’t vote for Rand Paul either. Second, if you think Bernie and Hillary are suggesting the same thing then you are claiming they are equal on this point, thus it is not a point of difference that should count toward electing one over the other.
On foreign policy, the only thing I care about is whether the President is on the side of CMIC profiteers or not. Hillary is. Bernie is not. The details of how to deal with other countries is, for any President, something to be decided on a case by case basis with the consult of experts. What matters is their motivation, and I think Hillary’s motivation is self-interest and cronyism to the point of corruption, I do not think that of Bernie, not even close.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Just a short interruption on what is a very good discussion to insert my thoughts on the detailed plans presented by Presidential contenders. Personally I’ve long ago tuned them out as irrelevant. One of the most complex programs ever put into action in our country was FDR’s “New Deal”. Before he was elected none of the specifics of the “New Deal” were really in place. Instead the intentions of actions were painted in broad strokes. This is actually the way government and most bureaucracies run.
There was a point when I was at NYC’s/HRA, where I was the “Director of Budget Preparation”. I ran a unit in charge of preparing the new program budgets that would be submitted by NYC Office of Management and Budget. I would sit in on high level meetings of Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners as they decided what new programs they wanted for their sub-agencies, in the next fiscal year. Often these proposals would be less than a paragraph, sometimes a sentence. One I remember was to “Create special AIDS Units in 7 City Hospitals that would offer enhanced social services for the patients.” That sentence was the only guidance I had to develop the proposal. The proposal entailed not only describing/justifying the mission, but creating the entire staffing model of the program and computing all of the expenses. I produced a proposal that entailed hundreds of pages and innumerable spreadsheets from that one sentence. It was pretty much approved in my original form, sent to the NYC/OMB and the program was put into effect. When I would consult with the Deputy Commissioner of AIDS Services and his staff to get some idea of what they wanted, they rarely made any suggestions.
This is how creating programming works on all levels of government. In my particular position my value was that I basically was expert in social service delivery, but could also do the budget work necessary. Normally, government programs are concocted by committees of “experts”, who work together and develop the program, with the input of political considerations. The program is then presented to the executives in charge for approval.
When Presidential candidates present their “detailed” plans and budget projections, they are basically mock up creations of their staff and will never be actually presented, or implemented in that form. Everyone of the current candidates knows that including Trump (maybe Ben Carson doesn’t). These proposals are meant to deceive people into believing that their numbers are real and the truth is they never can, or should be.
That’s why it amuses me when the “serious” punditry pores over these various proposals and pronounced the “doable”, or not “doable”. All of that is smoke and mirrors and these pundits take it seriously. If yo really look at their critiques it is all about the pundits own particular pre-judgments and little about the reality.
My particular focus then is on the particular candidates “vision” and whether that vision is something that would be politically possible. The job of a President, or any leader is to create a vision for the entity they lead and sell that vision to those who need to approve it. In this situation Bernie has by far the vision that appeals to my tastes and the history that allows me to presume his sincerity. While I think Hilary is highly competent, I think her vision is too narrow and is limited by those she associates with, particularly her husband. That is not to say she isn’t a powerful person. In fact I believe she is far more dynamic and well-meaning than Bill ever was. In my opinion she has always been the brains behind that operation and the backbone. Bill is brilliant, but extremely self-centered and obviously shows bad judgment on many occasions. His stupid, racist attack in 2008 on Barack Obama in South Carolina comes to mind.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 5:09 pm
Mike: Precisely! Top level decisions flow downhill and snowball into enormous detail as they roll along, into millions of smaller commands, negotiations, and micro-decisions made by hands-on experts closer to the bottom of the org chart. Those decisions are seldom even examined by the levels above them. There is seldom any plan before the decision. A rough budget may come back after the decision has filtered through the first three levels of command, and if it is an order of magnitude out of whack with expectations it may abort the decision, but generally the details are not examined by the top decision makers, just the big numbers, and they are used to big numbers so that doesn’t shock them.
It works the same in all organizations; that dynamic is driven by logic. Leaders don’t develop detail, they make decisions and plans of the widest scope possible for those they lead, and rely on those they lead to add the detail that accomplishes the plan. True leaders do not micromanage or get bogged down in irrelevant detail, they know that is a waste of time. The plan for Bernie is to gain the power of the Presidency and then use it to force the country in a direction more supportive of all citizens than the current tilted playing field, which Hillary or Republicans would tilt even further in favor of the rich and privileged. The details will be developed as the potential to realize them becomes more realizable. All that matters now is the inspiration that such a move is indeed possible, that it can be accomplished within our means. Any errors that do not actually reverse the conclusions are irrelevant at this point.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 5:48 pm
MM says:
“The answer is simple: Choosing the lesser of two evils, instead of refusing evil…
…However, remnants of the original American system still allow a way out of that ratchet. That is to stop thinking in the short term and think in the long term, and instead of voting for the lesser evil or greater evil, vote for the candidates that are not bought even if they increase the chances of the greater evil prevailing.”
———————————
EXACTLY!
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 6:18 pm
MM
There are people at the end of that pain. There are women who will bear children that are unplanned, unwanted, and who impose great hardships on women and their families. There are people who are disenfranchised.
Your use of the cliche ‘lessor of two evils’ is lazy, thoughtless, and inappropriate. The above consequences approach evil. Obama is not evil. By using the word so carelessly, you make the word meaningless.
Governing by imperial presidency is a terrible remedy. Tell me how that will lead to anything except the next guy coming in and doing the same thing – and the next guy is sure to be diametrically opposed to the last guy setting us up for cycles of chaos and breakdown.
About fifty percent of the country oppose the other fifty percent of the country politically. A good number of those people that I oppose are insufferable and stupid and have their heads wired incomprehensibly, but they are not evil. The insufferable Kim Davis is not evil, at least not in the way I understand ‘evil’.
Obama is imperfect, his judgement was not always sound. but EVIL? Seriously? Do you really expect and accept only perfection in the governance of the most powerful country in the world – a world that is beset with warring, murderous, impoverished factions? And whose own country does not lack its own warring, murderous, impoverished citizens.
I expect such ideas from zealots and fundamentalists and authoritarians. I sure as hell don’t want to be governed by them.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 6:38 pm
MM says:
No it doesn’t. Does anybody have a plausible plan to stop terrorism? To stop crime? To stop rape? Harping on problems that need solutions doesn’t taint the message that some ideal should be achieved. I claim there should be no raping of children. Do I have a solution to prevent all raping of children? No.
———————————
But that doesn’t answer the problem however. Unless we are willing to give Bernie and Trump a pass in that which is a requisite of the candidacy, their stating with as much details as possible what their planned structure is for how they will approach the areas they deem problematic is a necessary part of the process.
If one is to compare and contrast Bernie and Hillary’s visions on healthcare, knowing how Bernie’s plan differs from Hillary’s is a must. It actually benefits Bernie to be as detailed a possible about his global and singular visions,. Why? Because it helps him counter the aim to placate him as that angry old man who is only interested in lighting the system on fire.
Also, there is a huge difference between claiming there should be no rape of children (a populist stance a la I’ll keep us safe) versus I’ll support a law that would force emasculation on any child rapist.
Had Bernie been this vague about all other aspects of his candidacy, more likely than not you would not be as enamored of him. It is not sufficient for many of us to hear what one would do, it i also important we hear how would one do it. We all understand that such aim is based on various factors, and that it may or may not come to fruition, but to vote for a candidate solely on open pledges is another part of the process of self-delusion that enables the breakdown of the system.
A good example of what I am saying is the Black lives movement. Not only did they confront the democrats with the need to step up on their issue, they also forced them to devise a plan about how to address those issues. Bernie realized that in order to get the black vote he has to step up to the plate and be clear about it, and now he is doing just that.
In that, we are doing him a service, we are forcing him to go from a reactionary angry man to a poised and well thought out technocrat.
As for Rand Paul, I am not voting for him, obviously. But I have to give him credit that of all the field of candidates, he is the only one to show some clarity and restraint regarding foreign policy. I do have a problem with Bernie being not only less educated on foreign policy than Rand Paul, but also being less restrained.
And yes, Bernie and Hillary are pretty close regarding this issue, and to me it is a huge thing. Matter of fact, it may be the biggest thing. As you note yourself, our foreign wars are costing a huge deal domestically, in lives and in lacking opportunities to improve our lot here. But also morally and karmically.
I believe nothing will change here as long we keep being the greatest purveyor of violence abroad.
And it is a mistake to separate the wars from the attached corruption. Corruption happens because of wars, then wars happen because they are an opportunity for corruption. As long as we indulge in foreign wars, the system of corruption will self-sustain and create its profits. So to say that Bernie will stop war profiteering while continuing the wars is to be willfully blind.
With the war contracting industry at the core of the rotten apple of political funding, how would Bernie disarm it while still indulging the most profitable industry we have? One that supports the Pentagon, the foreign bases, the expanding presence in Africa and Asia, the sate department, the Middle East, Europe, Nato, the Congress…?
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 7:23 pm
“…the plan for Bernie is to gain the power of the Presidency and then use it to force the country in a direction more supportive of all citizens…”
Note the use of the word ‘force’. Really? Is that the way to govern a country of 320 million? What happens when the next conservative fundamentalist president comes along? Does s/he also ‘force’ the country? And just how does a president ‘force’ something like single payer on the country?
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 8:49 pm
And this is what I was referring to earlier with my question regarding whether Bernie is planning to use the bully pulpit to recruit the population into hounding the elected officials in order to “enforce” his agenda…which may go very wrong.
Also, the fact that MM feels that Bernie will force a certain direction on the country is an indicator of exactly what may be Bernie’ biggest problem, and which is the thing his opponents have been latching on, namely that because he will be unable to pass anything based on discussion and alliances, he will be not only too argumentative but also too antagonistic to the structure of compromise and alliances that the congress is built upon. He may end up a lame duck from the first day.
Though I felt Obama was too timid in his pursuit of his agenda, I also respected that he was adamant on doing it through that established structure and not go at it alone. The system of governance is a finely tuned one, and is reliant on the restraint from all parties from engaging in unilateral actions, no matter how vehement the talk, for once we cross a certain threshold of executive action, we cannot walk it back,especially in the age of the tea party.
It is true that Bernie, if he manages to be elected in spite of the party’s opposition, may be empowered to dismiss the party plays that the president is bound to, however, without the democratic party’ support, how much can he get done other than the couples of issues he’ll handle through executive action?
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 9:17 pm
Pedant: There are people at the end of that pain. There are women who will bear children that are unplanned, unwanted, and who impose great hardships on women and their families. There are people who are disenfranchised.
When the majority of people of both parties are feeling pain, then you will see change. 20% of the nation feeling pain is the constant background, it will not cause change. The Great Depression brought a level of pain that supported change.
Your use of the cliche ‘lessor of two evils’ is lazy, thoughtless, and inappropriate.
No it isn’t, it is intentional and appropriate. Evil, in this context, is favoring the rich that do harm to us, to the environment, to our educational system, to our health, and to our financial security. It is collaborating with them despite the harm they do. Evil is harming others for profit.
Governing by imperial presidency is a terrible remedy.
No it isn’t, as long as it is Constitutional, it is doing exactly what our Founders intended. They gave the POTUS imperial powers because they truly believed that such powers were often necessary, so often that they did not try to restrict them or subject them to review.
The insufferable Kim Davis is not evil, at least not in the way I understand ‘evil’.
Then you understand evil incorrectly. Evil is doing harm to others for personal gain. She is evil because she is trying to hijack the power of her office, illegally, to enforce her personal interpretation of biblical law in a country that has rejected it from the beginning. She is a traitor, by definition.
Obama is imperfect, his judgement was not always sound. but EVIL? Seriously?
Yes. He lied and defrauded us; he caused harm, and has continued the harm by setting precedent of not prosecuting torture that was clearly done and clearly illegal. By letting Bush and Cheney escape punishment. By allowing Bradley Manning to be tortured. I could go on, but yes, evil.
Do you really expect and accept only perfection…
That is a false dichotomy; the only two options are not “perfection” and “evil.” It is possible to do a competent job without engaging in evil. Evil is not a prerequisite for running the country. Evil is not a given. One does not have to agree to harm innocent people in order to govern, one does not have to protect criminals in order to govern, one does not have to violate people’s rights in order to govern.
And whose own country does not lack its own warring, murderous, impoverished citizens.
Murderous and criminal citizens are not an excuse for murderous and criminal government. Murderous and criminal citizens were not granted the power of life and death over other citizens, or the presumption of truthfulness given police officers in court. Citizens do not swear an oath to behave in office in accord with the Constitution.
You are not making logical arguments.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 10:15 pm
Susan Sarandon must be a woman hating sexist. She’s all in for Bernie. So are Sarah Silverman, Belinda Carlisle, Bonnie Raitt, Lucinda Williams. All self loathing women dontcha know.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 10:28 pm
Pedant: Note the use of the word ‘force’. Really? Is that the way to govern a country of 320 million? What happens when the next conservative fundamentalist president comes along? Does s/he also ‘force’ the country? And just how does a president ‘force’ something like single payer on the country?
Force is used here, as I always use it in politics, in the legal and sanctioned sense. The Congress can override a veto, that is the type of force to which I refer. The exercise of Constitutionally granted power is the use of power to get your way, and that is the type of “forcing” I am talking about.
If a conservative fundamentalist gains power then I fully expect them to force the country. They would do that whether Bernie forced the country toward socialism or not! Why should Democrats (or Socialists) refrain from using every legal resource at their disposal, knowing that the Capitalists and Fundamentalists will not hesitate to do the same? Do you seriously think that courteous restraint will be answered in kind? That is ludicrous. I expect the President to follow the law to the letter, and to use every ounce of power available to them within that constraint to effect the change they promised their voters. To do less is a betrayal, a fraud perpetrated by them to steal votes from voters.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 10:49 pm
po: The system of governance is a finely tuned one, and is reliant on the restraint from all parties from engaging in unilateral actions, no matter how vehement the talk, for once we cross a certain threshold of executive action, we cannot walk it back,
Balderdash. Truman desegregated the entire armed forces by Executive Order 9981 in one day. A good act that stuck. As I understand it he had to threaten several officers under his command with court martial for treason if they disobeyed or tried to undermine his orders, but they caved and the armed forces was racially integrated. Truman did this precisely because trying to go through legislative channels was being strongly opposed by members of Congress.
Obama dragged out the integration of homosexuals he could have integrated in precisely the same way. Not only that, but he allowed the military to continue to investigate homosexuals, when they were not supposed to be doing that under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and he allowed homosexuals that came out to have their careers ruined. He could have ordered the enforcement of DADT as it was written, he could have pardoned homosexuals and prevented them from being discharged, he could have, as Commander in Chief, ordered the military to reduce the priority of DADT investigations to beneath the level of investigating gym locker vandalism, and by executive order demoted or court-martialed anybody violating that direct order, much like Truman threatened.
Once we cross a certain threshold of executive action, things get done. Because once some things are reality for a few years, the opposition to them becomes so weakened that it no longer has the momentum to turn back the clock.
In particular there are pardons. There is no recourse for pardons, even if the Constitution was changed to prevent them, all existing pardons would stand. There is no limit or qualifications for pardons, the whole point is that the President is allowed to override the entire Justice System if he so chooses, no matter how guilty the recipient may be. The pardon can have the effect, as intended by the Founders, of nullifying the effect of a bad law.
And we have plenty of bad laws, and pardons would help bring them to light.
Bernie would not be limited to executive orders, either. He would be appointing on the order of 50 to 75 federal judges per year, and chosen carefully that can also have a very positive impact on society, particularly if they are chosen to be hard on big business.
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 1:07 am
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-final-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-is-out-how-accurate-will-it-be/ Trump and Clinton are leading by small margins in the final and usually reliable Des Moines Register poll. Iowa is a must win for Sanders. I think Sanders hurt himself with undecided women last week with his comments about Planned Parenthood. The fact that he is to the right of Clinton on guns is not helping him either.
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 2:36 am
MM, but no president ever leads by executive decision alone…Every president will go out on a limb on some specific issue, but that is out of a structure of cooperation and alliances.
The more adamant Bernie is in eschewing the standards,the more isolated he’ll be…and he will find himself fighting both the democrats and the republicans.
Worse yet, the judges he would be appointing may be torn between loyalty to him or to the party and it will go badly very quickly.
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 3:10 am
Well, I gave it a shot – not an unexpected loss. However, MM, I’m going to follow your prescriptive but go you one better. No half measures for me and who knows, perhaps you will even follow my lead on this…
I’m going to vote for the very worst possible candidate. Let’s bring on the pain!
Yes, that’s the ticket. No use sitting here passively as a non-voter when it is Clinton vs Trump or Cruz when we could be actively hastening our fall. Who the hell needs Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid anyway?
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 4:00 am
“The more adamant Bernie is in eschewing the standards,the more isolated he’ll be…and he will find himself fighting both the democrats and the republicans.
Worse yet, the judges he would be appointing may be torn between loyalty to him or to the party and it will go badly very quickly.”
Doesn’t this entire discussion have a surreal quality to it.
The sum total of it seems to be ‘we better not vote for Sanders because in the face of democrat rejections of his initiatives he will attempt to expand the powers of the presidency in some unspecified way.
So we are supposed to believe that after Sanders wins the presidency, democrats will stand with republicans and refuse to support progressive legislation? Why? Because they are really liberal republicans – or further right? Because they are sore losers? Because it makes a good argument against voting for Sanders?
Please, would someone point out the democrats who will vote against the progressive initiatives of president Sanders? I think many of us would like to know.
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 4:24 am
BFM, as I have said before, I am not voting for Hillary, nor am I saying “we better not vote for Bernie lest…”. I am actually saying the opposite, that people who like Bernie SHOULD vote for him no matter which piece of the sky we are told would fall on our heads if they do.
In that, I agree with MM wholeheartedly, against IP .
However, I agree with IP that MM’s case for voting for Sanders does not stand, as he, MM, stated it.
I also agree with Blouise that Sanders has not shown why he would be so successful as president.
Either way, I am voting for Jill Stein, for the same ideological reasons MM might be voting for Sanders, knowing full well that Jill has little chance to win, unlike Sanders, I have no doubt that she would be a real departure from the status quo.
As for which democrats would vote for the progressive initiatives of president Sanders, just ask yourself how many democrats have stood up against Obama on middle of the lines policies you’d think would gather the crows?
How many democrats distanced themselves from Obama while running for reelection?
Even Hillary who was in his administration is only now claiming a piece of Obama’s legacy against Sanders.
it is evident that the Democratic machine favors Hillary as a blue chip entity, one that invested into the system and one they know will return their own investment. With president Hillary, all elected and electable democrats win, for they would benefit not only from the return to investment to the party in terms of electorate, but she would play the game of supporting the party’s candidates…the structure of intra-party of alliances and cooperation I mentioned above.
What, on the other hand, is Bernie’s structure? He is almost as much of an outsider to the democratic party as he is to the Republicans? In fact, president Sanders might be to the Democrats what Trump is currently to the Republican party, an outsider who yet galvanizes a vocal portion of its voters. Both of them are actually a great danger to their own party.
Bernie’s support is mainly individual, a great many people chipping in a dime each…meanwhile no democrats of note, no democratic structure has raised any money for him…he is an independent, ideologically, systematically, and practically. Why would the democratic party and its powerful network support Bernie?
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 4:34 am
And this why I am with Stein:
—————————————–
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44084.htm
Jill Stein’s Platform More Viable Than Bernie’s
By David Swanson
January 30, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “American Herald Tribune” – I asked Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein about her platform this week and came away believing it had a better chance of winning than Bernie Sanders’. I know that platforms don’t run, people do, and they do so within a two-party dominated system. But this already crazy presidential election could turn into a crazier five-way race. And, even if it doesn’t, or if it does but still nobody ever learns that Jill Stein exists, there is nonetheless much for us and for the other candidates to learn from her platform.
If you think free college is popular, you should see what young people think of free college and erasing all existing student debt.
If single-payer healthcare with raised taxes (but net savings, if you make it to that fine print) excites voters, how do you think they’d respond to single-payer healthcare with no raised taxes?
If fewer wars and asking Saudi Arabia to do more of the funding and fighting sounds promising, what would you say to no more wars, a 50 percent cut in the $1 trillion/year military spending, no more weapons sales to Saudi Arabia which is doing more than enough killing, thank you, no more free weapons for Israel either, and investment of some of the savings in a massive green energy jobs campaign producing a sustainable energy policy and a full-employment economy?
Senator Bernie Sanders’ domestic proposals have got millions excited, but the (unfair and misleading) criticism that he’ll raise taxes may be a tragic flaw, and it’s one he opens himself up to by refusing to say that he’ll cut the military. Stein would cut at least half of the single biggest item in the discretionary budget, an item that takes up at least half of that budget: military spending. She’d cut fossil fuel subsidies, as well, and expect savings to come from healthcare, including as a result of cutting pollution and improving food quality. But the big immediate item is the military. Cutting it is popular with voters, but not with Democratic or Republican presidential candidates. Sanders will be labeled the Tax Man by the corporate media, while Jill Stein will have to be attacked in a different way if she gets mentioned.
“Cutting the military budget is something that we can do right now,” Stein told me, “but we want to be clear that we are putting an end to wars for oil – period. And that is part of our core policy of a Green New Deal which creates an emergency program, establishing twenty million living wage jobs, full-time jobs, to green the economy, our energy, food, and transportation systems, building critical infrastructure, restoring ecosystems, etc. This is an emergency program that will get to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. So this is a war-time-level mobilization in order to completely detoxify our energy system, and that means both nuclear and fossil fuel. In doing that, we deprive the empire of this major justification for wars and bases all around the world. So we want to be clear that that emphasis is gone, and goading the American public into war so as to feed our fossil fuel energy system – that ends and makes all the more essential and possible the major cutting of the military budget.”
The “war on terror,” Stein pointed out, has only created more terror, while costing each U.S. household $75,000. “That’s not going to make people terribly enthusiastic for it, particularly when you point out that all this has done is create failed states, worse terrorist threat, whether you look at the Taliban, the globalization of al-Qaeda, the creation of ISIS. This has been an utter, unmitigated disaster, and the massive refugee crisis which is threatening to tear apart the European Union. This is absolutely unsustainable by any count.”
To change U.S. foreign policy, Stein proposed financial reforms unheard of in any presidential debate thus far. She suggested that military and other government contractors should face “pay to play protections” preventing them from “buying their way into policy.” Stein explained: “If you establish that anyone who contributes, who provides campaign contributions, or who lobbies is not eligible for contracting with the government, the minute you break that umbilical cord, then the industry loses its power to corral Congress and dictate foreign policy.” Stein said such protections could also block U.S. government facilitation of weapons sales to foreign buyers.
“War profiteering should not be allowed,” Stein explained, “in the same way that energy profiteering is not compatible with our survival.” Ultimately, the big profits, Stein said, are in healthcare: “We spend a trillion dollars plus on the military industrial complex every year, but we spend three trillion and counting every year on the sick care system, which doesn’t make us well. It just enables us to tread water while we cope with these disastrous health impacts of the war economy and the fossil fuel economy.”
Stein did not hesitate to highlight differences when I asked her about Bernie Sanders. She cited his “support, for example, for the F-35 weapons system which has been an incredible boondoggle.” While Sanders would keep killing with drones and “fighting terrorism,” Stein calls “fighting terrorism” an oxymoron and points to counterproductive results: “Terrorism is a response to drones that sneak up on you in the night and to night raids and this is where we recruit and we enable ISIS and al-Qaeda to continue expanding … something Bernie hasn’t quite gotten straight by saying the solution here is to turn the Saudis loose; the Saudi’s need to ‘get their hands dirty’.”
So, what would President Jill Stein do about ISIS? She answered that question with no hesitation: “Number 1: we don’t stop ISIS by doing more of what created ISIS. This is like the elephant in the room that none of the other presidential candidates are willing to acknowledge, even Rand Paul, I might say, surprisingly. So we don’t bomb ISIS and try to shoot ISIS out. We’ve got to stop ISIS in its tracks by ending the funding of ISIS and by ending the arming of ISIS. How do we do that? We do that with a weapons embargo. And so the U.S. can unilaterally move forward on that, but we need to sit down and talk with the Russians as well, and Putin tried to do this.
“First of all,” she says, “there are 43 million young people and not-so-young people who are trapped in debt, in student debt. My campaign is the only campaign that will be on the ballot that will abolish student debt. We did it for the bankers who plunged us into this economic crisis that persists in spite of what they say. And they did that by way of their waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet we bailed them out to the tune of $16 trillion and counting.
Stein also pointed to 25 million Latinos who, she said, “have learned that the Democrats are the party of deportation, of night raids, and of detention, of refugees who are fleeing a crisis in their home countries that we created. How? Through NAFTA, though illegal coups and CIA-sponsored regime changes, and through the drug wars. … If people want to fix the immigration problem, the answer is, ‘Stop causing it.'”
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 2:56 pm
BFM: Exactly. Bernie would have the same trouble passing legislation as Hillary, I think the Republicans that control the House and Senate would love another Clinton in office. With 60% of voters thinking Hillary is untrustworthy and unlikeable, there is no reason to believe she will be able to pass anything! She will be reduced to the same executive actions as Obama, and Bernie.
Pedant: MM, I’m going to follow your prescriptive but go you one better.
That is not one better, it is just stupidly shallow.
Neither party is stupid when it comes to interpreting statistics. Perhaps you can see this in extremis: Consider a vote a “Like” on facebook. So A and B offer ideas, if you like their ideas you vote for them. Withholding a vote means you do not like either idea. Writing in somebody else means you like that persons ideas.
If all voters vote and all the votes go to Republicans, that means everybody likes their ideas, and you will get more of the same ideas.
However, if only 30% of voters vote, and 70% stay home (not a plausible outcome but extreme for clarity of illustration), that means only 30% of people like the Republican ideas, and the other 70% don’t like EITHER candidate. The Republicans win, and 70% of people suffer under what they consider bad ideas, but the Democrats understand people did not like or trust their candidate or their ideas, not enough to bother voting to choose between them, and so if they want to win they must change, or wait until the opposition ideas are so bad it makes them look good by comparison.
Voting for Republicans will not send the right message to the Democrats, it will move them to be more like Republicans because that looks like a successful message that garners lots of votes. Refusing to vote for either party can send the message that both parties have the wrong idea (or wrong candidate).
Write-in votes coupled with voting for other Democratic candidates or proposals on the ticket can be an even more powerful message to the Democratic party (vice versa for Republicans). That tells the party that it wasn’t just apathy about the candidate or platform, it was active dislike: The voter took the time to show up to the polls and vote as a Democrat but STILL refused to vote for their candidate. That is a clear signal that there is a problem with the candidate and/or the candidate’s platform and promises.
Write-in votes (if tallied at all) can be a signal telling the parties who the preferred messenger actually is. The same is true of failed primary candidates that had significant support (like Bernie, like two of Trump, Cruz and Rubio). Terribly failed primary candidates can provide an example of additional losing strategies that gained no support.
The parties are not stupid; most of what they do that looks like stupidity or self-sabotage is done for hidden reasons, usually having to do with shady money and obeisance to wealthy benefactors giving them inside tracks on investments, and financing their projects, campaigns, life-style or retirement aspirations.
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 4:08 pm
We need a leftist revolution in the House. We had a tea party one. Not much can be done until Congress changes. With regards to Bernie appointing leftist judges, good luck getting them by McConnell. See Feingold is ahead but that is only one seat.
LikeLike
January 31, 2016 at 6:32 pm
SwM: And McConnell is going to be lovey dovey with Clinton? Or are you just saying that we are doomed to nominating right-wing judges and Clinton will go along with that, so we have another four years of “we might as well have elected a Republican”?
The standard cannot be that we should elect somebody that will only do what Republicans will allow. I would rather Bernie bring a case to the Supreme Court as a Constitutional crisis on witholding confirmations; which he might do, then do another four or eight years of nominating only those that Republicans will allow. That is one way to get a leftist revolution in a body that is corrupted by non-leftist big money.
And I will note that the Tea Party revolution happened exactly as I have outlined: They banded together and refused to vote for those they saw as corrupt, they let Republicans lose and Democrats win, and then the Republicans panicked and adapted and moved further right toward the Tea Party. Lifelong centrist, compromising Republicans lost their seats and their political careers. The Tea Partiers won the war by losing battle, after battle, after battle for years. And although they were incompetent and stupid and let themselves be hijacked by Newt and big money, the effect they had stuck.
So another way to create a leftist revolution is to do what they did: Refuse to vote for corrupt and “proud centrists” (her words) like Hillary and Bill, and lose elections, lose seats, and loudly demand change. Enough to terrify the Democratic Party leaders and politicians into thinking they will lose their next primary and the seat to Republicans.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 1:19 am
MM
Your analysis of the TP is interesting but I think you are ignoring one very important catalyst – hatred of a black guy in the WH. And of course, there is the Koch money in Americans for Prosperity. So I’m not sure you can say they withheld their votes; they mostly screamed at town halls and had a pretty successful taxpayer revolt march in DC. Yes, they now control and direct the ever rightward march, but it is through fervent activism (fueled by that racism thing), not withholding their vote. Absolutely minor point, but I don’t think Newt had much of a role. However, genesis is hard to pin down – I’ve read that some say seeds were planted with the Powell Memorandum. I’m sure it’s a document that you know.
Will you support Russ Feingold? Any chance you can tell us of any others you would support.
I still think your tactic is wrong, as is po’s. The Supremes are critical. And I’m not much into the pain of seeing the New Deal and more dismantled.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 1:35 am
Pedant: I think whatever you are afraid will happen in one term of Republicanism is bound to happen sooner or later. Democrats will not win the Presidency forever, and thinking they will is a pipe dream.
In fact I’d say as long as Democrats continue electing Republican-lite like Obama and Hillary (President of the Young Republicans her freshman year in college), the New Deal will be ever more dismantled, just like it is under Obama. I will bet Hillary loses the general if she is nominated. Bernie is being too nice to her, IMO, and all the ammunition will come out very strong in the general. I give her well under a 50% chance of being elected President.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 1:55 am
This was sung at a Sander’s rally. It’s terrific.
What part of the New Deal has Obama dismantled?
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 2:00 am
Sure, Clinton may lose and they will be launching nuclear attacks; Bernie will be getting them, too, with the slime of socialist which equals communist. And yeah, I know the Republican history. She’s not my favorite candidate either. But Sanders is a sure loser.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 1:51 pm
Pedant: As Bernie is proving already, the attempt to equate socialism with communism is not very effective. Hillary tried it early and it didn’t work. It is only going to work on the 1/3 of the populace that is rabid Republicans and will hate A Democrat in the White House for some reason anyway. The Republican problem is they have been labeling any program that helps people or the poor, in healthcare (e.g. Medicare, Planned ParentHood), nutrition (e.g. Food Stamps), income (e.g. Unions or Unemployment extensions) or Education (e.g. Public Schools) as “socialism” and “communism” for so long that they have effectively redefined those labels in the minds of Americans as a belief in helping others. Which, in Bernie Sanders case, is precisely what he means by “socialism.” He can effectively and truthfully deny he is a communist; and effectively and truthfully embrace being a socialist in the Nordic Model.
How do I know? Because he is already doing it; even Hillary’s Democratic supporters believe his “socialist” programs are desirable, except for a few that haven’t learned a thing since 1980, they won’t vote against him because he is a socialist. The power of that label is gone, the Soviet Union is defeated, Communism in China has been defeated and converted to dictatorial Capitalism, and Communism elsewhere in the world has been mostly defanged as any kind of serious threat. While socialist programs like Bernie’s flourish throughout the world in health care and education, and make their citizens happier and more productive.
We are firmly in the Internet age of international communication and high international awareness; anybody can find out anything with Google, anybody can seek out the truth. We don’t need reporters or media to feed us information anymore, we have the net. People born since 1980 or so are smarter for it, they were born swimming in propaganda and fear-mongering and 24/7 sales pitches. They have developed their own authenticity-radar, and 80% of them can see the comically clumsy rhetoric of aged Republicans from miles away. It is no longer enough to just scream “WITCH!” and alarm them. Bernie is authentic and can win the General. Hillary is not authentic, Trump will find plenty of material to prove it, and I think enough Democrats (particularly younger ones) will be too busy on election day to vote, so she loses the General. Trump only has to discourage about 5% of them to win.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm
This is a hint of the possible effect Bernie’s candidacy will produce. Change can only come about if people are articulating clearly what needs changing. Whether or not Hillary as President will still play this tune is problematic. However, this type of attack on the status quo must be made a part of our national dialogue in order to counter the years of conservative propaganda: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-31/in-final-iowa-blitz-an-outraged-clinton-channels-sanders
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 8:14 pm
We will see tonight. Martin O’Malley was to the left of Bernie on some issues; at 3% polling I don’t think he will reach 15% in any caucus. I think his supporters were obviously anti-Hillary and hoping, but failing to reach the threshold will now overwhelmingly choose Bernie. There are also 10% that said they don’t know who they will vote for. For similar reasons I doubt they are big fans of Hillary or they would have joined her bandwagon and coronation; I think they were hoping for something better, and now most of them will also choose Bernie over Hillary.
Plus the polls have under-polled people that have no land-line, and those that never answer their cell phone if they do not recognize the caller. That would include me and my wife and several voters in my extended family, were we in Iowa. It also includes much of the young that are overwhelming Bernie’s rallies.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 5:24 am
Where’s Blouise? FEEL THE BERN!
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 7:43 am
Franky/Znew/Some Black Friend Using Your IP/Nick:
As Blouise stated, she’s off on a three week vacation.
You don’t read much, do you?
Such a shame, because you could.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 7:55 am
Franky/Znew/Some Black Friend Using Your IP/Nick:
Where is your favorite of some months ago — you know, her name rhymes with Farley.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Actually the results are STILL not in; best I can find right before the sun comes up is Martin O’Malley dropped out, Bernie 21 delegates, Hillary 22 delegates. Hillary 49.6% of the vote, Bernie 49.4%, and 1% unaccounted for! WTF people how hard is it to count people standing in front of you? Have some of those Bush/Gore Floridians moved to Iowa? I suspect there is an interpretation fight going on somewhere.
I agree with Bernie; given an odd number of delegates that is a tie, not a loss. Plus his “momentum” continued; he went from 3 points down to 0.2 points down. Not a disaster for Hillary, but IMO bad news, a loss in NH will sting and look like Bernie’s momentum is growing and her failure is increasing.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 3:42 pm
MM,
First we had to redefine the word leadership in order to accommodate Sander’s years of lack thereof and now we must do the same with the word win. Tch, tch
Sanders failed to win a state appurtenant and custom built to his strengths. His campaign stated over and over that a large turnout would give him the win. They got their large turnout but, once again, as has been his habit for the last 23 years, he failed to bring it home.
New Hampshire should be interesting as Sanders, as he did in Iowa, shows good poll numbers … 60% chance of winning to Clinton’s 33% … but there is a caution that should be exercised when reading polls. If you were given a 60% chance of crossing the road without getting hit by a truck, how cautious would you be?
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 3:50 pm
gbk,
Spent the evening hours in a small club listening to an ensemble of keyboard, bass, snare and sax. They had a marvelous little sound system that I’m certain you would have appreciated.
I’m getting back on the train tomorrow and heading out for the next adventure. If one isn’t in a hurry and willing to enjoy, rather than bemoan, delays, an Amtrak sleeper suite is a marvelous way to travel.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 6:09 pm
Blouise: And how cautious would you be if given a 70% chance being hit by a truck? That is the situation Clinton is in.
I didn’t say Bernie won, I hoped he would win, but I think it was a tie; the vote difference is +1 to Clinton per 700 voters. I wouldn’t talk about Sander’s experience for the last 23 years were I you, he hasn’t lost a political campaign in well over 23 years, and Hillary certainly has. In fact the assessment by some media is already that considering her tons of money and the most sophisticated ground campaign ever mounted in Iowa and nearly every Democratic endorsement possible, 50.1% of the vote in Iowa is a disaster, and like against Obama, she is sabotaging her own chances with bad leadership.
Iowa is a tie. Bernie would have done better with 1% more and a win, but as it stands I consider it a small win: Bernie exceeded media expectations and Hillary fell short of media expectations. Reality has arrived. Bernie brought out plenty of new blood and beats Hillary in voting with 70% of under 24, and 60% of 25-45. More reality will arrive in a week, and pop the Clinton Bubble. Even though she will likely win South Carolina, if she under performs media expectations, if Bernie does better than media expectations, it won’t be good news for her, and it will build momentum for Bernie.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 6:26 pm
I have got to agree with MM here.Voting is much like sports, most go with the perceived winner or the upcoming, while some, the fewer as a routine go against the upcoming. The more shaky Hillary looks, the shakier she IS, and the more surging Bernie looks, the more people give him a second look and more just hop on his bandwagon, which is what most human beings tend to do.
Moreover, this is smacking of a previous time when Hillary blew it against a lesser opponent, and I think once the media starts in earnest raising the ghost of her campaign choking against Obama, the more it will frame her as about to choke against Bernie, which flips things very quickly and will have her playing defensive for the rest of the contest.
A very bad spot for her to be in. And Bernie is looking quite unflappable, which is the spot he wants to be in.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 7:45 pm
Plus I just read that SIX delegates were decided by coin toss due to irregularities in counting; and the toss was called for Hillary all six times. (odds of that, 1 in 64 runs).
If those had split fairly 50/50 as they should, we be talking about 3 less delegates for Hillary and 3 more for Bernie: 20 to 24. This was a statistical tie at best, or Bernie got robbed.
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 10:02 pm
“Plus I just read that SIX delegates were decided by coin toss due to irregularities in counting; and the toss was called for Hillary all six times. (odds of that, 1 in 64 runs).”
6 out of 6 ain’t bad. With that kind of luck maybe we should make her the president. With the odds of getting to heaven 6 to 1 I am guessing she will do well with evangelicals too.
Hey, wait a minute! Could we see that coin again?
On the other had, with her demonstrated understanding of irregular vote counts, we should have no fear of a rerun of 2000.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 12:30 pm
“Close elections matter. You either win or you lose.” – Hillary Clinton
But, Harumph! Harumph! Wait just one minute!
Question – When is a win not a win?
Answer – When the winner is Hillary Clinton.
Only in the world of the changing English language and math readjustment that defines Sanders’ reality does 21 become greater than 23.
But that fits with his non-plan for single payer and free university education … sounds good but doesn’t add up.
New Hampshire is going to be a riot. He goes into it with an 18 point lead and his favorability rating is 90% to her 73%. In Sanders’ speak that’s got to be at least 150% of something, right?
Let’s ask Trump. He doesn’t think he lost in Iowa either.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 2:38 pm
“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it.” – Trump
Hmmm … sounds like a Sanders’ echo done Trump style.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 3:08 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/iowa-caucus-hillary-clinton-ruline-steininger/index.html Hillary Clinton is the first woman to win the Iowa caucus. She came in third last time. Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz had the best organizations in Iowa. I can tell that Cruz has a good organization in my state as I have been called twice and I am a democrat. Don’ think I will get another call after the way I answered the survey questions.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 3:31 pm
Blouise: A win is not a win when it is due entirely to random chance, like the outcome of six coin flips. She won the coin flips, not the election. Before the coin flips, she was 23-6 = 17 to Bernie’s 21. The possible outcomes were 17:27, 18:26, 19:25, 20:24, 21:23, 22:22, 23:21. The differentials in Bernie’s favor were 10,8,6,4,2,0,-2.
With corresponding chances of 1/64, 6/64, 15/64, 20/64, 15/64, 6/64, 1/64.
The weighted average of the differentials is (10+48+90+80+30-2)/64 = 4 in Bernie’s favor; 20 for Hillary, 24 for Bernie: The equivalent of splitting the 50/50 coin flips 50/50 so that randomness completely unrelated to the election, turnout, or supporters at all is eliminated from the outcome; the same as the 17:21 without the disputed outcomes.
Hillary lost the caucuses and won the coin flips (or somebody cheated on the coin flips), her “win” says nothing about her popularity in Iowa and actually disguises her unpopularity. It is like “winning” a race because your opponent, who was well ahead of you, ran into a random wasp and got stung in the face and that slowed him down enough for you to pass him. That “win” proves nothing.
Yes she will be awarded more delegates than him. Yes that will trick some people into thinking she didn’t fail as badly as she did. But for those of us actually interested in the future of the campaigns Bernie crushed her.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Blouise: Actually Trump said he lost in Iowa because he boycotted the debate and that hurt him, and he had hardly any ground game in Iowa to translate polls into votes. That sounds like a very reasonable assessment to me, and knowing that and admitting it publicly could mean he will take steps to address the ground game problem immediately. I still think he seriously wants the nomination and will spend to get it. Cruz isn’t going to appeal to upcoming states that have far fewer evangelical Republican voters than Iowa.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 4:03 pm
“Question – When is a win not a win?”
When it is questionable whether the win reveals the preferences of voters – such as being won by a coin toss.
Or when the count is so close that it is plausible either one was the actual winner – such as in 2000 or more recently in Iowa.
The question is not whether Hillary is the winner in accordance with rules.
The question is whether the win reveals any difference in the preferences of the voters for the two candidates – and it does not.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm
BFM: The win may not, but just like sound, when the random background noise is eliminated the pure signal can be better understood, and in this case it is revealing and indicates a loss instead of a win, vis a vis voter preference.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 5:55 pm
MM, Trump is accusing Cruz of fraud. Apparently, Trump said Cruz said Carson was quitting the race. Here’s the tweet.
Follow
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
8:28 AM – 3 Feb 2016
4,544 4,544 Retweets
9,042 9,042 likes
And, yes, he has also said he lost because he skipped the debate.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 6:09 pm
Here’s better info – or at least more info – on the coin tosses:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html
Or you can choose to accept the version accepted by the right wing. Will you next be saying Hillary killed Vince Forster?
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 8:42 pm
Pedant: I don’t follow any right wing talking points, I followed what I read on fivethirtyeight, HuffingtonPost, and what I saw on TV (I do not watch MSNBC or FOX). If it is wrong, I think the reporters I was reading were probably misled, not lying. That said, if the vote differential is 0.2% then there is no way it is fair to give Hillary 52.27% of the vote instead of 50%, which is doable with 44 delegates.
And of course Hillary didn’t kill Vince herself, she and Bill just happen to leave a trail of prematurely dead associates-under-investigation in their wake.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 9:41 pm
MM
If the rules are unfair that is one thing; to accuse of fixing the coin toss is quite another. Which one is it, MM? And which one is Hillary’s responsibility?
And is your remark and its implications about a ‘trail of prematurely dead associates’ a serious one? If so, you ought to hustle over to Turley again. There are a number of folks there with whom you have much in common.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 9:46 pm
Lighter note
“Better Call Saul” (prequel to Breaking Bad) is streaming on Netflix. It’s quite good.and should provide a nice brain break between primaries.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 10:48 pm
Yep, found out last night and watched my first 2 episodes. So far so good.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 12:11 am
Turley is speaking at Cato events now. I don’t see how that is even possible because it seems to me that Turley is more of a democratic socialist than any kind of capitalist. Or maybe Cato is going to the dark side.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 12:28 am
Refusing to support a candidate has consequences. Remember the Nader? Guess what we got by refusing to support the Democrat.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Actually Trump said he lost in Iowa – MM
And actually he also said what I quoted which is what put him in the same ballpark with Sanders.
And, if one stops to think about it, Sanders and Trump have a good deal in common, besides being great yellers. They both represent the resentful and they are both political opportunists.
Sanders tapped into resentful democrats and gave up his career long refusal to join a political party in 2015 by joining the Democratic party so he wouldn’t have to run as an Independent. Trump tapped into resentful republicans and, after contributing money for years to both parties decided to run for president via the republican organization.
But I don’t know if Trump has claimed to be the expert in conservatism the way Sanders claims to be the end authority on progressivism. Shit, even I’ve done more progressive work than Sanders with his two post office name changes. What a blowhard. Hmmm … just like Trump.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Blouise, that’s what I find hugely ironic, but not surprising really. Things happen similarly across the spectrum of extremism, where what happens on one end happens on the other, and only people right at the center of both can see the parallels.
Yes, what’s happening in the Republican party is exactly what is happening in the Democratic party, and Bernie is the Trump of the left, both supposed populists, both supposed anti-establishment, both ideologically not of the party they seek to represent That is why I insist Bernie offers details on his plans lest he becomes fully Trump…”just trust me…””.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 2:51 pm
” They both represent the resentful and they are both political opportunists.”
The issue is not whether Sanders represents citizens who are resentful.
The issue is whether his criticisms are accurate.
Does anyone doubt that since the 1970s our economy has been restructured to direct the benefits of economic growth upward to the very top of society?
Does anyone doubt that since the end of the last recession, 2009, the economy has grown by about 3 trillion dollars and that the top 1% have taken roughly 90% of that growth?
Does anyone doubt that in the past decade or so middle class Americans have lost about $4,000 of purchasing power from their incomes?
Is that the kind of America that we should accept?
Isn’t it time to put forward the facts to voters and demand change instead of accommodation?
When Hillary decides to treat workers as well as she treats corporations, please let me know?
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 3:18 pm
” They both represent the resentful and they are both political opportunists.”
Resentment is not very useful and I don’t think that is what Sanders is getting at. Identifying the problem is a place to start, and taking that information to voters gives us the opportunity to make some meaningful change.
Apparently the best and the brightest, the most powerful, the most influential have found their leader in Hillary Clinton.
To some, Hillary talks a good game. But what should we expect from all her words? It should be clear what the powerful think of Hillary’s words.
From the front page of the WAPO this morning:
“Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial-services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run — more than one of every 10 dollars of the $157.8 million contributed to back her bid, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by The Washington Post.
The contributions helped Clinton reach a fundraising milestone: By the end of 2015, she had brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns than her husband did during his quarter-century political career.”
Some of the most powerful think that Sanders words are dangerous. Maybe that is a good thing.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 4:31 pm
The resentment Bernie taps into is fully warranted resentment for unfair treatment, as BFM says. The resentment that Trump taps into is unwarranted resentment for egalitarian treatment by people that were privileged in the past (and still are to an extent) by strong social and sometimes legal endorsement of racism, misogyny, bigotry, religion and prejudice that gave them a significant edge in starting businesses, finding jobs, fewer court convictions and lesser sentences and a greater chance of parole than the non-white population.
The Trump resentment is for increasingly being treated equally while the Sander’s resentment is for increasingly being treated unequally with respect to the wealthy that are getting all the advantages.
The Trump resentment is against “political correctness” that his supporters feel punishes them unfairly for making disparaging remarks about blacks, Hispanics, women [their looks, or whether they are menstruating] and homosexuals. They support Trump because they see him “getting away with it” and they are allowed to laugh with their fellow ugly minded people.
The Sanders resentment is against greed and selfishness and corruptness in government and law enforcement, we are outraged by the greed of for-profit insurance and for-profit healthcare that costs lives, we are outraged by the for-profit banks and corporations and prisons that should be prosecuted for fraud and harm to citizens but are not because their money shields them from justice by corrupting the courts and lawmakers.
The Trump resentment is small-minded selfishness personified, the Sander’s resentment is a righteous demand for greater social justice, less inequity due to poverty, and the equality of rich and poor before the law. And Hillary is clearly in the pockets of the profiteers, not on the side of the people.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 6:46 pm
@MM: “The Trump resentment is for increasingly being treated equally while the Sander’s resentment is for increasingly being treated unequally with respect to the wealthy that are getting all the advantages.”
I have read several MSM attempts to distinguish the anti-establishment sentiments of Trump and Sanders. This is the best of the bunch. Thanks for the clarity.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 2:36 pm
I wonder what Sanders’ plan is to deal with the downturn in our economy that is already taking place due to the floundering economic situation in China. I wonder how he’s going to factor in the increase in taxes that will be necessary when implementing single payer and free university education with that downturn. Further, I wonder how he’s going to get university fees reduced so that free degrees are affordable using tax dollars. And then there is the help that cities are going to need improving their infrastructure so that we stop poisoning our kids. I want specifics for these are real and specific problems looming just over the horizon.
That is why I insist Bernie offers details on his plans lest he becomes fully Trump…”just trust me…””. – po
Yep. The fact that Sanders doesn’t seem to realize this is evidenced by his lack of policy plans and that lack of thoughtful consideration is downright scary. I am going to bet Trump has policy plans to deal with the boomerang that is the China situation. This is why Bloomberg is sitting in the wings. If it looks like the contest is going to devolve to the very dangerous Sanders and Trump, Bloomberg will enter the race.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 2:50 pm
One other small thing that could become very big. Unions
Unions owe dick-squat to Sanders and Trump has a good rep for using union workers. They also like his American first rhetoric.
It ain’t all Wall Street, Bernie, and you’re an idiot for not realizing that.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 3:37 pm
“It ain’t all Wall Street, Bernie, and you’re an idiot for not realizing that.”
Blouise,
I like and respect your intelligence far too much to think you really believe that the meme that Hillary is trying to create, that Bernie only focuses on “Big Banks” and neglects the effect of corporations on the rest of the economy. Perhaps too, you respect my perception enough to understand that my focus about the economic injustice in this country cuts a much wider swath then banks. “Wall Street” in progressive terms stands for the entire situation of economic injustice taking place in this country across the economy. “Wall Street” connotes the Big Banks, the Hedge Funds and the economic raiders like Skrelly who take over drug companies and then raise prices. It also encompasses firms like GE that makes billions from government defense contracts and then hide their assets an don’t pay their fair share of taxes. All of these corporate institutions are in bed with each other with interlocking Directorships on Corporate Boards.
The idea though of “detailed plans” in political campaigns, is merely part of the same old con game. The truth is Hillary can’t have it both ways. She’s positioned herself as a political realist. If she in truth is a “political realist” she understands that any policy proposals must go through the detailed vetting process of creating government programs, meaning congress. “Detailed” programs are meaningless fluff created to give a pretense of policy expertise.
Now having told all in advance that I will work and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, here is why I am much less than thrilled with her, as I was with Bill as I detailed in my other post. I saw her last night and I’ve seen the constant references to “raising taxes” in critique of Bernie’s proposals. This is the type of stuff that has turned the Democratic Party to the right abetted by the DLC and its insistence on playing the conservative game. The DLC types, which include Hillary, have used, rather than refuted the memes of taxation created by the likes of Grover Norquist. The fact is the problem with taxation in America is that the burden has unequally fallen on the middle class and allowed the wealthy to pay much less than their fairs share. In social security for instance, the Reagan/O’Neill Social Security “reforms” actually raised SS taxes, which were used for funding the Reagan defense buildup. Back in the 80’s I realized that when I saw that the money being taken out for SS were actually more than for my withholding taxes. Years later, when I finally reached the salary cap for SS, it became even clearer what a con game had been perpetrated.
Raise the cap on SS withholding and the “problems” of SS are over. Disallow the use of “tax havens” and you have more than enough money to fund new programs. Tax trades on Wall Street and you are imposing a reasonable tax upon something that is the equivalent of sales taxes on cars. Abolish the “capital gains” tax and have investors pay the same as wage earners. “Raising Taxes” is a phony conservative meme and Hillary by using it actually diminishes herself and gives lie to her “progressive” credentials. I want the Democrats o lead with actual progressive ideas which to my mind are all about electoral reform, income equality, equality for all and a fair deal for all citizens. The only possibility for that coming about is if there is a huge groundswell of people understanding the con game perpetrated by conservatives for the last 40 years. By using conservative memes like taxation Hillary does people who really want change a disservice.
The sad thing I was thinking as I watched last night’s debate, was that I could think of a strategy for Hillary that would give her the nomination without directly attacking Bernie. Unfortunately, her brain trust led by Bill, doesn’t have a clue and keeps playing the same old game of triangulation.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 4:04 pm
And then there is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/hillary-the-banksters-com_b_9164930.html
For a moment though let me strip away this whole discussion of the fine details of the political process and get down to my own personal nitty gritty. I am alive today because of Medicare. As I a 65 year old was in the hospital recovering from my heart transplant there was a TV news story about a 38 year old man, with two young children in Arizona who needed a heart transplant and one was available. His insurance carrier wouldn’t cover it. I felt awful, even though MY new heart was beating strongly within me.
I need my social security payments to keep me solvent. All of the Republicans have plans to privatize SS. Hillary of course says she will protect it. However, Obama in working on a budget deal with Congress had his negotiators state “everything is on the table including social security and other entitlements”. In fact there is no SS COLA this year and some Medicaid Benefits were cut. Finally, besides SS, my only other source of income is my municipal pension. All across the country Republicans have been raiding public pension plans and ALEC has decreasing municipal pensions as a main goal. This election is about my life and livelihood. Given Bill’s record and Hillary’s history, I have grave doubts about my personal future
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Finally regarding Social Security there is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 4:34 pm
Sanders does a disservice to the general population in his failure to present policies but he does a greater disservice to his supporters. Just read this thread. Because of the lack of policies to present for argument, his supporters are forced into wild claims involving presidential powers that basically disband congress. He’s presented as some throwback to King John uttering “thus Saeth the king”. I doubt Sanders sees himself in this light but what else can his supporters do when he gives them nothing to work with? Further, when confronted with policies put forth by Clinton, instead of being able to counter with the merits of Sanders’ plans, they are content with all the old rightwing claptrap that we’ve been hearing since Ken Starr. It’s a damn high school pep rally.
I am beginning to suspect this is exactly the way Sanders wants it. He loves the ego stroking that is campaigning. The boring governing stuff doesn’t interest him at all. He’s spent the last 23 years doing just that. Why change now?
(Mike … that’s not a Hillary meme … the dems in my state are very worried about that as they have been catching the rumblings from the Unions. Not all unions are liberal. Many are very conservative. Gotta be on the ground to know that. Sanders doesn’t have a clue about union politics)
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Blouise: I wonder what Sanders’ plan is to deal with the downturn in our economy
Sander’s wants to create jobs exactly the way I said Obama should have done it in 2009; raise taxes to pay for blue-collar infrastructure repair jobs throughout the country. Everywhere there is a federal highway, bridge, dam, tunnel or building. To the extent he can do that on his own (which is to some extent by Executive Order) he will.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 4:44 pm
P.S. Like Obama just recently declared a “state of emergency” in Flint that allowed him to spend $80M to help fix the problem. Although that was requested by the Governor and mayor, waiting for such a request is not necessary; the President can unilaterally formally declare a state of emergency on or with regard to federal property, and then unilaterally spend to repair it. Such as an unsafe bridge.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 6:41 pm
Obama did raise taxes
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Sander’s knowledge of foreign policy seems rather limited. He answers nearly every question by saying that he did not vote for the Iraq war.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm
Mike,
For instance, let’s look at the UAW. They have ownership of and administrative responsibility for a multi billion dollar fund that provides supplemental healthcare for retirees and surviving spouses. It includes vision and dental and nursing home and hospice. The monthly premium for retirees is unbelievably low as is the yearly deduct. These are hard headed business people with real responsibilities to their memberships. They aren’t interested in catch phrases and rah-rahs. Sanders lack of policy makes them very nervous. If he takes possession of the Oval he becomes the leader of the party … a party he steadfastly spurned for 23 years. A party that he knows nothing about.
There is so much more to this than cheerleaders waving pom-poms.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm
Sander’s wants to create jobs exactly the way I said Obama should have done it in 2009; – MM
Then let’s hear it from him with specificity. You are not the guy running so your words as to what you think he’d do mean nothing.
I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion about Clinton’s policy plans versus Sanders but we can’t do that because he has none out there to which we may contrast and compare and argue. All you can give me is what you think he would do and that means squat. It’s a waste of time arguing with the wind.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 8:21 pm
The 2 usually intelligent women here have to take mega doses of stupid pills to believe the Hillary lies. Both Clinton’s fuck women, just in different ways.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 8:31 pm
Mike,
When I say supplemental that means the supplemental to Medicare .. office visits, treatments, prescription drugs and they have full vision, dental, nursing home and hospice. These people can be very conservative.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm
And that’s a valid point Blouise makes, that we are left to assume and suggest what Sanders will/can do, and it puts his supporters in a precarious position, and keeps his POTENTIAL supporters (me) at bay.
AS I said before, I leaned towards O’Malley because he not only was on the left of both Bernie and Hillary on some issues he also has governed and offer practical solutions that suggest practical experiences.
And SWM is right, Bernie is out of his depth in foreign affairs. Other than suggesting to bomb Isis in cooperation with the Saudis, who are the cause for ISIS to begin with, and quoting king Abdullah of Jordan, and saying EYE-RAN, EYE-RAK and Mooslims, and blaming Hillary on Iraq, he has NOTHING to offer.
The fact that he can’t see that we cannot keep bombing while keep building at the same time is downright scary.
So far, the best candidate by far is Jill Stein, simple!
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:27 am
Sanders has said exactly that on the campaign trail. Those aren’t my words, they are his. Well they were my words seven years ago on a different blog, and I am gratified to see a smart politician come to the same conclusion as me. Of course I borrowed it from FDR, who used the creation of new infrastructure as part of the economic plan to escape the depression.
Hillary has no economic plan, because she is beholden to the 1% of corporations and bankers that are making money by destroying the middle class. By keeping interest rates so low that they can borrow money to gamble with in rigged markets, and simultaneously pay savings accounts -.1% (or -4% after inflation) so people must invest their money in the rigged markets and have it slowly taken by the 1% as they win and lose billion dollar bets amongst themselves. They do that because the odds are in their favor, of course, because their chances of losing are a tenth the chance of the clueless middle class that isn’t literally reanalyzing the entire world market on everything every 250 milliseconds.
I believe Sanders said he could finance it with a speculation tax on Wall Street. And …. he’s right, he could.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:33 am
AS I said before, I leaned towards O’Malley – po
I really liked O’Malley
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:45 am
I believe Sanders said he could finance it with a speculation tax on Wall Street. And …. he’s right, he could. – MM
At last something to discuss.
This was an idea he posed last May. The problems are three fold. Firstly such a tad would not come close to generating the amount needed. Secondly, the tax reduces the number of trades resulting in fewer trades to be taxed, and thus eve less revenue. Third, using the example of the same tax considered by the European Union, we see that it was dropped because it was determined through studies that a 0.1 percent charge on financial transactions would’ve caused GDP to shrink by 1.76 percent in the long-run, but the revenue yielded by the tax would amount to just 0.1 percent of GDP.
This is why he stopped pushing it as a way to fund free university so you’d be wrong just as he was.
Next
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:56 am
EYE-RAN, EYE-RAK – po
That also irritates the hell out of me. It’s ignorant and disrespectful and puts him squarely in the Sarah Palin school of diplomacy.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 2:29 am
Everywhere there is a federal highway, bridge, dam, tunnel or building. To the extent he can do that on his own (which is to some extent by Executive Order) he will. – MM
That is your opinion only and not backed up by anything he has said … especially the executive order bit. Show me where he has promised to do that using executive orders and we can discuss it. Otherwise, just blowin’ in the wind.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 2:49 am
Mike says:
In fact there is no SS COLA this year and some Medicaid Benefits were cut.
What Medicaid benefits were cut? If you meant Medicare benefits, you may mean Medicare Advantage which I am all in favor of cutting. It is 15% more expensive and deserved cutting.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 3:56 am
IP,
I never really understood why people opted for the Medicare Advantage plans. The ACA has effectively limited the profit these private companies can take to 15% and they are starting to rate their effectiveness. Before the ACA the sky was the limit. I think they should get rid of the whole lot of ’em and require they all be not for profit. But nobody will listen to me on that one. Which doesn’t bother me in the least. I keep on lobbying for it anyway.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 4:48 am
Sanders didn’t say that, I said that, it is something he could do.
And yes, I am quite familiar with dynamic self-referential systems, and you are wrong; it IS possible to tax Wall Street enough to pay for both college and infrastructure, your simplistic analysis, or whoever wrote it, is either naive or purposely disingenuous to be intentionally misleading. We can bypass that feed back, we do it all the time in engineering, and besides me there are a few thousand people in America alone that can tell him how to do it. And most of them are professors like me that would be happy to help him with that for free.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Blouise: Sanders will listen to you on that one; it would be a positive step toward universal single payer healthcare. Which is the type of thing I mean might be accomplished with USPH as a goal; that and further relaxation of the Medicare age limit or reasons for exceptions. The exceptions exist already, one of my friends after multiple heart attacks (none of which affected his thinking) was allowed on Medicare at 53.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:06 pm
your simplistic analysis, or whoever wrote it – MM
As I noted in the post … that would be the EU. And Sanders did drop the plan because even he, or whoever vets these things for him, realised it was, economically a weak plan and a nonstarter. It was, originally, an idea floated, then studied, and then abandoned by the EU. Go argue with them about it. It is no longer applicable to Sanders.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Sanders will listen to you on that one – MM
And if he occupies the Oval next year I will lobby him. I have no shame.
Presently my lobbying campaign involves Sherrod Brown, my Senator, Marcy Kaptur, my Representative, Burwell of HHS, and Clinton, my choice for President.
I don’t physically go to the lobby of the Capitol. I write letters, send emails, and sign petitions. They all listen.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 1:45 pm
And most of them are professors like me that would be happy to help him with that for free. – MM
Excellent. Have him put that into a policy statement with some of the names and credentials of those who have offered to work for free so that we, the voters, can make an informed decision as to the feasibility of that policy … after all, we do have some experience with snooze-to-lose Larry Summers.
Until such time that it’s presented as a policy it’s just more wind.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Various tax increases mentioned by Sanders: Prevent repeal of estate tax, which will produce $269B over ten years.
Prevent tax avoidance of corporations that stash money overseas, which totals trillions of dollars and could provide tens of billions in revenue.
Raise the top income tax to over 50%.
Get rid of the “Capital Gains” tax that taxes income from stock market investments at 15%; income is income: Tax it at the same rate (which could rise) as, say, the national average for a medical doctor’s income. Does our society truly value stock market investors more than we do medical doctors? Stock market investors add zero value to the nation, medical doctors (on balance) add enormous value to the human condition.
Add a fixed transaction tax to every stock market trade. Although that MIGHT result in fewer trades, particularly less machine trading in which stocks are held for sub-second intervals to make one or two cents per share on the trade, it probably would not deter most traders. People trading 10,000 shares of something to make $100 (one penny per share) will not throw away $99 because there was a 50c tax each way on the transactions. Nor would private citizens refrain from trading, they currently pay brokers $7 a trade, $5 a trade, $3 a trade, and don’t care because they are trading thousands of dollars worth of stock at a time.
The tax considered by the EU is a percentage fee, not a flat fee. As a professional PhD statistician and mathematician, I question the assumptions of their analysis. I have both peer-reviewed and read some such analyses before and doubt they use the right distributions (they probably use normal distributions that do not apply to the market), and I doubt their analysis is sophisticated enough to consider “repairs” to the policy that would make it effective without impact on the GDP, and I doubt the economists analyzing it even KNOW what will affect the GDP: As they say, economics is the art of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday were wrong today. They don’t know WTF they are doing.
The effects the market can have on GDP are offspring of capital issues, which indeed are on the order of 1% or 2% of the market activity, and those (things like IPOs, floating a bond, stock buybacks, mergers, etc) can be exempted from any transaction tax very easily: They are heavily planned and involve the SEC. I would say any “transactions” to be executed on a schedule and filed with the SEC at least 30 days in advance could be exempt from the transaction tax for all parties. So if you want to buy into an IPO, no tax on that transaction. If a company you own does a stock buyback, no tax for either buyers or sellers on those transactions. Easy Breezy.
Now that said, IMO the GDP is none of the government’s business in the first place! The government does not exist to do business, it exists to protect people and their rights, and to originate and coordinate collective efforts at our behest. It is tasked with protecting us from the rest of the world, not taking over the rest of the world, or policing the rest of the world, with the possible exception of preventing the rise or triumph of a truly existential threat (e.g. Hitler). In any case, business profits are not on its dance card and neither is competing in business. Impact on the GDP is a red herring when the goal is to help the most Americans possible. It should be clear to everyone by now that increasing the wealth of billionaire rentiers or Exxon or the Sam Walton clan does not help the most Americans possible, that taxing their profits and redirecting them to higher wages and nationalized benefits is what would help the most Americans. America’s business is not business, it is the citizenry.
Background: A rentier is a person whose income is derived from “renting” a resource they own, such as property or money, the latter is “rented” out in the form of a loan or a stock purchase. They do not labor or add value to anything, they can be literally in a comatose vegetative state, and their income is “unearned” in that respect.
In the modern stock market, Company ABC has an IPO (initial public offering) of stock, I’ve seen anywhere from 10% to 70% of its company, which the public buys. Brokers take a percentage cut, but the company gets most of the money it can use to expand and grow. It isn’t a loan they have to pay back, ever; but they are expected to do two things: use all their “excess revenue” to grow their business (so it isn’t declared profit and taxed) as large as possible, and when growth is no longer a good use of excess revenue, pay dividends, do stock buybacks, and otherwise start returning a fair share of the profits to the owners.
The share owners trade their shares on the market based on their perceived value of the company and its future prospects; which can vary by the hour depending on news from the company, its competitors, and external to both. But the company never gets a dime or any commission from such trading. The shares are out there, not their property. If they go up or down in value the company has not made money or lost money (other than the value of whatever stock certificates it still holds). So an IPO can influence GDP by financing a new production center with revenue, but just trading between investors does NOT have any impact on the GDP or what our companies produce.
Another small impact is subsequent stock issues; typically an IPO will sell off maybe 40% of the company, and a year or two later the company can sell off (at market prices) another 5% or whatever to finance another stage of growth or the development of new products. But new offerings from existing companies are seldom even a fraction of the IPO offering, they do happen as a way to raise new capital but are a microscopic part of overall market daily trades.
GDP measures the monetary value of goods and services ready for use by consumers, businesses, and government, after the expenses of producing it. It is like the profit of the country as a whole. But it is NOT a good proxy measure of how well the citizens of the country are doing; a country with a slave population can have a very high GDP per capita that is all captured by a handful of oligarchs.
I would happily take a 10% cut in GDP and doubling of my own taxes if it meant the remaining GDP was fairly distributed to eliminate malnutrition, lack of medical care, lack of safe shelter, lack of effective education due to the cost of education, and a lack of justice for white collar criminals and non-white offenders.
Our priorities are inverted. Money is a tool that can be created and consumed to better the lives of all people, and people should not be the tools that are consumed to better the lives of a few people.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 2:03 pm
“The CPI-W is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. By law, it is the official measure used by the Social Security Administration to calculate COLAs. ” As oil prices continue to fall, there will likely be no increase next year. I guess Bernie could pass a law to tie Social Security increases to something else.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm
The problem I see with many of these debates concerning Hillary v, Bernie is that they start out with the premise that Hillary is an evil woman and Bernie is a sainted man.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 3:00 pm
SwM: I start out with the premise they are human. As humans, I believe Hillary is lying when she says she takes millions from centi-millionaires and multi-billionaires and that has zero effect on her policies or thinking.
In any case, Donald Trump laid it out for us: He said, absolutely, when you contribute hundreds of thousands to a politician’s PAC or campaign you DO expect something in return, he’s not in the business of political charity and doesn’t know a single big contributor that IS. So I see three choices:
1) Hillary is publicly telling the middle class the truth but lying to the wealthy, and they are buying it. A corollary is that Billionaires are so stupid that in campaign after campaign for decades, they contribute tens of millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions, of their own money, with no effect.
2) Hillary is lying to the middle class, and lying to the wealthy. But see the implausible corollary in (1).
3) Hillary is lying to the middle class and doesn’t have to lie to the wealthy, because she really is theit best candidate for Billionaires that want gross income inequity to both continue and grow, that want to pay little or zero taxes through offshore dodges, that free trade agreements that help them make billions at the expense of the working class in America, that want to turn state colleges and services and prisons into profit centers.
The most probable scenario for me is (3). They contribute money and she takes it because she will either do anything for money, or her instincts really are to favor the wealthy over the middle class no matter what.
As for Bernie, there is no taint of money from the rich, he won’t take it, and he has returned it when donated, and even when paid for something as measly as $840 for appearing on a television show, has immediately donated the same amount to charity. Is that an elaborate lifelong con game to convince us he should be president in some long shot bid for the nomination at the age of 74? That’s ludicrous. Bernie is principled. If Hillary is principled, it is diametrically opposite of what I consider “good” principles, her principles are evil. I do not start with that premise, I start with the premise that ill-gotten money flows to politicians that are either bought or just as ill-principled as the exploitive psychopaths they let fund them.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 3:15 pm
P.S. I am no saint, but I don’t buy stolen goods, I don’t lie to get money or to “win” anything, I do not pad my time or work effort in contracts, I don’t construct contracts to trick people even though I often could. I have principles. I am not a ‘saint” because I am not selfless, I do contribute money to help people in need but do not volunteer my spare time to help them, I frequently spend thousands of dollars entertaining myself when the money would go a long way toward helping others. Bernie doesn’t have to be a saint, a principled human is what I want, not a two-faced liar with a “progressive” facade pretending she will make Wall Street “cut it out” and claiming the fact of her gender proves she is a revolutionary. She will perpetuate and advance the destruction of the American middle class, she is a hawk that will perpetuate endless war by the USA, and she will be followed by Republican control of both houses and the White House, and the older of us here will likely conclude our lives in the worst America we have ever seen.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm
“https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html” Blouise
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 3:46 pm
SwM,
Excellent article which I hadn’t seen. Explains a lot.
I am pleased to report that my one granddaughter who supported Sanders has changed her mind. “He tells us the same thing over and over but he never says how he’s going to do it. I don’t think he knows how.” The other three granddaughters were already for Clinton. My one grandson is, sadly, a Republican. He likes Trump. He really likes Trump.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 3:54 pm
The problem I see with many of these debates concerning Hillary v, Bernie is that they start out with the premise that Hillary is an evil woman and Bernie is a sainted man. – SwM
Honey, we’ve been in that battle since Sufferagettes began challenging male supremacy in the late 1800’s. It’s same ol’ same ol’ as far as I am concerned. I don’t even bother responding to the code words and phrases.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 4:28 pm
The Clinton planted stories about Powell and Rice emails. Then today stories of Biden running. I smell indictment. Smart people are tired of this white trash couple. Cruz v Sanders or Cruz v Biden and these Clinton muppets will stop taking stupid pills and love Sanders or Biden. Rodham is a loser. She wears no clothes. Ouch, trying to get that image out my mind.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 10:36 pm
Blouise: It has nothing to do with gender, you and SwM are the ones focused on THAT. I dislike Hillary for the same reason I dislike Fiorina and Palin, she is a horrible human being. I would absolutely vote for any halfway decent human being to be president, regardless of gender, but none of those women clear the rather low threshold for that. Warren clears it easily. As have other women. But I will not vote for a racist (Palin) or obvious sociopath (Fiorina) or a self-serving money-driven corrupt pathological liar (Clinton).
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 11:09 pm
Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya…there are a lot of countries bombed or undermined under Hillary’s urging or support…a lot of women raped, killed… a lot children fatherless, motherless… a lot of widows destitute, without social support…while wars and bombings tend to claim mostly men, the aftermath of wars and bombing tends to affect women and children mostly.
And not only is she supporting the corporations whose interests drive those wars, she is also doubling down in her support for more wars and bombings.
We’ll find that as Obama’s presidency was useless to the black cause, Hillary’s election will be useless to the female cause.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 11:45 pm
‘We’ll find that as Obama’s presidency was useless to the black cause, Hillary’s election will be useless to the female cause. “mm While some of what you say is true, I think many black people have felt a certain pride with the election of the first black president. Empowerment has also occurred. Would black lives mattered have come into existence without a black president? The same could occur with the election of a woman president.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 12:16 am
SwM: Would black lives mattered have come into existence without a black president?
Did the civil rights movement, end of Jim Crow and voting rights come into existence without a black president? Did Hip Hop and Rap and the end of miscegenation come into existence without a black president?
Of COURSE BLM could come into existence without a black president, it is a protest movement more than anything else, bringing attention to continued gross miscarriages of justice and racism. Although the subject matter is much weightier, the tactic is even more mild than Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat and risking the use of force and arrest.
The election of a woman president won’t do a damn thing for women, nobody doubts a woman can be president. Before Obama, most of the politicians and pundits thought America was too racist to elect a black President. I don’t think that is true for women, I don’t think politicians and pundits doubt for a minute that a woman could win and perform her duties just fine; women run companies, act as generals and SoS, and there is Obama: the pundits proven wrong by Obama understand that the same people that elected Obama would have little problem electing a woman.
The first woman POTUS will not cause any new sea-change in the understanding of American attitude, like the first black POTUS did. And Hillary, in particular, will perpetuate the economic and security problems plaguing both men and women in America, and she will get less done than Bernie, because Republicans have a bone deep grudge against her that they don’t have against Bernie.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 12:34 am
Agree with SWM, black people, and other non black people, put a lot of hope into Obama, thinking that a Black presidency would push matters across the line and certify once for all that racism has lost. The opposite happened, it actually empowered and strengthened the racists to come out full blown, supported in that by the dog whistling and obvious barking from the right.
Black people are paying for a black presidency.
I think, as MM suggests, that Hillary’s presidency will similarly empower the misogynists and their structure. Once president, she would have to be everyone’s president, not just women (as happened with Obama), and I fear what will happen when the ongoing war on women gets loose.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 12:51 am
Gloria Steinem not only took the stupid pills, she took the asshole sexist pills as well. What won’t this old has been feminists not do for the Clinton’s. The Hillary women probably agree w/ Steinem’s sexist, condescending and stupid comment about women and Bernie.
FEEL THE BERN. Rodham is going down.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 12:53 am
The “war on women” is being conducted by women like Steinem.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 1:04 am
Po: I don’t think Obama empowered and strengthened the racists, I think their more noticeable presence is a sign of the end for them; the final violent throes of their lost way of life. When they come out again as loud and proud racists, separate themselves from everybody else into their own clique, that is marginalized and disdained by the rest of us until they die out. They are old, they have few young on their side, and the vast majority of them that die will be replaced by infants that will grow up non-racist, until racism is regarded as just another mental illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
I doubt the same would happen for women; like I said, all of us non-blacks that voted for Obama are just as ready to vote for a good woman. The pundits that under-estimated us should already understand that. What they may not understand (and I have heard them make this mistake on TV) is that if we don’t get Bernie, we will not automatically vote for Hillary. We may stay home; I personally will write in Bernie so they know I voted and did not vote for Hillary. I don’t care if she loses, I’d rather see an over-the-top Republican in the White House and Democrats in Congress fighting tooth and nail against him, then legitimize the further damage Hillary will do as a Democrat because “it was done by a Democrat.” If there is damage to be done, let it be done by an open Republican, not a covert Republican disguising herself as a Democrat.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 2:54 am
Mm, I’d like to believe that, however, what I see is that the racist sector has gotten more vehement and entitled since Obama came to the presidency. It is true that the message sent was that the racists were the minority vs the great many Americans who did not feel that way, what happened that shifted the process however is that the right wing structure hijacked the tea party and used it as a proxy structure in which to hide the racist elements under the guise of political speech. The tea party enabled everyone to legitimately go after Obama (and Eric Holder) racially while yelling that they were the ones subjected to reverse racism.
The tea party really enabled the recruiting of the right wing christian elements and the neo-nazi elements under one banner that used the keywords socialism, muslim and gun control (all of which personified by Obama) to lash out at the other, the non-white, non-christian American.
Islamophobia is trending, so is anti-black sentiments and paranoia, and based on the freedom people feel spouting racist comments on facebook, on twitter, on any blog, in the newspaper reader comments….I do not see that this the last gasp of a dying breed, I see it as a re-empowered, legitimized and coalescing movement that sees itself as a political force, as evidenced by Trump’s support.
What will happen with Hillary is that it will start with Fox and some elected officials making demeaning comments…which will translate into “you lie!” moments…Soon enough the propaganda machine will make it seem that Hillary is conducting policies that benefit non-white WOMEN at the expense of white men AND women…or that her preference for non-white people is actively undermining America’s white nature. They will then tie it to abortion rights, putting her straight into the middle of the fight where she will either support her base or run from it.
Then they will recruit the church against her. Either way, we’ll see a steady push to legitimize disrespecting Hillary, which will translate directly into a social permissiveness for disrespecting women.
Finally, with a woman president, especially Hillary, chivalry will die as the unavoidable casualty of a push to frame every gender request as unfair, especially “socialist” things like maternal leave, early school care, and any gender based laws.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 3:34 am
True that Obama had to walk a careful line for an angry black man can scare the bejeezers out of certain people but I truly doubt Hillary is at all worried about the kind of backlash that Obama had to look out for. She’s successfully walked the corridors of power as a two term Senator and Secretary of State. She doesn’t need a man’s permission to do her job. I suspect she’d laugh heartily at the mere suggestion of her seeking it. I know I always do.
As to empowering the misogynists, that’s already going on right under your noses here on this page and guess what, no right thinking man or woman gives a flying fig. Misogynist and racists scare themselves far more than they scare anybody else. In fact, it’s an excellent test for identifying them. It’s misogynistic bullshit to accuse women of supporting Hillary Clinton for president just because she’s a woman. But it is an excellent way for men and women to uncover the closet misogynist hiding in plain sight.
Don’t worry about it, we can handle ourselves just fine. Raging misogynists make great entertainment on social media as they keep shooting themselves in the foot because over the top misogynistic words backlash on Sanders which is why one allows it to sit out there without comment. So you see, gentlemen, misogynistic rhetoric works to Hillary’s benefit.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 4:20 am
Obama is whiter than most white people I know.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 1:43 pm
po: When the view is restricted to people under 25, anti-black racism is a far smaller percentage than the anti-black racism in the over 50 group. Unfortunately, the over 50 group is in charge; they are the managers and owners that hire people, they are the politicians in office, they are in charge of the cops, the civil services, and even the neighborhood watches. The retired group, 65 and over, has even more racists. What sociologists see when measuring anti-black racism is a clear and steady decline of it for every ten year cohort, starting with those born in the 1940’s, then 1950’s, then 1960’s, etc. It doesn’t mean every person born in those decades is more racist than those born in a later decade; and it does vary with geography and population density, what it means the number of anti-black racists per thousand white people has been declining steadily.
The loud and proud racists you see now were born several decades ago; they haven’t changed anything but the volume on their message.
Why? Seeing Obama as a threat is undoubtedly one thing. Not just a personal threat (he’s gonna take away our guns!) but as a cultural threat, making the black man more acceptable to society.
What happens when a religion is under attack? They fight back for their way of life, they get loud to attract their fellow believers to the cause, to live together and fight all comers and attack the disbelievers that would oppress them and restrict them. They try to separate themselves from the nation that would outlaw them, by violence if need be. This is what racism is to the people you see now; exactly analogous to a religion under attack, they have a faith in something without proof or evidence that a majority of others are rejecting. This sidelines them, and makes them irrelevant and disdained in society, even punished by laws, so they are rejecting society and hoping to gather people to form their own accepting society, like the Amish did, like Isis has done, like the American Pilgrims did.
In America they will fail; in 30 years the under 25 cohort with a low concentration of racists will be in charge; the cohorts 50+ will be 80+, either dead, retired, or with (on average) greatly diminished power, in politics, business, and society. Integration fixes racism, intermarriage fixes it, political correctness helps too by punishing the expression of it: The majority of people are very sensitive to their peer groups and at young ages, before their belief system is formed and concrete, will adopt the beliefs to comport with their peers. Political correctness punishes the expression of racist beliefs and less expression of those beliefs recruits fewer children into that belief system. Between puberty and physical adulthood (around 24) they have a steadily decreasing susceptibility to such changes; and if they aren’t anti-black racists by the time they are 16 or so they will most likely never be, barring some physically or emotionally traumatic experience.
I say that to say this: The current Republican backlash against “political correctness” killing the country is, for them, true to an extent: It isn’t the country it is killing, it is the racism and bigotry. Their complaint is that Political Correctness prevents them from telling the “truth”. Their truth which is a racist, islamophobic, misogynistic, bigoted blame system, a white male patriarchal religious system they feel is under attack.
Political Correctness works. It can be taken too far by accusing others of bias or bigotry where none exists; or where the reverse exists. We see this now in the Hillary debate, anybody against Hillary must be a misogynist because rampant political corruptness and sociopathy isn’t enough to deny a Vagina-American a triumphant smashing of a glass ceiling. Like other tools it can be misused, but on balance it works, to change belief systems in formative years, and isolate and marginalize the politically incorrect into their own sub-societies that will diminish and evaporate, because in the information age, even their own children tend to discard the belief system of their parents, because evolution has given the cohort 13-22 (more or less) the ultimate commandment: Fit in to your age group, find your life partner, start your sex life. Their peers become more important than their parents, in terms of belief systems, and most people are still belief-system-malleable at this age (when puberty presents new frontiers that demand new rules of societal behavior).
That’s my opinion; in the long view the noise we are hearing is the wailing and gnashing of a dying way of life.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 2:54 pm
We see this now in the Hillary debate, anybody against Hillary must be a misogynist because rampant political corruptness and sociopathy isn’t enough to deny a Vagina-American a triumphant smashing of a glass ceiling. – MM
And there you have it! In the midst of an otherwise intellectual sounding piece Vagina-Americans are invoked and marginalized. Only then is the intense dislike for this female candidate fully expressed. Perfect!
Here’s a different take on a Vagina-American:
“Here’s your daily dose of Americans abroad reinforcing all kinds of negative stereotypes about our intellectual capabilities: a foreign exchange student “studying” in Germany recently had to be extricated from a giant sculpture of a vagina. Yes, you did read that right. The student was allegedly dared to climb into a statue that lay outside the department of microbiology and virology at Tubingen University. Oddstuff reports that he “labored” to free himself from the marble vagina (yes, they did actually say labored) but was, alas, stuck.” (Bustle online)
http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/131/e9796fa0-dd2d-0131-bfbd-0eb233c768fb.jpg?w=670&fit=max&auto=format&q=70
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm
“We see this now in the Hillary debate, anybody against Hillary must be a misogynist because rampant political corruptness and sociopathy isn’t enough to deny a Vagina-American a triumphant smashing of a glass ceiling.” MM Your statement reminds me of the misogynistic statements made on the Turley blog during the last election. I generally respect the views of the men that I know that are for Bernie and they clearly are not misogynists. They are FOR and not driven by hatred of Hillary Clinton.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm
Blouise: My invocation of Vagina-Americans was intentional and accurate; it is precisely equivalent to African-Americans claiming racism when in fact they were not, objectively, the right person for a job, and the “discrimination” was simply deciding in favor of the objectively best candidate.
Imagine a post-racial, post-gender world in which people must compete for jobs based on merit. Sometimes, the tall white male really will be the best candidate for the job, and people of color and females will NOT get the job, because they were not the best qualified.
If those that do not get the job then claim misogyny or racism, they are misusing a powerful tool (political correctness) in an attempt to get unearned extra consideration, and hypocritically engaged in demanding the same sort of non-objective privileged status they claim to be decrying.
That is very much the situation in the Hillary and Bernie contest. I don’t give a crap about gender or sexual orientation or color or age, I am only interested in the candidate that best represents my interests; which I have documented on blogs with you for many years, and Bernie is that person. Hillary is a liar, IMO a corrupt thief and a traitor and a Republican that sides with the rich. I despise the content of her character, not the color of her skin or the shape of her reproductive parts. Her character is objectively sociopathic criminal, like her husband, her experience is irrelevant in light of her character, and thus IMO any intelligent and informed Democrat that cannot see Hillary for what she is, is blinded by gender bias in favor of a female candidate for no reason other than they want to see a female President.
Larry Wilmore on the Nightly Show has said several times, he voted for Obama because he was black, and for anybody that asks him about Obama’s policies his response is: “Is he still black?”
At least Larry is honest with himself.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 3:28 pm
And then there is Carly Fiorina and there was Condileeza Rice.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm
SwM: I am not driven by hatred of Hillary, I am driven by the hatred of sociopathic greed, fraud, wealth privilege and harm to innocents with little power in general. Hillary is just another example. So is Harry Reid, Bush, McCain, Palin, Christie, Fiorina, Cruz, Rubio and Trump. In fact, in my lifetime the the vast majority of such examples have been males, not females. I don’t hate Hillary because she is female, I hate her because she is a vile human being.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 4:04 pm
Speaking of bigotry you might check the front page of the NYT this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
Of course Clinton is not responsible for the troubling remarks of her supporters. But the article does demonstrate that the male gender does not have a monopoly on stereotypical thinking.
Consider the public pronouncement of Madeleine Albright:
““We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done. It’s not done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
Now I have nothing against women who help each other. But the context of the statement seems to suggest that Albright was saying that women, especially young women, who do not support Clinton over Sanders should be severely criticized.
It seems to me that the sorry, at the very least, raises troubling questions regarding gender politics.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 4:17 pm
BFM: Precisely. I wonder how it would go over if Ms. Albright had said; “There is a special place in hell for white people that don’t help each other.”
And before anybody tells me it is not the same thing, it is precisely the same thing; blind bias based on a physical characteristic of the person instead of their character and the actions they have taken that we must use to interpret their character and their intent.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm
I don’t hate Hillary because she is female, I hate her because she is a vile human being. – MM
Then be smart about it and drop the misogyny rhetoric. Your hatred will shine through just as well without it. Let it burn bright purified of any benefit to Hillary Clinton.
Didn’t you get the symbolism of the picture? Free yourself from the marble vaginas that are your own words and allow your hatred to carry your candidate to victory!
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 4:51 pm
But the context of the statement seems to suggest that Albright was saying that women, especially young women, who do not support Clinton over Sanders should be severely criticized. – BFM
Of course you do. No surprise there.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:03 pm
MM
You make a good case that the racist remous we are seeing now are tolling the death of racism…
I still fear that racism has gotten a shot in the arm and has extended its lifespan a couple of decades…but I agree that ultimately it will die.
As for Hillary, I think to see opposition to her from democrat leaning voters as misogynistic is a mistake. Although the republicans hate her for the woman she is, democrats and affiliated would vote for Hillary is she were facing a man with the same exact record and experience.
Mm is right that she is a vile human being, and I have given her much benefit of the doubt through the years, but the more I find out about her, the more turned off I am.
I believe she is disingenuous and dangerous, AND, she is a known quantity… the evil you know…we are certainly not in the dark about the extent of her work, individual and national, the price of it women and children across the globe are still paying for.
And I believe that most of her supporters know deep down who she is…let us remember that most of us chose a young, inexperienced black man over the most experienced candidate and a woman. The fact that Bernie is trailing her so closely speaks volumes about her character and our emotional response to it.
Matter of fact, most of us turned off by Hillary would gladly vote for Warren.
As for Steinem and Albright, it is such a strange thing that the greatest feminists are so eager to take away women’s agency unless they subscribe to their own personal view of feminism.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:06 pm
This was fun but now it is time to get myself to the family Super Bowl party which is becoming more and more like a casual Thanksgiving gathering. Yesterday the grocer told me that the crowds on this Friday and Saturday are almost as large as those they accommodate on the two days before Thanksgiving. Given that no one in this area has any real ties to the two teams playing, it is an interesting social practices development.
We will all beat up on my grandson for his Trumpiness. It will be a relief from this blog though as no one will be stroking the fires of hatred.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:12 pm
SwM,
😉 … deep down you know how bad she is. Yep, Déjà vu
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:15 pm
Speaking of race and gender, I don’t watch football but I am rooting for Cam Newton…he is the black guy…had Manning been a woman, I would have rooted for him…err…her 🙂
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Blouise, Evil OLD feminists…… The don’t realize that a young man like Marco Rubio who believes in no exceptions for rape, incest or death or death of the mother is not preferable to Hillary Clinton. Banning gay marriage again will not be popular with the young either. Gender politics will appear big time when under renewed threat. If Hillary does prevail, millennial women will come back to her. One good thing about Bernie’s candidacy is that he has made socialism fashionable again.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:32 pm
po,
I don’t even know the names of the teams playing. Everybody bets a quarter and I am partnered with my 7 year old granddaughter so whichever team she picks is also mine. I’ll tell her to pick the team with the most females. Should be interesting to see what she does.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:38 pm
One good thing about Bernie’s candidacy is that he has made socialism fashionable again. – SwM
But I really liked O’Malley. If he’d gotten traction I would be facing a real dilemma come primary time.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:42 pm
I would have had a dilemma had Biden run,,Blouise.Thought about Bernie too but then realized why Karl Rove wants him to win.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm
The banquet is Friday night, Blouse. Wonder if O’Malley will show.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 5:57 pm
If Hillary does prevail, millennial women will come back to her. – SwM
My 23 year old granddaughter already did. Her group of friends (male and female) were initially split fairly evenly between Sanders and Clinton but the debates and Sanders lack of knowledge on so many issues sealed his fate with everyone of them. “We decided the grandma would do a better job running the country than the grandpa.”
I’m all for more debates! 😉
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:02 pm
I would have had a dilemma had Biden run. – SwM
Oh my god, yes! So would have I. He’s the only reason I voted for Obama. When Biden’s name was floated out there a few weeks ago I actually sat in my living room quietly chanting, yes, yes, over and over. I understand completely why he didn’t but, man, I was sooo disappointed.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:04 pm
The banquet is Friday night, Blouse. Wonder if O’Malley will show. -SwM
If he does please give him an elbow squeeze from me.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:08 pm
Our coffee is back on, just closer to primary time. I will actually be able to talk to her and will let you know what I think.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:08 pm
Blouise, M daughter just went over to Hillary and has taken some heat on the internet for it.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:25 pm
SwM: Marco Rubio who believes in no exceptions for rape, incest or death or death of the mother is not preferable to Hillary Clinton. Banning gay marriage again will not be popular with the young either.
The President, even with the cooperation of Congress, cannot easily override the Supreme Court. They would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn either Roe or Gay Marriage. This is precisely the way utterly stupid decisions are made, by focusing on fear mongering fictions that have zero chance of happening.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:39 pm
Po,
I do know football, but we are rooting for Cam Newton for the same reason. He’s faced much racist criticism. He is not only a superior talent, but he is also a fine young man, proud of his roots. Anyway, the other quarterback is a Bush supporter.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:40 pm
Blouise, M daughter just went over to Hillary and has taken some heat on the internet for it. – SwM
There’s a lot of that on social media. That’s what I was trying to explain to MM. Sanders’ supporters are hurting their candidate with this vitriol. Sanders isn’t doing it, his supporters are doing it to him.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm
“The President, even with the cooperation of Congress, cannot easily override the Supreme Court. They would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn either Roe or Gay Marriage. This is precisely the way utterly stupid decisions are made, by focusing on fear mongering fictions that have zero chance of happening.” mm Huh,I think young women should be afraid of Rubio and Cruz and some o the others also. The next president will have quite a few supreme court appointments and they will certainly b efree t orule differently on these matters.,
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-meet-the-press-marriage_us_566d9098e4b0fccee16ee695 No constitutional amendments needed.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm
These men have laid out their plans in the debates. It is hardly fear mongering to hold them accountable for what they have said they plan to do. Chris Christie has called Rubio out on it.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:18 pm
SwM,
I’m off. Don’t get uppity with baseless fear mongering.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:27 pm
blouise, I am going to a small super bowl party. I need to pack up my guac, queso and chipotle bean dip. The man that is hosting the party has accused me of not being sufficiently pro-Hillary .lol
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:39 pm
“The President, even with the cooperation of Congress, cannot easily override the Supreme Court. They would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn either Roe or Gay Marriage. This is precisely the way utterly stupid decisions are made, by focusing on fear mongering fictions that have zero chance of happening.”
Nevertheless, it seems to me that SC decisions offer far less protection than I would have assumed.
We see in the states many efforts to restrict abortion, that until recently, I would have assumed would have illegally infringed on a constitutional right.
In principle, it seems that those who support a woman’s right to choose and those who support the second amendment have much the same fear – legislation can little by little limit the right out of existence, and the courts will do nothing to protect the right.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:43 pm
SwM: He will only make those SC appointments if some SC retire (their decision) AND Democrats in Congress go meekly along with confirming his appointments. If those things happen then the war you are fighting is lost already. And if that is the war to fight, then Bernie Sanders would certainly be the better ally than a centrist Republican like Hillary, AND current polling gives him a better chance of winning the general than Hillary; because she is not trusted and not liked by 60% of voting Americans.
In the General Election Matchups Rubio beats Clinton by 5 points, Rubio only beats Sanders by a third of that, 1.5 points.
And across the board for Trump, Cruz & Rubio, Sanders is up 7.7 points on them while Clinton is down 2.0 points against them. Sanders beats Trump more handily, and Hillary loses to Cruz while Sanders beats Cruz.
Your reasoning is not coherent; just like pundits on TV you ignore any evidence that does not comport with your predetermined preferred outcome. Hillary is at greater risk of losing the general than Bernie is; if you think widespread misogyny is real then she will bring out far more Republican opposition and cause more Democrat disinterest than Bernie would. Whoever the Republicans nominate, they will hammer at her scandals endlessly, that is what those Super PACS are for. They got next to nothin’ to throw at Bernie, they have plenty on tape against Hillary and Bill.
But damn those young women anyway and their greater chance of harm if it means a chance to vote for a female POTUS. Isn’t that the real reasoning?
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 7:52 pm
A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. There is no need for dem support for a Rubio nominee with the current congress.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 8:04 pm
“Anyway, the other quarterback is a Bush supporter.”
Never knew that, Mike, and he used to be my favorite quarterback… in hindsight, kinda makes sense!
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 8:11 pm
BFM says:
“Nevertheless, it seems to me that SC decisions offer far less protection than I would have assumed.”
————————–
Exactly my point above, BFM. I am convinced that the SC does NOT have the power we think it does, and thereby offers little of the constitutional protections we think it does. I think it offers the veneer of constitutionality we need in order to keep playing the game. The SC is practically obsolete in my view, for various reasons, the main one being that there are parallel systems to allow going around it.
Additionally, it seems a bit reluctant to me to push its weight around, which makes sense if, as I suspect, it is aware of its fragility.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 8:54 pm
I think anybody that thinks Roe or same-sex marriage or Obamacare or any other “progressive” accomplishment depends upon never, ever in the next 40 years electing another conservative Republican might as well throw in the towel now, they are fighting an utterly lost cause. It isn’t a valid argument, sooner or later Democrats will put up another Kerry or Gore (and I think Hillary has comparable personality problems as those two) and will lose. Sooner or later that is going to happen twice in a row and the SC will be Republican. But sooner or later the opposite will happen twice in a row and the SC will be progressive so gains can be restored.
If every progressive accomplishment is truly at risk in every election then they are all temporary accomplishments, which would include any accomplishments made by the NEXT president. Bernie and Hillary would not differ in any significant measure on their SC appointments, except Hillary would likely appoint compromise centrists like Obama did, and Bernie would push for more progressive appointments than she would. As far as temporary accomplishments go, I was very disappointed in Obama’s selections and would prefer Bernie’s approach.
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 8:58 pm
po: The SC has no means of enforcing any decision it makes. All it can do is write and speak. It relies upon the honor of Congress and the White House and DOJ and the court system to adhere to its decisions. When the system is thoroughly corrupted and judges with the power to decide cases (or decide to hear cases at all) choose to ignore the SC, it has no real legal recourse. Neither do we, within the law.
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 8:31 am
I am convinced that the SC does NOT have the power we think it does … po
For rebuttal purposes I offer you: Bush v. Gore 5-4 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. 5-4 decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 5-4 decision, and finally, on what I consider to be the plus side, Lawrence v. Texas 6-3 decision. All of these decisions have been made within the last 15 years. All of those decision packed a powerful wallop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 8, 2016 at 8:58 am
To go back before 2000, look at what the Court did to Truman in ’52 and then, of course, Nixon and his tapes. Although they have no power of enforcement, the power they do hold under the Constitution and Marshall’s principle of judicial review (Marbury v Madison in 1803) is concrete.
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 5:29 pm
Blouise, the SC’s power relies on everyone playing along. As you and MM stated, it has no enforcement powers.
Yes, when its authority is accepted as the ultimate arbiter, and the various parties are willing to stand by its decision, everything is well. However, that is showing to be less and less so.
It is apparent to me that every SC decision, even when it is not successfully challenged in court, can be overridden by simple refusal to go along. As our political system becomes more and more extremist, and the social relations more and stretched, the SC will be bypassed.
As the right speaks of activist judges, we do see that the activism is mainly on their side. Even an established SC decision such as Roe V Wade is being challenged effectively by states and local legislatures passing laws that effectively undermine the SC decision.
The laws that affect most of us, whether unlawful stop and seizure, lack of probable cause, lack of representation for suspects, arbitrary arrest and detention, abuse of authority, gender, racial or sexual orientation discrimination, voting rights, are all laws that protect us from abuse, yet that are undermined daily.
While the Sc will speak on those and seek to redress the wrongs, that only happens after it is seized…meanwhile, the abuse of the system, whether true or just perceived keep going.
Whether the Black lives matter movement, the occupy movement, the various eco-terrorism groups and the various activist groups such as codepink ..including wikileaks and known and unknown whistleblowers, and including also political groups, professional groups and the various hate groups across the country, which are growing in numbers, we are facing a revelatory moment where people are aware that to go through the system is both ineffective and self-defeating.
An entity such as the Koch brother has successfully bypassed the SC by building the parallel system I spoke about that insures that most of their political and economic (and therefore social) gains are achieved in spite of the SC or without ever being subjected to the SC’s jurisdiction.
We have various groups that feel to be personally targeted, and each of those feels the SC is biased against its cause…Whatever decision is offered is seen as an attack against one group or the other. Even gay marriage is seen as an attack against Christian rights…or Obamacare is seen as a hijacking of the constitution…and it seems like every new SC decision opens the door for its opposite, which becomes another nail into its coffin…Obamacare vs Hobby lobby… Gay rights vs polygamy…that’s a recipe for disaster.
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 5:55 pm
po,
If we come out from under the Constitution then the check and balance system the Court helps to provides in the form of the Judicial is no longer applicable. Enforcement, at least the way it was described to me, was never part of the deal with the Supreme.
That’s why the so-called civil rights rulings in the ’50’s were never enforced down South by the States until federal troops were sent in. The Southerners did their best to thwart the Supreme Court with the Southern Manifesto and other actions but, in the end, the Constitution prevailed through the use of force ordered by the Executive and backed up eventually, after some mighty long filibustering, by the Legislative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 8, 2016 at 6:11 pm
The recent decision on gay marriage was also important. Gay people in southern states would have never been allowed to marry if this decision had not happened. Sure you get an occasional person like Kim Davis in Kentucky that refuses to comply but overall compliance is high. It is important not to minimize the effect a Rubio or a Cruz presidency would have on the courts.
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 6:13 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/marco-rubio-i-would-tell-rape-victim-its-a-terrible-situation-but-have-the-rapists-baby-anyway/
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 6:22 pm
Perhaps some of you might be interested in the following:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/laws-written-by-men-to-protect-women-deserve-scrutiny-supreme-court-told/2016/02/07/9598d97a-cc38-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 6:56 pm
po: To correct a technicality, Supreme Court decisions are final, that is why they are called “Supreme.” The only court that can overturn a SC decision is the SC itself, and they have the privilege of only hearing cases they choose to hear. To my knowledge (which is not complete) once the SC makes a decision, the case will never be reheard without a change in the composition of the Supreme Court. If it is the same justices, they do not change their ruling.
The Supreme Court is the final decision and that decision cannot be appealed to or challenged by any other court.
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 7:34 pm
Gay people in southern states would have never been allowed to marry. – SwM,
Yep, that is the Lawrence v Texas I mentioned above.
It’s so obvious. The voting rights acts, desegregation, an African-American president but we still see Black Lives Matter and gerrymandering and I d requirements to fight non-existent voter fraud. Do you think blacks need to stop worrying about Supreme Court appointments and cease fear mongering about it? I’m sure within certain political belief systems the answer is yes.
Women, likewise, have made many gains over the last few decades but beware the political belief system that tells you concern over further progress is fear mongering.
This has been a hugely informative thread for me. I honestly had no idea. Now I do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 8, 2016 at 8:33 pm
It is hypocrisy to say we have to care about Supreme Court appointments and in the next breath say it is important to nominate the least electable Democrat for the general, Hillary Clinton, who is also the most likely to do like Obama and appoint centrist SC Justices. She is the least electable and least likely according to current polling, and in a general match-up would lose to Ted Cruz! Sanders would win against Cruz. And the polls do not factor in the future shitstorm of negative ads against Hillary’s documented lies and scandals; of which Sanders has none.
You want to see her lose the general, just imagine the 24/7 replay of her Bosnia “under sniper fire” lie, with the videotape of her meeting a ten year old girl that read her poetry on the airstrip. That will happen if she is the nominee. Along with 20 other documented scandals. She will lose the general, and you give Cruz the chance to appoint his judges and Supreme Court Justices, which will sail through unopposed.
For anybody worried about the Supreme Court appointments, Sanders is the choice to make. I presume anybody sticking with the less-electable Hillary is doing so out of gender bias, or they are being disingenuous in invoking SC appointments as a factor in their decisions.
LikeLike
February 8, 2016 at 9:18 pm
MM,
Yes, yes. I know dear. I will give you this … you are pretty good at hiding it.
I leave you to discuss the joys of Sanders with BFM and franky.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 3:52 pm
Originally this post was about the speaking fees Hillary received from the largest financial firms in the country. Today another article disclosed that both Hillary and Marco Rubio received $137,000 each in donations from the privatized prison industry. The question remains though whether receiving these monies should be considered as influential to a candidates positions once they attain office. This article deals with exactly that question: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/idea-hillary-clinton-took-200k-speech-banks-and-corporations-obscene. The nuance is that these fees and donations are rarely quid pro quo, but they indicate access to a candidate and in Hillary’s case, the people paying for her speeches are he people she hangs out with.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 6:27 pm
Blouise: you are pretty good at hiding it.
It isn’t hard to hide something that doesn’t exist.
Here is a little Matt Taibbi from October 2015 and on the first Democratic Debate with Hillary and Bernie. As usual, an insightful piece with a damning (to me) conclusion about Hillary and the continued destruction of the middle class.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 8:42 pm
This is fun too, Hillary Clinton Lying for 13 straight minutes.
LikeLike