It may be difficult to detect unless you squint, but Bernie Sanders is leveraging his stronger than expected campaign into some actual power. First he got concessions on the convention platform committee, and now he’s got his colleagues in the Senate discussing the possible defenestration of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Democrats on Capitol Hill are discussing whether Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should step down as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman before the party’s national convention in July.
Democrats backing likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton worry Wasserman Schultz has become too divisive a figure to unify the party in 2016, which they say is crucial to defeating presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in November.
Wasserman Schultz has had an increasingly acrimonious relationship with the party’s other presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, who argue she has tilted the scales in Clinton’s favor.
“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” said one pro-Clinton Democratic senator.
Now, to be sure, if you read on, that article shows that Wasserman Schultz still has the strong backing of some pretty important and powerful players, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Tim Kaine, Barbara Mikulski, and fellow Floridian Bill Nelson. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer voice their continuing confidence in her.
That’s the official “on-the-record” position, anyway. But, off the record, the senators (and their senior aides) are more candid.
A senior Senate Democratic aide said, “There’s a strong sentiment that the current situation is untenable and can only be fixed by her leaving. There’s too much water under the bridge for her to be a neutral arbiter.”
Another Democratic senator who supports Clinton said Wasserman Schultz will hurt her chances of rallying the liberal base in the fall.
“We need to get this figured out and come together,” said the lawmaker. “Hillary’s got the nomination. She needs Bernie’s energy. It’s time for her to accommodate. It’s time to pick hard-nosed people to cut through things and figure out a deal.
“They need to know this is their party,” the lawmaker said, observing that if Wasserman Schultz were to be replaced as party leader, young liberals may become more enthusiastic about the ticket.
Wasserman Schultz has definitely become a lightning rod for her performance as DNC chair, but she really should be shunned by all Democrats, including Clinton supporters.
The reason? It has little to do with her role as DNC chair.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, is co-sponsoring a bill along with several other Florida lawmakers that would water down a forthcoming effort to regulate payday lenders, whose high-interest loans, consumer advocates say, often trap the poor in a cycle of debt. The Floridians want the federal government to instead use an approach tried in their state, which consumer advocates say has done little to protect borrowers.
Wasserman Schultz is trying to circumvent new rules that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is getting ready to issue that will protect consumers from predatory lenders.
That’s the alpha and omega of why she should not be the face of the Democratic Party and also why progressives should do whatever they can to force her out.
I don’t dispute that she’s used her power as DNC chair to grease the skids for Clinton, but that alone wouldn’t outrage me all that much since she works at the pleasure of a president who wants Clinton nominated. Power has its perks, and I don’t get overly exercised about seeing the party powers flex their muscles. But I also think it’s completely legitimate to have those power moves come with a giant cost. If you want to put your finger on the scale, that’s your prerogative, really, but you can’t then come and ask the people you’ve screwed over to kiss you and make nice. If Clinton wants party unity now, she’s not going to get a full measure of it with Wasserman Schultz still at the helm.
So, she needs to go for both reasons. For me, since she’s taking the side of payday lenders against Obama’s CFPB, she should be primaried right out of Congress. That’s an unforgivable sin to me. Taking that stance should result in immediate ejection from the host. It’s so contrary to any brand that Democrats should be cultivating that it’s beyond embarrassing. It’s a disgrace.
And someone agrees with me:
The @CFPB is doing a great job to crack down on the tricks & traps in payday loans. Congress should back the @CFPB, not sabotage it.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 4, 2016
So, I hope the Democratic senators are serious about sacking her, but mainly because she’s representing the worst kind of assholes instead of her most vulnerable constituents. That’s not something Obama or Clinton should want to be associated with, and they already look bad enough for being friendly with her and giving her power.
Just get it over with. Sanders’s supporters are demanding it anyway, as well they should.
Couldn’t agree more. As much as Sanders may be an old crank who needs to get on the team, DWS is a disgrace. There’s no way she should be a face of the party and, ideally, she would get primaried. It’s great to have a large tent but certain types of behavior should be verboten for anyone calling herself a Democrat.
Agree completely. I’m not a Bernie supporter, but DWS has been atrocious for a long time. I hope she goes.
Parallax, If Bernie Sanders is an old crank, what kind of old character is Hillary Clinton then? She is only six years younger than he is, even though she takes infinitely more care of the appearance of her hair and face. I am old man who is sick and tired of hearing negative references to Sanders’ age in publications like the Guardian right to the comments here. Maybe she’s an old misandrist who needs to just get out of the way. And if Sanders is crank (not even an old one) Clinton might just be a greedy person who can’t get enough money or power. The ageism infuriates me.
Amen to that. How many times have I heard somebody say, “I don’t support Sanders because he’s too old.”
And the funny thing is, it’s not young people saying it. It’s people his own age. Frank Zappa explained it in 1988: “”A lot of people police their own brains. They’re like citizen soldiers, so to speak. I’ve seen people who will willingly arrest, try and punish their own brains. … That’s vigilante brain policism. It’s not even official, it’s like self-imposed. … It’s hard to pin it down to one central agency when you realize that so many people are willing to do it to themselves.?
Folks, if you’re 74 and you don’t feel up to running for president, I doubt you did when you were 34 either. Bernie Sanders is a LONG-DISTANCE RUNNER.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/29/the-untold-story-of-bernie-sanders-high-sc
hool-track-star
Unlike W-S and too many others like her, Bernie Sanders is on the team.
More Democrats should join him.
He’s a REAL Democrat. That’s why he left a little space between himself and “the party”.
To me, the question is: what’s the gain of replacing her? It only helps if she gets replaced with somebody who’s better at recruitment, fundraising, or public presence. If her replacement was somebody with a clear vision for expanding the playing field, I’d be really enthusiastic. If it’s a different Congressional power player, I’d be pretty meh. If it’s Cornell West – I’d rather she stayed.
I tend to doubt she’ll be replaced as she was picked by Obama, a long-term supporter of Clinton, and a long-term ally of Pelosi. Hard to see something happen in the Democratic party against the wishes of all 3.
I may be wrong, but I believe that if DWS is replaced now, she would only be in place until January when a new person would have been put in that position anyway.
This is an all-out attack by DWS on the CFPB; she may as well be attacking the Affordable Care Act. DWS has gone way over the line and here must be consequences for that. Obama can’t be happy about her actions and he sure as hell doesn’t like the drama. Elizabeth Warren has spoken (via twitter) without ever having to say “DWS” or use the words “should be fired”. I think she’s gone and just doesn’t know it yet.
What does Obama say about his enemies? “I will crush them.” Said with his beautiful smile, of course.
The Bernie stuff gives them cover, and I believe this will greatly help with disaffected progressive democrats. I say bye-bye Debbie, you fucked up on this one and I hope you have a lot of time to think about it.
Agreed, 500 billionity-seven percent.
That a real number. it’s bigger than infinity. DWS is a millstone.
So who, realistically, would be a good replacement? Someone Clinton can trust and someone Bernie’s folks see as an improvement? And will that one head be enough for them (payday loans notwithstanding as an issue)? I’m concerned that the Sanders “power” will be endless: first more seat on the platform committee, then head of DNC, what’s next?
We’ve got a LONG way to go before Bernie has “too much” power in the Democratic Party.
What is your concern? That too much attention would be lavished on the middle classes and the poor, on infrastructure and the public sector, and not enough on banks and mega-corporations?
No, that we’ll get people good at grandstanding and criticizing but bad at actually getting things through to help people.
High medical cost ratios and community clinics. That is what Bernie Sanders extorted out of the Affordable Care Act for his one independent vote.
This narrative of grandstanding and not getting things done ignores what Sanders has in fact done with his one vote during his career.
He could have blown up the entire bill over the failure to have a public option or over the failure go for single payer. Kent Conrad and Max Baucus certainly did to deny people health care and ensure profits for health insurance companies.
This talking point that has been widely circulated is so far off the mark that I have resisted nailing it until now.
Sanders was by the the most active Senator strengthening the bill instead of weakening it. His power to do something came from the fact that Democrats had only 50 votes for the reconciliation portion of the bill, and Sanders drove a hard bargain with Reid.
Another meme goes down in flames. Thanks for this.
Have you forgotten about the republicans? Why is so much blame thrust by you on Democrats when it’s the Republicans who have obstructed infrastructure, threatened services to the poor and middle class, etc. You seem to see no daylight between the Democrats and the Republicans. Try to broaden the scope of your view.
And just so you know about me, I’m all with more attention and HELP for the middle class and poor, on a trillion dollars borrowed for infrastructure, and cooperation as well with banks and corporations. I don’t see an adversarial position with corporations as necessary, productive, or realistic.
Why is so much blame thrust by you on Democrats when it’s the Republicans who have obstructed infrastructure, threatened services to the poor and middle class, etc.
Because when we have power, Democrats ARE equally to blame. Why is health care reform so weak? Why was the stimulus such garbage? You can argue that it is the Republicans’ “fault” for pushing the threshold to 60 as opposed to 50 — I guess, although it’s not an argument I find convincing — but then there was a window when there were 60 votes to ram through things. But we don’t because there are conservatives in the Democratic coalition. And it is conservatives who are the problem. Liberals are also a problem (as you yourself spelled out why liberals are a problem in your second paragraph), but first you have to deal with conservatives, in and outside the party.
There is a very good reason. When the POV of the authors of legislation is that government cannot do the job without advantaging market based solutions that almost always involve public money subsidizing private business, you get unproductive kludge.
That IS the current system.
I’d respectfully like to respond to Seabe and Mino. (I always start this way to clarify threads).
The stimulus was good in many ways, probably as far as politics at the time would allow, but I’d agree not far enough. There were tax breaks for the middle class, some infrastructure but not enough, big investments in solar/wind, and so on.
Health care was passed in its form because of the death of Kennedy and the election of Brown and with a Harry Reid maneuver. That first Obama congress passed cap and trade, now being revived by Bernie. But it couldn’t pass the Senate then.
I’m stating history. You’re saying that not enough progressives are in the Congress. Agreed. But there was some pretty strong gerrymandering in 2010; there were huge sections of the country that were actually conservative represented (barely) by Democrats; there was a newly installed Black president which rankled much of the country; there was better messaging (“Death Panels”); and low turnout from the folks who benefit most from progressive policies. As regards this last point, I point to three things: Kentucky gubernatorial election, low turnout in off cycle elections, and the importance Obama places on it to remind people again and again to vote.
As for legislation, Mino. You do know that lobbyists write legislation. I’ve said this before, but we would be really lost without lobbyist doing that. Most of the law-makers have no idea how to craft a bill. Listen to Kevin McCarthy speak. Could he write a law? How about Louie Gomert? There is a function for the lobbyists, just as there was for pork in budgeting. The balance may be off; I’d even say it is off. But, as with eliminating pork which took away scratching each others’ backs, removing lobbyists and the public/private connection would tend to be a big mistake down the road. In my opinion it would lead to more self-interest by the business interests and less effective government.
I hope you don’t find me a hopeless conservative Dem just because I see all the parts of the system working together. The differences are in the pendulum swing of a little to far or just not far enough. But not in a making a villain of any one part of this complex system.
So you agree with me: Democrats are also a problem because there are too many conservatives in the coalition who can’t have their feelings and fee fees hurt. We must cater to the whims of Joe Lieberman (who was helped by the very same people who worked their asses off to keep him in power, including Obama for a time). Ben Nelson can’t allow the debt to increase, heavens no. Blanche Lincoln needs to campaign on “not being like those other Democrats”.
Now those Democrats are gone. They are never coming back. The way forward is the path that Sanders has laid out. If we don’t get them coming to us as a result, well, then that’s too bad and we’ll be toiling along until more white people die. But we should keep doing it anyway because it’s both the correct and moral thing to do, but the head up rich people’s asses strategy is a proven failure and will continue to fail. Yet you’re quite content to continue down this path.
I’d never disagree that some of those Democrats are problematic when you have major change in mind. Maybe Manchin is another. But wouldn’t you rather have a majority on many issues than be in the minority? And if you see that the path forward is only the Sanders way, I disagree. I guess I see a middle path. There is always a divide between what people think is the moral and/or correct thing to do. And an inclusive party respects those differences. Rich people are people too and also need respect. They might also need some education about how others live. Long term project, eh? And thanks for the cogent, respectful reply.
But your attitude is exactly the problem. I’m sorry you don’t believe in class war, but I do, and they do. You’re in No Man’s Land and you’re going to be picked off when we need you here in the trenches.
Have you not seen the recently reporting of Peter Thiel bankrolling lawsuits against Gawker with the goal of shutting them down — all in secret, and all completely legal. You might not believe in class warfare, but they do, and they’re putting the screws in any way that they can. If you don’t see this is a big deal, I suggest you mosey on over to one of your comrades in arms, Josh Marshall to see why:
The rich have too much money. It needs to be taken back.
Out of respect for you, I will read your links later when I have time. But I don’t feel in no man’s land. I feel like I see the problems and I conclude that they have always been around to some degree or another. The struggle among Democrats is about degree, not basic principles. But that’s my take now. Let me read the links and I’ll see what I think then. Much thanks.
Sorry Seabe, I hate Gawker too much to care.
Hmm, aren’t you omitting the loss of Congressional legislative aids through all this self-imposed belt-tightening? Courtesy of some Republican leadership who know what that allows…
“One clue could lie in the nearly 12,500 federally registered lobbyists, and countless others, who provide information and exert influence in the halls of Congress; by contrast there’s around 7-8,000 House personal office, leadership, and committee staff. Put a different way, $2.6 billion was spent on lobbying in Washington in 2010, versus $1.37 billion for the House of Representatives in FY 2010. Have we privatized Congress?”
https:/sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/12/21/keeping-congress-competent-staff-pay-turnover-and-wha
t-it-means-for-democracy
Yes, sure. I’d forgotten them too. So we seem to see that running our massive federal government is complex and the solutions are equally complex. It’s the bane of the Democratic position. Once you’re explaining, you’re losing.
To me this is the appeal of Trump, and even Sanders, and the dilemma of Clinton, who is a policy wonk always explaining. I guess she is hoping that the bulk of the nation is rational, can follow the nuances, and will eschew the sloganeering.
And yes, Congress is (and probably always has been) privatized. I remember reading, as a 16 year old, Charles Beard’s “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.” I’m not sure much has change (only in degree) since then.
Thanks for your comment.
I’d be happy to see pork barrel come back if it smoothed the path to better legislation. At least the citizens benefited from those tax dollars.
Agreed. It was another slogan where the solution led to a bad consequence, IMHO.
The Democratic Poster Boys for “Market Solutions”: Rahm and the Chicago Board of Education. Piecing out the commons…savor the details.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/25/1530696/-Rahm-spends-1-2-Billion-on-privatization-in-broke
-City-Schools
I guess what I’m saying to the Democratic Party is “Don’t negotiate with yourself.” Propose the programs you really think America needs, then see what happens.
In Congress, half a loaf is better than none, but if you start with half a loaf, you’ll wind up with a quarter or less, if you’re lucky.
I believe we’re in a time when, if you start with the whole loaf, you’ll probably get a lot of public support and thus have a better chance than during the “incremental days” since the advent of the DLC.
The thing you’re not being real about here is that the Senate Democratic Caucus didn’t have 60 votes at the moment we needed to pass the stimulus. We couldn’t wait until July 7th, when Al Franken was finally sworn in as Senator, or take the risk that Senator Kennedy’s health would be sufficient to allow him to cast the 60th vote at any given moment.
Republican leaders met on the night of President Obama’s inaugural and agreed upon the strategy: NO REPUBLICAN VOTES FOR ANYTHING, EVER. This was at a moment when the U.S. was losing 750,000+ jobs a month.
And it wasn’t just Republicans, either. The entire conservative movement coalesced around the idea that there should be no meaningful response from the Federal government. Click the link to see the way the Wall Street Journal treated the three GOP Senators who watered down the quality of the stimulus in order to give it the votes needed for passage:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123448441005079959
Two of the three Senators lost their jobs over that vote. That was essentially the last votes any Republican gave the majority during 2009 and 2010.
When you’re measuring the quality of the stimulus, please reckon honestly with what the circumstances were.
And please reckon honestly with the results. Unemployment is currently at 5%. Unemployment throughout the entire FDR Administration was at 14% or higher until the full jobs program which was World War II.
It is the corporations who have adopted an adversarial relationship with the people. We have let bank fraud from 2007 go unpunished just so we couldn’t be accused of having an adversarial attitude toward corporations.
And corporations continue to dodge taxes and violate the law as if anyone who doesn’t do so is a chump.
Obama’s Senior Senator/Mentor. Slightly left of DWS and Clinton, as far as I know on good terms with Sanders. Not on anybody’s list as VP this year or POTUS in the future. And to quote Al Franken when he was on SNL: ‘And gosh people like (him)’
I don’t think he is so far in the tank for HRC that Sanders wouldn’t accept him as a nice, comfortable center left face of the Party.
That’s actually a pretty good suggestion. His seat is safe enough that a dual role as Senator and DNC chair isn’t too much of a problem, and now that Schumer has lapped him in the Senate leadership he might be interested in a different route to influence.
(Wiki)
A 2016-2018/19 term as head of the DNC shouldn’t put his seat at any kind of risk.
Somebody brought this up this morning or yesterday and I thought it was impossible. But yes, I sure would be glad to see it happen.
“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on”
You have to admit, that’s a nice turn of phrase.
.
It’s a scalp that allows Sanders to get a win and has no real effect on anything anyway.
Yes.
“no real effect on anything anyway”
Well, there’s another reason right there. Deadwood.
Patrick Murphy supports the payday lender bill, along with Wasserman Schultz. Harry Reid’s favorite whipping boy happens to oppose it.
I don’t think anyone’s going to miss Debbie if she goes.
LOL Do not expect any backtracking there. Wonder which one has done the most harm…
Murphy is an original co-sponsor of the bill along with several other Florida lawmakers, who say it would harm regulations passed years ago by the state Legislature. The bill was introduced by Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, and has gained the backing of much of the Florida delegation.
The average payday loan in Florida is $250 with an annual interest rate of 312 percent, according to the Center for Responsible Lending.
(Yeah, that is well regulated.)
Well, it is regulated loan sharking at its best.
And who can blame them the cost of
political briberyer I mean campaign donations has sky rocketed since Citizens United,if they cannot fleece the poor
to pay the politicians
to rewrite the laws
so they can fleece the poor
even more,
what is all this high dollar democracy
really for anyway?
There’s a great video I saw somewhere of a blogger/reporter interrogating Wasserman Schultz (as she leaves some venue) demanding that she answer questions about Obama’s drone-strike programs and the “death list” of assassination targets that Obama’s state department had put together to date. The reporter presses her and she says, sarcastically, “Obama death lists? What? I have no idea what you’re talking about” (meaning, this is so beyond the pale that I’m not even going to bother to feign respect or civility). The reporter, disgusted, just says “Of course you don’t,” and walks away.
The reason? It has little to do with her role as DNC chair.
Yes, backing the pay-day lending bill is unforgivable. She’s been a disaster as DNC as well though. How have the Democrats fared under her watch outside the presidency? Dreadful. And she’s been chair longer than anyone since the 1960’s. It makes one wonder why they’re putting up with such incompetence.
Hasn’t been incompetence on the singular primary goal of her tenure: the coronation.
This is what I was wondering. I’m greatly encouraged to see so much unity here about getting rid of DWS. She seems to be “a force for unity” among both Hillary and Bernie supporters, in that everybody hates her, “regardless of race, color or creed,” as they used to say.
But I have always thought of her as a proxy for Hillary. Like, she’s the “bad cop” and Hillary’s the “good cop”. Was I wrong? In what sense are they coming from different places? Honest question.
Or maybe she really has been the bad cop. but the party now sees the need to jettison the “bad cop” inasmuch as she has clearly outlived her usefulness. It would be a portentous sacrifice to party unity, and signal a real shift, to sack her and replace her with Durbin or somebody like him, if there is anybody like him.
No, Hillary was never the “good cop.” Hillary was more like the cop supervisor who hires some idiot to kick some ass then tries to pretend that she had no idea what was going on. They both have to go and the sooner the better, now or four years from now. I vote for now.
The damage is already done. It’s Hillary who wants to get rid of Debbie, not Bernie. I think Hillary and the Democratic Establishment can read the polls that tell them Trump has a better chance to win than they thought plus see the direction of Bernie’s political revolution moving outside the Democratic Party as a possible potent challenger resulting in three way races for nearly every member of Congress running in 2018. They know their shenanigans have poisoned the well so they want to throw Debbie under the bus as some kind of desperate perfume. It’s not going to work because what they did is still going to stink.
I also think they’re starting to worry that the Super Delegates might not be as ready as they thought to take the chance on destroying the Democratic Party, wind up with Trump in the White House or both just so Hillary can sit in the Oval Office. Everything that happens from this point forward is directed directly at the Super Delegates.
The Super Delegates could always deny them the poison fruit of their shenanigans to inject the Democratic Party with an explosion of energy and enthusiasm that would bury Donald Trump with a single vote at the convention.
This:
But HRC is not going to waste a propaganda opportunity. It’s a twofer if they make the ouster of DWS look like a concession to Bernie. Gets rid of the problem of DWS in general election and makes Sanders voters feel better about the DNC. Those that falls for this ploy can easily be fooled again and again.
The damage DWS has done to Sanders is irreparable. Might as well let her stay so more Democrats can see the real faces of the current Democratic party.
I’m sure you’re right. But when you say, “Might as well let her stay so more Democrats can see the real faces of the current Democratic party”, that’s a bit much for me, it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn’t it? Of course, who exactly would replace her is very important.
I opt for later by one term. The SCOTUS thing is real to me and millions of others. Scalia’s death saved my union and ultimately my job. Get her into office and stabilize the SCOTUS for a the next decade. Get some more appointments into the circuits. Get four more years of moribund Bush and Reagan era apparatchik attrition in the federal agencies. Then ditch Clintonism forever. It’s over.
Unfortunately there is never going to be a better time than now to ditch Clintonism, before it gets stronger and consolidates its power even more. There always has been and always will be the argument that any Democrat must be in office because… Supreme Court.
I think the election is turning in Trump’s favor not because anyone likes him, he’s clearly a clown monster, but Hillary and more importantly, the corrupt Clinton Machine, simply pose too much of a danger to both our economy by making inequality worse and blowing up the world with Hillary’s never ending military adventures and bad judgment.
Here is a poll that shows how the election is turning toward Trump. It shows Clinton’s support among young voters ages 18 to 29 has dropped 19 percent since March — and Trump has gained 17 percent support from the same demographic. That’s a 36 percent swing.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/23/abc-poll-trump-surge-due-massive-36-millennial-swing/
Remember that Trump is hated by both the Republican and the Democratic Establishment. Trump will be in a worse position than Obama has been for all but the first two years of his Presidency trying to do anything. Nothing will get done. If Trump tries to use the power of his office it would not surprise me to see bipartisan veto proof legislation to limit Presidential powers, something I would consider a net plus.
I know four years is a long time for more gridlock considering climate change and the coming next financial meltdown. This is something the Democratic Establishment Super Delegates need to take into consideration as they decide to drag their losing establishment candidate over the nominating finish line.
There is nothing wrong with having one or more open seats on the Supreme Court for the next four years. If you want to protect the Supreme Court all you need is a Democratic majority in the Senate, not Hillary in the Oval Office. The Republicans have already showed us how that works.
Yes, in fairy tail gum drop land, where unicorns poop Hersey’s kisses, that would be true.
But in the real world, you know the world where Sanders is not going to be the nominee, real people would suffer from a Trump presidency, POC, gay people, transgender people, basically every damn minority. Real fucking people.
You cannot say on the one hand that Obama is some sort of failure because he did not over ride constant opposition, and then claim Trump would be some innocuous entity, and not hurt anyone because of constant opposition.
We are all going to have to pick sides, and the sides are simple, very simple.
Trump’s candidacy is based on one thing and one thing only….racial supremacy.
Side one…white supremacy
Side two…against white supremacy
We know your side.
.
Well nalbar, aren’t you a delicious bowl of cherries today? Nice you decided to start things off with your usual empty headed list of condescending insults. If I didn’t know better I would think this is the hour when the bottom feeders come out. I’ll try not to make too much sport of it.
I’m glad you’re such an expert on what Trump will do since I’m not really sure Trump knows what Trump will do. What will you do when you confront Trump about banning all Muslims and he tells you that was just a suggestion or confront him about the Mexican wall and he tells you he was just saying what some people wanted the hear? You would look like an idiot standing there with your expert opinions. At least we’ll all know where you stand. That sort of reminds me of when he said to Jeb Bush, “How’re you doing Jeb? You look terrible.”
“You cannot say on the one hand that Obama is some sort of failure because he did not over ride constant opposition, and then claim Trump would be some innocuous entity, and not hurt anyone because of constant opposition.”
I never said anything like that. I have no idea what you’re talking about and I suspect you don’t either.
“We are all going to have to pick sides, and the sides are simple, very simple.”
Now we are at least back to some familiar territory where we have been in the recent past; picking sides. We were talking about what side you’re on. That was anything but simple for you. It took several exchanges before you finally admitted you were a Hillary support but only `obliquely.’ I was asking you a question that will be faced by the Super Delegates at the convention; would you give up Hillary to keep Donald Trump out of the White House?
I’m still waiting for my answer. It only takes one word but if you want to explain your answer, use as many words as you require, Booman won’t mind.
I’m one of those real people, Nalbar. A NYC teacher with tenure, a strong union and a decent employment package. One day we’re sweating the threat of our union losing 30% of its funding in September with one SCOTUS case, with tenure under siege right behind. Then the furry little quail killer died. Threat gone. We get to teach with dignity another year or two. That ain’t fairy gumdrop shit. I have almost 10 years to retirement. One bad SCOTUS appointment can make a big difference to my quality of life. There are millions in my position.
Thanks, zoomsr2
The next POTUS might seat 3 justices, so from here is won’t be one vote. And with young ages of Bush’s appointments, the court will be gone for 20 years or more.
It’s easy to sit at your desk and click a keyboard and shout how Trump will be a good thing in the end, but real people get hurt.
.
I agree with your interpretation, but not the solution. I don’t believe the “politique du pire” ever works. Making these worse to make them better only makes things worse.
However, the fact of both Dem and GOP establishment being terrified of Trump, plus pressure from Sanders, may well force some improvements in the Democratic Party. As for the GOP, fuck ’em, they deserve what they’ve got.
Please understand that I’m not saying I want to make things worse to make them better. As a professional musician living in Colorado I come into contact with a lot of young people. What I hear almost to a person is there is no way any of them are going to vote for Hillary because they view her and the Clinton machine as corrupt, same as me. At first they said they would just sit out the election but now because of the thuggish actions of the DNC and Hillary they want to make it count double by voting for Trump. They don’t see Trump as being able to do anything anyway even if he is elected.
They began to pin their hopes for a better life on fighting for what Bernie was saying, real things that might not come immediately but are worth using every ounce of their energy to fight for. The more they see the nomination taken from them by fraud, the more they want to do everything they can to stop her even if that means actually voting for Trump. This is nothing like the PUMAS who made a lot of noise but got in line. Many of these people were Independents but became Democrats only because of Bernie. It should be no surprise this is more like a political revolution than a political coalition. I’m saying these things on this site because I have no idea how far our words will travel. I desperately want the Democratic Establishment to realize how much trouble they are really in before it’s too late and July has passed.
The developing consensus seems to be that the Democratic Party is too corrupted by the influence of Big Money to accept reform. The way to save the Democratic Party is to nominate Bernie so he becomes head of the Democratic Party leading it through the realignment that will save it. That would unleash an explosion of energy so powerful it would defeat the conservative movement and neoliberalism once and for all.
If Hillary remains head of the Democratic Party, it won’t matter who they put as head of the DNC. It’s Hillary they don’t trust because they’ve seen her real face through the actions of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. The most potent show stopper for Hillary is her demonstrated hawkish behavior. They are afraid she is more likely to blow up the world than Trump. I simply have no counter for that argument.
If the Democratic Establishment drags Hillary over the nomination finish line, I don’t really know how much her loss in the general election would weaken the hold of the neoliberal faction on the Democratic Party. It certainly didn’t seem to faze them much when they lost both houses of Congress and most of the State Houses. With a Hillary win the oligarchs are the big winners making them almost unstoppable. The neoliberal hold on the Democratic Party would finally come to an end with the nomination and election of Bernie Sanders.
What we would be looking at without Bernie as head of the Democratic Party would be at least a three way split. That electoral split would look like (Trump) Republicans, (Clinton) conservative Democrats and (maybe Bernie) Progressives. Starting in 2018 every congressional race would be a three way race. This is worse than being primaried because the challenge comes in the general election. I’m pretty sure the Democrats will lose many of these because conservative Democrats seem to always lose. This could lead to progressive victories with the winners caucusing with the Democrats with strings attached or with Republican wins to be the greatest gift to the Republicans since Ronald Reagan.
Neither Bernie nor anyone else can extinguish that fuse once it was lit and it was definitely lit. The consequences of what happens next are in the hands Democratic Party professionals. I hope they’re listening and are wiser than I currently think they are.
That’s a lot to think about in this. I can see how the young folks feel. I understand their desire for a purifying fire, but they don’t realize how dangerous it would be. But I think there’s a better way.
Theoretically they may be correct, but you could get to the last part by waiting to see whether Bernie emerges with a meaningful role in reforming the party. The Democratic Party is corrupt, but not totally. Bernie is not the only one who wants change. Elizabeth Warren is already campaigning — not for Hillary, but against Trump. This is exactly what I think Sanders should do as well, once the primaries are over. (And by the way, I don’t believe the story that she’s campaigning to be picked as Hillary’s VP — there’s no reason to think she would want to be; I think it’s just Clinton spin. Hillary definitely wants her.
Then if Hillary wins, which I think she will, because of the anti-Trump campaign of the good Democrats, THEN, if she does not show proper respect to Sanders and Warren forces, that would be the time to walk. Third parties are almost never viable, but I believe this one would be so viable that the old Democratic Party would wither on the vine. You’re right that the corrupt ones don’t even care that much if they win or not. But in this case the loss would be so horrendous, they might care, because it could portend their own downfall.
To me, Bernie Sanders is the Jascha Heifetz of politics. I have so much faith in him, and I’m sure he’s got this whole thing sussed out a lot better than I do. So, let’s see what he’s got up his sleeve.
I did propose something similar to this writing about it in an earlier post. When I floated this idea here in Colorado I was met with – “no way, that will ever work.” I suspect the answer from the Democratic Establishment will be – “You have me confused with someone who actually gives as shit.” Well, here goes, I’ll try again.
Hillary needs Bernie even more than Bernie needs Hillary. What Hillary needs so desperately from Bernie is the passion and enthusiasm of Bernie’s supporters supporting and contributing to her in the general. She can have that if and only if she makes the same deal with Bernie that she made with Obama. What Obama gave her was control of the Democratic Party, the reason that partisan hack Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was put in charge of the DNC in the first place. Other national Democratic committee heads are similar neoliberal hacks that have kept out progressives, the main reason for their devastating electoral losses during Obama’s administration.
Hillary could announce during the convention after she has secured the nomination that she agrees with most if not all the issues Bernie raised and recognizes those issues are what every Democrat should stand for. She recognizes that bringing Big Money front and center in the Democratic Party, embracing their neoliberal interests was a mistake. The future of Democratic Party depends on it truly being the Party of the People representing the interests of the people. She can continue to say she is saddened that so many people under the age of 45 think the Democratic Party is rigged. The only way to encourage the young people (under 45) to participate is to make absolutely sure small d democracy thrives inside the Democratic Party.
Hillary announces two decisions to show she is sincere in her attempt to unite and reform the Democratic Party.
First, she is asking Bernie to assume a new and unique role to lead the Democratic Party through a much needed post neoliberal realignment. To accomplish that, she is creating a new post for Bernie to oversee and nominate the chairs of not only the DNC but all other national committees to ensure the candidates that reflect the reformed post-neoliberal values of the Democratic Party are encouraged and supported along with some much needed rule changes. Bernie is also put in charge of fundraising with the goal of completely ridding the Democratic Party of its dependence on super PACS and the oligarchs. The goal of these efforts is to break the stranglehold of the Republicans and neoliberalism on the legislative processes at both the national and state levels in all 50 states.
Second, she announces that in order to unite party, the she is only seeking a single term because encouraging a party realignment while worrying about re-election would not be compatible.
While Hillary would still have the heavy lift to convince the people she won’t blow up the world, she could enter the White House with a landslide victory and the coat tails she and all of us need.
Bernie has said from the beginning this election wasn’t about him but starting a political revolution to turn our country into a country with the highest voter turnout and participation instead of one of the lowest. Bernie is a genuine believer in small d democracy, the only politician in my lifetime with the skill and integrity to pull something like this off.
Somebody I know in a high administrative position at a large university where a lot of reforms are needed, said not long ago, “I’m not going to knock myself out changing their hearts and minds. It’s probably hopeless anyway. The main thing is to get them to change their behavior.”
You’ve laid out a vision; we don’t have to quibble over the details, I’m with you in spirit. I do feel that to people like Hillary and the party apparatchiks it would be fairly incomprehensible.
EXCEPT —- what exactly is the alternative? Even from their point of view, what is the alternative? Don’t they see the writing on the wall? That the American people are wise to the game they’ve been playing these last 50-60 years and we’re just not falling for it any more?
So from that point of view, a PURELY PRAGMATIC point of view, perhaps real gains can be made on the grounds that, even as far as saving their own asses, all the alternatives are worse.
Since Gold in Sacks seems to love hearing Hillary’s dulcid voice, she ought to be able to explain this to them.
Again, I’m not talking details, I’m talking direction.
Incidentally, the way things have been going the last couple of days, I’m beginning to wonder whether Hillary really will be the nominee. I at least see the possibility she might not be. At any rate, to hang on she’s going to have to do a lot more than cosmetics.
Rapidly developing events suggest the possibility of a new interpretation. If the Clintons did strong-arm Obama to get where they are now, he might have thought (and I can really imagine him thinking this), OK — I can’t fight this, I have to go along. I will give them all the rope they want. There will be more than enough rope there for them to hang themselves.
The turning point was when DWS attacked the payday lenders bill. This is what her Wall Street masters wanted, and they got busy the minute they figured Bernie could no longer beat Hillary in delegates. This is the attitude of pure power — we beat you, now yoiu do wht we say. Stupidly, DWS didn’t reckon on many hidden sources of power, especially from the person she was most directly attacking — Elizabeth Warren. I assume Hillary egged her on. Now she’s ready to throw her under the bus.
I gave them an alternative that is a classic when dealing with very difficult powerful people. It must be a win, win or to put it another way; establish a Nash Equilibrium where both sides do what they would rather not do but do so because it’s in everyone’s best interest including theirs.
This might work fine after her nomination was secure but if any word got out they were considering something like this, the deciding would be done by the Super Delegates. The heart of this deal is that Hillary throws the neoliberals under the bus enabling Bernie’s political revolution just so she can sit in the Oval Office. If it was me in that neoliberal position, I would say; screw you, throw me under the bus? I’ll throw you under the bus! Bernie is nominated, a happy ending to my silly little deal.
I wonder if you read Shaun King. He is almost exactly where I am and where a lot of us are on all this.
The only thing I disagree with — it’s a theoretical matter, but a central one — is what he says about the Constitution. I totally disagree with that, and I would think Bernie does too. Also, it’s political suicide.
Also, his position on Obama seems to me fairly incoherent. He’s not dealing with the question whether Obama enabled Hillary.
But 90% of this I could have written myself — if I were as bright and articulate as he is.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11778158/shaun-king-democratic-party
Thank you. Yes I do read Shaun King and feel pretty much feel pretty much the way you do. The longer this goes on I’m starting to think the only reason the good people you referred to are still there is TINA, no alternative.
I agree with Shaun about the need for a completely new party but I also agreed with Bernie the best place to start was from inside the Democratic Party. I had high hopes that would work mostly because of FDR and JFK, but it looks like maybe not. That reform effort has revealed an ugly neoliberal face that has unfortunately been hidden from voters for years. The Democratic Party has only one last chance in July to stop that oncoming train that will render them an irrelevant rump party. Considering how they sold us out to the oligarchs, they deserve it; thank you Bill and Hillary Clinton.
You should read naked capitalism if you don’t already, especially the comments. You are one if not one of the best of the stalwarts you mentioned.
The Bernie/Trump debate is a riot. Hillary broke her word for a last debate because she wanted to deny Bernie access to the vast CA media market. I really enjoy how that has backfired.
I agree with most of this, and the parts I don’t agree with are only because I don’t know for sure, but they certainly are interesting.
As for “good cop — bad cop” perhaps you’re not familiar with the expression. It’s role playing by two cops as a way to get information or a confession. One acts like a son of a bitch and the other acts sympathetic and reassuring. In other words, the “good cop” isn’t actually good, she’s just the one designated to look good compared to the other one.
I’d say that she’s been more like HRC’s consigliere. Doing the necessary dirty work and hiding it as much as possible from the public.
All those in HRC’s camp have been fine with DWS’s work to secure the nomination for HRC. They don’t care if it’s legal, ethical, etc. However, that camp is only unified on one point — electing HRC. There is a deep fissure between those in the forever HRC faction and those in the forever BHO faction. HRC has been walking a tightrope between criticizing and praising Obama and the praise is only to keep the forever BHO folks in her camp. Now, if those two factions are now unified on dumping DWS, it’s not for the same reason.
The forever BHO folks are furious with DWS because she has denigrated policies and positions of their political icon. The forever HRC folks that now want DWS to go appear to be a bit more rational (and ruthless) which may be why it’s politicians that are in the lead on this.
Sanders folks don’t like anything that DWS has done or stood for. And like the ’04 Dean faction that moved onto BHO in ’08, they don’t like Democrats that engineer losses by getting on the wrong side of most issues and trying to have it both ways.
That is a really good explanation. Sounds right to me. And I think it harmonizes well with Austin’s.
Dick Durbin stepped aside and supported future Senate leader Chuck Schumer.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/dick-durbin-senate-democratic-leadership/
That’s an interesting story, but it happened over a year ago, so how does it apply to what we’re talking about? That he might want Debbie’s job, or what?
I thought Durbin may be interested in the position, since he didn’t get Reid’s job. Durbin has always been a strong supporter of Obama and he has been around forever. He’s well-liked and respected and does not have a reputation for being divisive. Just my $.02.
Duly noted.
“I don’t dispute that she’s used her power as DNC chair to grease the skids for Clinton, but that alone wouldn’t outrage me all that much since she works at the pleasure of a president who wants Clinton nominated. Power has its perks…”
Considering that our Democratic Party structure is supposed to be neutral during primaries, that is one of the most morally bankrupt statement I have heard on this site to date but I think I finally understand you. It was your hero Obama who put his finger on the scales to put Hillary in office. I wonder if there is any connection to why he did that and his decision let the Big Money forces that crashed our economy off scot free to become even larger and more dangerous. He used Debbie to give Hillary the nomination and you’re fine with that because if he has the power to do it; he should. That’s the same neoliberal logic destroying the middle class. The corporations have the power to chase cheap labor around the globe therefore we should help them use it because…”power has its perks.”
In Obama’s case, his legacy could wind up being the destruction of the Democratic Party or worse.
“…it’s completely legitimate to have those power moves come with a giant cost.”
I agree completely with the moral argument of that statement but not in the way you might think. It’s not Debbie Wasserman-Shultz who has to go; it’s Hillary Clinton who has to go along with her breath taking corruption and the entire neoliberal Clinton Machine. That `giant cost’ you talk about is likely to be Donald Trump in the White House. If that happens, that will be Obama’s true legacy because he was “a president who wants Clinton nominated.” What a glorious end to a `transformative’ Presidency.
Even if Hillary manages to squeak out a victory which I doubt, the Democratic Party as we know it is finished. The power plays you are fine with may cost the Democratic Party 30 to 50 percent of its base, enough to render it a fringe irrelevant party. That’s not counting the Independents who are liable to join.
I don’t know if this particular one will be the one to prevail but take a good long look at the wound caused by the Democratic Establishment led by Obama trying to shoving Hillary down our throats:
“…the United Progressive Party could be the first third party going from minor party status to major party status,” said UPP founder Justin Renquist. “We could see 30 to 50 percent of the Democratic Party, progressives, be so disgusted with this whole process and just leave…”
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/new-national-progressive-movement-emerging-shadows-sanders-cam
paign
A reasonable interpretation from Martin’s belief a president who wants Clinton nominated.
But does Obama really want Clinton nominated? Or is he merely honoring a deal he made eight years ago? (Unlike Clinton, Obama doesn’t seem to welch on personal commitments.) I suspect he’d prefer Biden to succeed him.
“Or is he merely honoring a deal he made eight years ago?”
I did struggle with that thought rewriting that portion several times. I have never quite understood why Obama after all the things he said during his first campaign and wrote in his book would turn his back on the public financing of his campaign to instead accept the fruits of Big Money at the very time he had a unique opportunity in history as Paul Volker advised him, to put a leash around the necks of those who had just crashed the entire world economy. His actions made sense in a neoliberal sort of way by not in a `hope and change’ sort of way. He gave unqualified Hillary the position of Secretary of State so she could gain creditability in foreign policy but she was a complete disaster leaving him with a major regret for following her decisive lead on Libya. His first administration looked like the Clinton Machine had moved straight into the White House. That part of the deal, whatever it was, cost him the ability to govern as soon as the very first midterm elections arrived.
I think whatever deal was reached was reached at the same time public finance was traded for Big Money. I also think the Clinton Machine including the Clinton Foundation was central to that deal but I have no way of knowing. I wish I did.
I still think highly enough of Obama for me to think he must have been appalled at the thuggish manner demonstrated by Hillary and the DNC to capture the nomination but there was nothing he could do but hope for the best. Maybe it’s just me still wishing Obama was who I wanted him to be. I have always hoped it wasn’t just bait and switch. There was always the possibility that the public would never catch on but the unexpected happened; a candidate for the people emerged explaining how things could be. Truth is a dangerous thing.
Obama was the creature of Durbin. That’s how an obscure first term Illinois legislator got quickly catapulted into the White House. Sanders has shown us that unless the insiders back you, you are not going anyplace.
You’re giving Durbin too much credit. BHO was in the IL senate from ’97 through ’04. The multi-racial, bi-partisan guy that was well-received across many dividing lines.
Had the GOP not decided that it wouldn’t back Fitzgerald for reelection and then failed to field a credible candidate after Fitzgerald opted to retire, would BHO been so easily elected to the US Senate? (Carol Moseley Braun was a competent Senator, but voters are often stupid.) Kerry gave BHO the ’04 convention keynote address. (I wanted to love the speech and his delivery, but for me it was mediocre.) However, the money was taking note and money does like effective bi-partisan politicians.
Nobody could say which candidate, BHO or HRC, would be stronger in the general election and better satisfy the money. Neither had distinguished her/himself in office or had run in hotly contested primaries and general elections to get to the Senate. “Money” does make distinctions among candidates that doesn’t have much impact on we rubes. It split in ’08 but is unified for ’16. (GOP money has been fractured since ’06.)
You are right. A one term junior US Senator, not Illinois Senator. But not publicly noteworthy. And bipartisan like Al the Pal, but smoother, less blatant.
“on we rubes” –> “on us rubes.”
Compliments of prisicanus jr,
“saving the English language, a little bit at a time.”
Always watch what they do and not what they say.
BHO was uniquely positioned to pass on federal funding for the general election with his strong small and large donor bases. (GWB was the one that revealed in 2000 that it wasn’t viable for the primary.) In 2012 BHO raised $722 million to Romney’s $450 million. He probably appreciated that the first AA POTUS wasn’t going to get there without spending more than his opponent. Difficult to disagree with such a position.
What I find pathetic is the silence over the obvious evidence that our presidential election system is once again very broken. That last hit home in a big way in 1968 and then again with Watergate. Each election cycle highlights another piece that is broken. We don’t even bother to make half-hearted attempts to fix it because the power is in the winner’s court and the winner got there by better exploiting the broken system. BHO did ban lobbyist money for the DNC — but DWS reversed that and BHO has been silent about that reversal.
BHO was very clever in ’08 in not revealing his authentic proclivities and affiliations. The best I could determine in ’08 was that at worst they were in line with HRC’s, but his demeanor and impulses were still preferable for a POTUS over her’s. Any hope that he’d be much better than that were dispelled for me when he named his cabinet choices and we saw the old Clinton and Bush gangs still in the seats of power. 10% is better than nothing, but to see people inflating that 10% to 50%, 75% or 100% is very troubling. As if they have little awareness of what good government should and can do.
Honestly no longer matters if BHO is less, equal, or more of a neoliberal and FP warrior than HRC. His actions didn’t distinguish him as not being in that camp. Have no more interest in hearing his regrets about Libya than GWB’s regrets about Iraq. Within the general population, there wasn’t that much difference in the groups that were snookered into supporting either of those military adventures. Fifty years of watching this country choose the ignorant, destructive, chest-beating path every single freaking time doesn’t leave me with any confidence in the people or our government.
You DO realize that Barack Obama needed nearly a BILLION Dollars to win in 2008.
One poster over at Coates’ place wrote something that I’ll never forget.
Paraphrasing, she said that, yes, Barack Obama needed nearly a billion dollars to win the Presidency, not just because he was running as a Democrat, but he needed it to combat the 350 years of the demonization of the Black man in America. It took a Billion dollars for him to get an even shot.
Maybe Obama needed a billion dollars but Bernie has shown us that all you need to win is to give the people something to vote for. He would bury Trump with far less than a billion dollars. He has the people.
I think that billion dollars and where he got it cost him his ability to govern after only two short years.
I also don’t think it would have been Bernie’s time in 2008 because the middle class was not yet sufficiently destroyed. The populist movements strong enough to challenge neoliberalism were not yet in place but they are now.
Bernie hasn’t shown that, because Bernie didn’t win.
I hate to break this to you this way but the decision has not yet been made that Bernie didn’t win. The Democratic Establishment decided long ago they would reserve that final decision for Democratic Party professionals so they could avoid situations such as running a weak establishment candidate with high negatives like Hillary against a media savvy Republican riding a wave of open populist revolt like Trump. They will let you know sometime around the end of July.
Well, you’re saying much better exactly what I was trying to say yesterday. And boy did I get my head handed to me.
I think it’s an interesting question what Obama really wants vs. what Obama agreed to in a quid quo pro kind of way. For example, he promised Larry Summers the Fed, not most likely because he wanted him there, but because he didn’t want him somewhere else earlier on. And he kept that promise even when it had become a clear liability.
But it really doesn’t matter too much. Obama sent the message that Clinton was to be his successor. That message was received by everyone who was paying attention.
What I’m saying is that any president can decide who they want to succeed them and make sure people know what will please him or her. We shouldn’t really expect this not to happen, or for it not to come with some significant scale pushing.
I don’t find that outrageous.
But I do think that people who don’t agree have a right to make political hay about it. And if forcing out the DNC chair is part of the price, then that’s legitimate. It’s really about whether Sanders has done well enough to make that demand through the strength of his supporters.
I suppose you can make a big moral issue about this. But doing things like creating a limited debate schedule held on a bunch of Saturdays is not my idea of hugely unethical corruption. It’s more just muscle flexing. And by flexing his muscles, Sanders was able to get more debates on better days.
I don’t really think DWS has done a whole lot more than that, although she clearly has done a poor job of appearing neutral.
Basically, she served her purpose, but she didn’t do her job well and now she’s just a divisive figure who hurts Clinton much more than she can help her.
Plus, she’s toxic on the issue that I do care about.
Odd phrasing for why and how four additional debates were added. It was HRC that was desperate to add a second NH debate at the last minute. Bernie was just a good negotiator in agreeing to that. And HRC likely didn’t think she’d have to honor the agreement b/c Bernie would drop out before then.
While I agree with you that her actual political stances are a big reason to oppose her, her tenure as DNC head is almost as big a reason.
The thing about muscle flexing is that yes, it’s not unusual but the system should be better than that and by just thinking of it as business as usual instead of something that needs to be fixed, it basically makes it easier to actually do things you might consider more unethical and corrupt. We should always strive to improve the process.
I don’t know.
I mean, I know what you’re saying.
But it’s just so contrary to human nature that it seems like another example of progressives not understanding or even wanting power.
When will progressives learn to play with the big dogs?
That’s one reason why I liked Obama from the start. He was about doing what needed to be done to win, and he basically struck an excellent balance.
You don’t win without cutting deals that you’d rather not make. It’s never pretty or clean.
He needed the Daschle faction. He needed the Kennedy faction. He needed the donor class to be okay with him and certainly not opposed to him. He had to make a lot of promises and compromises.
The important thing is that when he got in, he got the big stuff right. Yeah, some of his compromises came back to bite him in the ass. Daschle couldn’t get confirmed. Summers was an albatross. Clinton had her own problems. All of that hurt when it came time to pass and implement Obamacare, or when he needed to convince people he was on their side in the housing collapse, or when he was getting bad advice and undermined on foreign policy.
But these things came with winning.
It’s hard to see how he would have succeeded if he hadn’t been able and willing to bring in all the factions he needed to counteract an intransigent right opposition.
IMO the people you want to trust with power are those that are reluctant to want it as they are least likely to abuse it. Maybe it is contrary to human nature, but can we change or modify that nature with nurture? Should’t we try to make are society better by holding our leaders to a higher standard? Maybe this smacks of philosopher kings and an inefficient use of time to you. If so, well thats a fair disagreement.
I understand you sometimes have to make deals but both personally and in politics I am the type of person that can walk away from a deal if its not coming together. I don’t begrudge cutting deals, but if Bernie and Obama came to me with the same deal, I’d believe Bernie when he said its the best he could do but not Obama. Obama believed probably still believes in the system and that suggests we have fundamentally different goals. Hence I’m suspicious of those deals.
In other words, nothing to see here.
“Obama sent the message that Clinton was to be his successor. That message was received by everyone who was paying attention.”
So it had to be obeyed. No further questions.
Where were you guys yesterday, when I was catching flak all day long for saying a lot less? I didn’t even say that it was what Obama wanted, I wsaid I was more inclined to think they strong-armed him, especially as his reelection campaign was coming up. But like you, I also pointed out that this whole nomination was a “fix” that Obama went along with, leading to the very situation we’re in now (which was predictable). But Booman refuses to call it a fix, as you see. It’s just because Hillary was so phenomenally popular …
A deal he made eight years ago, and perhaps another deal four years ago, because DWS wasn’t appointed until 2011, succeeding Tim Kaine.
We had cover today because Martin said it first in his opening post; we just took it and ran with it. You were unfortunately one day early.
I hope Martin realizes that the good writing, skill and insight of people such as you are why he has the wide and continued readership he enjoys.
Thank you. I can say the same; I really appreciate you and the other stalwarts here. And I particularly enjoyed the way you disposed of that jerk, you know who I mean.
Ya pris.
Thank you for being you. I don’t know what I would do.
.
Doesn’t appear that team Sanders is pushing the sacking of DWS at this time. But it’s helpful for team HRC to have others think so. DWS has served her purpose (DFH punching) for HRC and going forward to the general is a liability, but HRC will look better to her fans if she isn’t seen as throwing DWS under the bus. Better to have DWS take a bullet for the team which also happens to free her up to get her butt back down to her district and beat back another DFH.
Anyone that thinks she’s alone out there on that limb doesn’t have a very good understanding of neoliberalism and the congressional and DC Democrats that subscribe to that economic position. Doesn’t matter as I’m not inclined to accept that the payday lender issue is the reason the anti-Berners or those with her are jumping on the dump DWS bandwagon.
I don’t quite get your point. It seems like what your really showing is, as somebody said up thread (maybe you???), the drumbeat is coming from all sides, for different reasons, and there’s a certain amount of kabuki theater going on.
This was Bernie’s part in it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-debbie-wasserman-schultz_us_5740c0cee4b045cc9a713
056
oh, and let’s not forget this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/22/bernie-sanders-backs-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-sc/
Yeah, really leading when Obama needs her support … values? Moral conflict? Or just closer to support an a$$hole like PM Netanyahu! So much similarity on the issues with HRC on the Middle East!
○ Israel: Netanyahu Signs Up with Estremist Right
○ American Exceptionalism Good – Neocon Israel Policy Better
Where does Bernie Sanders stand on the Palestinian question, illegal settlement building and a lasting peace with the Palestinian people having their home in the West Bank and Gaza:
○ Bernie’s Socialism and Kibbutz Experience of ’63
○ Sanders and AIPAC
Ms Wasserman Schulz’s barely concealed enabling of Hillary’s coronation was always going to be problematic for someone in Schulz’s position as head of the DNC; didn’t Hillary’s campaign see this coming? Now, no sooner is DWS’s mission accomplished than she is asked to fall on her own sword? This sends a cold message to Hillary’s other praetorians. I doubt it mollifies the Sanders folks, in any case. And it rather admits of the favouritism of establishment politics while exposing its ruthlessness.
Something tells me she’s going to need that inner circle of hers to close ranks smartly and probably sooner rather than later. Bad timing for a renunciation.
Wasserman won’t be asked to fall on her own sword, if she was promised a position in Hillary’s administration.
It’s just kabuki theater for the general ….
If she was promised a position in Hillary’s administration, then we’re really in trouble.
Of course she’s been promised a substantive reward. What may be TBD. It doesn’t appear that she can win a statewide race in FL; so, that leaves moving up in the House or an administration position. COS for HRC as Rahm was for BHO?
She “deserves” a reward, but in what position would she not be too much of a liability? Federal dog catcher?
Ambassador to somewhere-nice-land.
How about Lower Slobovia?
Here’s my question about DWS; Obama appointed her, but it was clearly from an early juncture that he doesn’t particularly like her, nor are her ideals very aligned with his (at least within the context of the Democratic party platform). So the question is, why was she appointed in the first place? And why is she so keen on holding a position that her predecessors seemed eager to rid themselves of?
I do not really know, but will just make a general observation. (And please don’t throw things all at once.) It’s become clear to me that Obama has done a lot of things over the past 8 years that he probably would have preferred not to do, because of either pressure from the Clintons and their backers, or out of necessity.
Since DWS was appointed party chair in 2011, the choice may have been due to the advantage of her fundraising prowess to Obama’s reelection campaign. Part of the deal, obviously, is that he’d have to take the bad along with the good ($$$$).
It’s a shame “the bad” has handed complete control of congress, 31 governor mansions, 31 Republican-controlled state legislatures with 8 more states where they control half of the state legislature.
That is the BAD Wasserman-Schultz allowed to happen to get the coronation she wants so dearly.
Regardless of the reason he appointed her, he’s let her stay 5 years. Hard to see how he’s not happy with what she’s done (for whatever reasons). He’s endorsed her over Canova as well, which is rather unusual for a sitting president.
Presidents almost always endorse the re-election campaigns of incumbent Congressmembers from their own Party. This is a highly understandable thing to do. It’s unusual when Presidents don’t endorse Congressmembers from their Party’s caucuses; it’s a major diss.
I agree that Wasserman-Schultz deserves this “unusual” treatment and I’m disappointed if the President is endorsing her right now, but it’s worthwhile to characterize the tradition accurately.
That, plus the minor complication that she’s not neutral. Even if we were in a drought and the river had dried up.
DWS should have been sacked after the 2014 debacle.
Unfortunately, what I’m hearing from most Democrats who support Clinton is outright loathing of Sanders supporters, so the fact that they want her gone will probably make the Clinton camp dig in for her even deeper.
How they intend to get people who they clearly and vocally despise to vote for their nominee is another question. So far, the only tactic I’ve seen from them is shaking their fingers and yelling “Trump! Trump! Trump!” at every opportunity.
But “you don’t really like me but you have to vote for me because the other guy is worse” is a risky strategy Ask John Kerry and Mitt Romney.
Well that’s the whole dynamic right there. Clearly it’s NOT going to work, and the consequences of failure are real and horrific. That’s why they have to take Bernie seriously, and they are starting to take him seriously. That’s why intelligent analysts are saying, he may be losing, but he’s actually winning. But the Titanic doesn’t turn on a dime. Meanwhile we’re all watching …
I could care less. Her incompetent behind should have been fired long ago.
I would have rated this comment a 5 or a 7, but the highest number available was 4.
I agree, but I guess 20 months ago wasn’t long enough …
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/218273-first-lady-wasserman-schultz-an-extraordinary-dnc-
chief
May 25, 2016 8:30 AM
The Most Important Legacy of Barack and Michelle Obama
By Nancy LeTourneau
…………………………
Barack and Michelle Obama entered the White House not only with an awareness about what was coming, but also an understanding that they would face this kind of onslaught as the first African Americans to live there. There have been times that I’ve tried to imagine the weight they willingly took on their shoulders to avoid those kinds of entanglements – knowing what the slightest human imperfection would trigger.
It’s not that Republicans haven’t tried. We’ve seen attempts to blow up everything from a gun-running sting gone bad, mistreated veterans, the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov, the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, Secret Service debauchery, the IRS targeting, Hillary Clinton’s email server and Benghazi. That doesn’t even count all the times we’ve been subjected to complaints about teleprompters, the President’s golf game, family vacations, and the color of the suit the President wore for a press conference (to name just a few). But other than in the minds of the conspiracy-obsessed, nothing stuck.
As we approach the 2016 election and the end of this President’s second term, we’ll continue to see attempts to summarize his legacy of accomplishments. This one should be at the top of any list. That is partly because an attempt to de-legitimize him via scandal has failed. It is also why he will be positioned to be an asset to Hillary Clinton. But in ways that are probably not yet imagined, Barack and Michelle Obama have paved the way for countless young African Americans to be proud, and aspire to follow in their footsteps.
I remember Eisenhower also being criticized for golfing.
Somehow not quite the same.
She disqualified herself as soon as she refused to support and campaign for Democratic challengers in three Florida districts whose Republican seat holders that were friends of hers. Add to that the abysmal lack of progress of the Democratic party brand on the retail level During her tenure. Why is failure rewarded at the highest levels when working schmucks like us get canned just for calling in sick?
I said it before and here it is: DWS has got to go.
Tom Junod, in Esquire — “The modern, extremist right was pretty much invented in opposition to her (and her husband). Now it’s up to her (alone) to stop it”
………………………………………………..
… Of course, she sounded paranoid back when she first said it–participants in apocalyptic battles always sound paranoid when they first say they’re participants in apocalyptic battles. They sound especially paranoid when they answer a question in apocalyptic terms when the question was really about, well, blowjobs. This was a long time ago. This was back in 1998. Bill Clinton was the president of the United States of America. Hillary Clinton was the First Lady. He’d offended people by being a resourceful rascal. She’d offended people by saying something about cookies. They’d both offended people by trying and failing to bring about universal health care and by trying (and sort of failing) to allow gays to serve openly in the military. They’d been under investigation for years for something they’d supposedly done in Arkansas when, really, everyone knew the investigation was about sex–and secrets. He’d been accused of rape in the nascent right-wing press; she’d been accused of murder; and now they were finally caught. He had a secret, indeed–he’d had sex with a young woman in the White House and he’d testified, under oath, that he hadn’t. He had sinned all right; he had sinned against her, his wife, so that now even she couldn’t defend him. But she did. And she defended him by inveighing against them–against the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
She sounded a little crazy. She sounded guilty of, at the very least, bad faith. Except that what she was saying turned out to be true–there really was an obscurely wealthy man, Richard Mellon Scaife, bankrolling the attacks against her and her husband; there really was a right-wing media spawned by structural changes overtaking the news business, and it had found, in the Clintons, the template for every story that was to follow. Her only error was a matter of language. She used the word vast to describe what she faced. It wasn’t vast, yet–
It is now. Nearly 30 years later, Richard Mellon Scaife has evolved into the Koch brothers, the then-fledgling right-wing media now claims the biggest and most powerful cable-news network among its ranks, and the money unleashed by the Citizens United decision has conjured a ring of super PACs organized specifically against her candidacy. The vast right-wing conspiracy is still here, and yet–and here’s the thing–so is she. The vast right-wing conspiracy has outlasted everybody but her. From the start, the attacks on her have had a tendency to resolve themselves in the most mundane terms–the Whitewater investigation turned out to be about a husband lying about infidelity; the Benghazi investigation turned out to be about, of all things, Sidney Blumenthal. But that doesn’t mean that both sides haven’t known the stakes all along. She’s always chosen to fight on metaphysical ground; she’s always defended herself cosmically because she’s been attacked cosmically, and so she’s lived to fight another day. But now that day is here. She helped create the modern right wing; the modern right wing helped create her; and now there is no place for them to go except at each other. The 2016 election is nothing less than the climactic event of the last three decades of American politics, and–it’s an amazing and scary thing to be able to write these words without irony–the future of the Free World lies in the balance…
*****
It wasn’t supposed to be her. It was supposed to be him. It was supposed to be Barack Obama–he was supposed to defeat the partisan forces in which she was ensnared by transcending them altogether. She is not a transcendent figure. She does not pretend to be. She does not even want to be. When she ran against him for the Democratic nomination in 2008, her supporters believed that he was naive; his, that she was cynical. Her supporters turned out to be right. “Obama came to Washington saying there’s no red America, there’s no blue America,” says one of Hillary Clinton’s close friends. “That was just wrong. There’s a battle going on over who the country works for. It’s going to be a pitched battle, because people don’t give up power easily. They’re not going to roll over. You have to win the argument, and Hillary knows that.”
She has always known that, and now she has a chance to prove it. The election of 2008 was supposed to be epochal; it was not. The election of 2012 was supposed to be decisive; it was not. The president who was supposed to heal us only showed us the depth of our wounds; the country that congratulated itself for electing a black man to its highest office now stands riven by its most ancient and primal resentments and hatreds; the right wing that seemed outflanked by history in 2008 and demographics in 2012 has doubled down on unrepentant extremism. And the only person who can stop its ascendancy–who can, in the words of a close advisor, “break its back”–turns out to be the person the right wing was designed to destroy.
They know it, too: the Republican candidates. Even before Donald Trump unsettled the race and unhinged the rhetoric, they measured how far they could go by how far they could go in their hostility toward Hillary Clinton. In one debate after another, they tried to prove their toughness to Republican voters by saying tough things about a woman they knew Republican voters feared and despised. Chris Christie accused her of supporting “the systemic murder of children” and vowed to “prosecute” her should he be given the opportunity to debate her. Carly Fiorina called herself “Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.” Marco Rubio, nearly trembling with his own sense of righteousness, flatly called her “a liar.” And Trump bragged that his contributions to the Clinton Foundation empowered him to compel her attendance at his wedding, the implication being that he and he alone was strong enough to make Hillary kneel. She was their historical enemy, and so she was the foundation for what their campaigns would become. A presidential race in which all candidates understood that there was nothing too extreme they could say about Hillary Clinton evolved into a race in which they realized that there was nothing too extreme they could say about anything or anybody at all…
Exactly, this cannot be a routine DNC minimalist election. The modern conservative movement will not collapse of itself; there is enough money in the pipeline to keep it on life support for ever. It must be soundly beaten.
If the Democratic campaign authentically looks like it is moving toward some of Sanders’s key policy points, grassroots money will continue to flow.
It is going to take a fairly substantial change in campaign style and candidate caution on the part of the Clinton camp. They have to go beyond “not losing” to make sure that not just the candidate but the entire party is in a winning campaign.
And they must end the delusion that Trump or the GOP will cooperate by destroying themselves. That doesn’t happen until after the GOP loses a wave election. Badly.
And that doesn’t happen without stripping 30 years of lies from the public perception of the Republican Party and the Democratic response to its ascendancy.
Can the Democratic Party sell the notion that the modern conservative movement that has dominated the political life of the US for the past 36 years has run out of ideas, is peddling any snake oil it can bottle, and is fundamentally dead as far as being able to contribute to US governance? If they can, they’ll win big. If they can’t say hello to President Trump, the poster boy for the collapse of conservative ideology.
“Can the Democratic Party sell the notion that the modern conservative movement that has dominated the political life of the US for the past 36 years has run out of ideas, is peddling any snake oil it can bottle, and is fundamentally dead as far as being able to contribute to US governance?”
It might have been able to sell that notion had Bill Clinton’s DLC not embraced the exact same ideas turning the Democratic Party into a fake version of the modern conservative movement-lite. Bernie could but since there’s no way for Hillary to unring that bell, I agree with you; “say hello to President Trump, the poster boy for the collapse of conservative ideology.”
This stuff (and several of your other posts too) is too important to be posted at the tail end of a thread like this.
I agree. Rikyrah is strongly encouraged to write a diary.
I honestly believe the “vast right-wing conspiracy” did the Clintons more good than harm. They had to be tough, yes, that was good practice I suppose. But the real good it did them is this. Scaife wanted to destroy the Clintons, but he didn’t want to tell the truth, so most of that stuff was made up, and if it wasn’t made up, it was distorted.
The actual bad stuff the Clintons did was too close to what Scaife himself did for him to bother with. I suppose to him it was perfectly normal. But it wasn’t only Scaife, it was disinfo specialists like Alex Jones, who deliberately mix true and false to discredit the true. The Right Wing just laps it up.
The result of all this is that you can do serious opposition research on the Clintons, but very few people will listen. Take Benghazi, for instance, it’s a bright shiny object that functions to draw attention away from Hillary’s actual role as SOS in getting us into the whole Libya fiasco in the first place. See how it works?
May 25, 2016 10:00 AM
Trump Pivots to the General Election…by Attacking Women
By Nancy LeTourneau
It has been fascinating to observe pundits who claim that Donald Trump will change his stripes during the general election in a way that appeals to a broader constituency. I’ve always thought that those assumptions were based on the idea that he was simply playing a character during the primaries – much as he did on TV. But that ignores the fact that he has been a narcissistic bully for a very long time.
Now that Trump’s competitors have dropped out of the race and he is the presumptive Republican nominee, the bullying insults to anyone who challenges him have not stopped. Last night in New Mexico, his target was Gov. Susan Martinez – who happens to be the chair of the Republican Governor’s Association, the first Latina governor in the U.S. and the first female governor of New Mexico. But of course, this is what you get from Trump if you refuse to endorse him.
Why are these stories coming from overseas papers?
……………………………….
Exclusive: Donald Trump signed off deal designed to deprive US of tens of millions in tax
by Ruth Sherlock Edward Malnick Claire Newell
25 MAY 2016 * 2:00PM
Donald Trump signed off on a controversial business deal that was designed to deprive the US Government of tens of millions of dollars in tax, the Telegraph can disclose.
The billionaire approved a $50 million investment in a company – only for the deal to be rewritten several weeks later as a `loan’.
Experts say that the effect of this move was to skirt vast tax liabilities, and court papers seen by the Telegraph allege that the deal amounted to fraud.
Independent tax accountants and lawyers said that the documents Mr Trump signed – copies of which were obtained by this newspaper as part of a three-month investigation – contained “red flags” indicating the deal was irregular.
But the Republican presumptive presidential nominee signed nonetheless.
The NY Daily News reported it yesterday.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-sued-bank-40m-debt-housing-crash-article-1.2648758
GO Senator Warren
She is showing the way, Democrats.
SHE.IS.SHOWING.THE.WAY.
It’s good to know who our enemies are.
I have not had to squint to notice that Sanders has begun to get real power within the Democratic Party. The nonsense in Nevada and the two-week-long organized squawks from the Clinton communisations network provided a sure clue. The Clinton camp did not want to negotiate with 40% to 45% of the primary voters; it was obvious and it was obvious why that would be.
So now people in the establishment are admitting what should have been obvious for some time; Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s conduct both as a Member of Congress and as Chair of the Democratic National Committee has been toxic to the success of the Democratic Party and fuzzes the Democratic Party’s message of concern for economic justice. (Barney Frank has now arrived at the same place as lobbyist for the financial industry.)
Yes, she should go. Immediately> She should have gone after the 2014 fiasco. Replacing her with a compromise chair, someone like a reprise of Howard Dean and his 50-state initiative would be a wise move. Putting sufficient money in the pot to rapidly rebuild state parties during the general election campaign and enough safeguards to prevent it from being corrupted away would be even wiser.
And it should be done is dramatic enough fashion to communicate to others in the Democratic caucus not to try to sabotage important Democratic initiatives that demonstrably help people (who are also voters). The CFPB is one of the major accomplishments of an Obama administration that has been skittish to hold the financial industry accountable for its seven layers of fraud (see David Dayen’s recent Chain of Title) that sank the economy beginning in 2007. It is the one piece of solid incrementalism that has been a response to that crisis. Without the efforts of Elizabeth Warren, Dodd and Frank (who have gone on to their higher rewards) would have gelded the legislation from the beginning.
It is time for Democratic two-timing to stop. I can’t think of a better occasion to make that point.
If the Democratic Party is going to run a 50-state strategy, they will need the money to finance the infrastructure and skilled personnel necessary to succeed.
Given your views, I am sincerely interested in knowing how they should do that.
An initial thought of mine: as pleased as I am with the ability of Bernie’s campaign to raise lots of money, I am unconvinced that we could sufficiently finance our Party nationally by holding dogmatically to Sanders’ set of fundraising principles. I believe we would be buried by bags of corporate and billionaire/millionaire money and lose elections.
We lost in 2010 in part by their money men using bags of money to convince too many Americans that the ACA would DESTROY MEDICARE. That was bullshit, as is the claim that Trump would run a more peaceful military/foreign policy than Obama or Hillary. Conservatives are glad to run a false/lying message which co-opts to the left. A massive money advantage paired with media institutional advantages can beat us, even when in reality they’re running policies which the American people oppose.
Tell me what that money is going to be used for. Get big outside donors or interested business firms kicking in quid pro quo need not be a necessity.
And what is that tons of corporate cash going to be used for? Most things have a declining rate of effectiveness as more money is added. The privileged behavior of the professional political class indicates that we are likely well beyond the declining rate of return point.
In North Carolina, we were not buried by bags of corporate money but bushels of complacency and corruption in the use of previous money.
When you talk about media, you have specify which media you need for what demographic and which media for oppo attack and defense.
Figuring out which kinds of voters are most likely to be solidified, weakened, or converted by what messages is the key to effective marketing pitches.
What is critical to turning out voters to actual vote is a get-out-the-vote movement that has had good local face-to-face training, good organization of volunteers, and good operations under pressure. If that could be bought out of a box, no business would ever fail.
We have played victim to money for too long. Well as long as the Democratic Party does not become the slave of corporations.
Money does not deliver people to the polls, but it can discourage people from the polls unless counteracted with patient local face-to-face support and persuasion.
Credibility is earned. The best and strongest kind of credibility is earned locally and persists over many years. The GOP can simulate that by roping in pastors to be their organizers.
Staying in hoc to interested big money means that Citizens United is never overturned that the people never have their government returned to their power.
People power can indeed conquer money power.
If it doesn’t succeed now with electoral politics, it will eventually succeed in creating the chaotic destruction of a self-satisfied exploitative moneyed class. American elites used to have enough historical knowledge to understand at least that.
I’m in the Labor movement. I’m aware that people power can conquer money power. But the difference that the progressive movement can overcome in money power is not unlimited.
There’s a reason that Republicans and the conservative movement are happy to force through Right to Work for Less policies wherever and however they can. It’s not just two dozen State Legislatures and Governors who have implemented these laws; it’s also State and Federal Judiciaries which have stomped on existing laws.
Take a look at this recent vomitalicious SCOTUS decision, which Federalized RTW for all public sector Homecare workers in the U.S.:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/harris-v-quinn/
What is the most salient consequence of RTW and other overt attacks on Labor, whether done in this way or radically forced through by State Legislatures and Governors? It defunds Unions, the progressive movement and Democratic Party.
I agree with your inference that we need to know what sort of 50-State program we will fund, what strategies it will take, what outcomes the strategies seek.
There is another inference you make here, however, with which I disagree. We don’t need much money at all is what is inferred by your “People power can indeed conquer money power” claim.
There are already too many ideal recruits for progressive organizing inside and outside the Democratic Party than we can provide decent paying work. An effective 50-State strategy will not be achieved with a few staff directors, supervisors and leads, compensated at severely inferior rates for their skills and responsibilities, and an ocean of volunteers.
I also find it striking that you pull out the Citizens United decision as an example of the sort of corrosive decision that a Party and President “in hoc” to money interests will not undo, when we can read statement after statement from the DNC, Democratic Party leaders and elected officials up and down the line, and Hillary Clinton herself talking about the importance of nominating and getting placed SCOTUS judges who will undo the damage done to democracy in the wake of the Citizens United decision.
I guess my point is that it is more important than ever where those large sums of money come from. It is much easier to repay organizational efforts in states and counties from the people who have been organized in those states and counties and not get involved in quid pro quo corruption than it is to helicopter in large sums of money from fungible sources nationally. And the transparency of sources and uses is key to maintaining support.
I agree with your comments about underpaid staffers, but my argument is more along the lines of bootstrapping some sharp current volunteers and underpaid staffers into the field director positions that they can do with a strong plan for strengthening state and county (or multicounty) staffs to gain a party presence again in states where the Democratic Party has withered for lack of national support.
I understand and appreciate your concern for the Supreme Court. I definitely share that, but that is mostly satisfied with the election of the current Democratic minimalist goals of electing a Democratic President and retaking control of the Senate.
What I am advocating is work to turn a close election (and like Obama’s “Tom Bradley gap”, Hillary Clinton will have a continual gap between the polls and the actual vote because of poll respondents who falsely claim to be voting for her or fail to pull the Clinton lever when in the voting booth) into a wave election that pulls in a lot of coattails in new geography.
That of course depends on the Clinton campaign successfully construction an argument that either attracts most independents or has those who would otherwise vote for Trump sit out. It has to be well thought out (something that Clinton narratives have not been noted for) so that it does not backfire and cannot be used by the media to attack Clinton. That is, something like the “Daisy Ad” will likely guarantee a Trump victory instead of a 1964 landslide. But the topic of nuclear stability and Trump’s temperament is the area to which it should be aimed and against the decisiveness and bravado dealmaking that Trump struts. For the remainder of the campaign, every time Trump struts, it should dig his hole a lot deeper.
Given that sort of anchor at the top of the ticket, 50-state organization and insistence on post-election party discipline will provide the sort of House that can deal with pressing issues.
As for using the SCOTUS, someone has to be setting up a good case that a new court can use as a vehicle to overturn that. And also for right-to-work laws.
Actually, I’m hoping that someone is working on a rapid legislative agenda for the first hundred/two hundred days that will so change the political battleground that 2018 will be on more advantageous ground of ideas. Yes, it’s the sort of move so fast and change the reality that the other side has to waste time figuring out what you did and setting up to undo it. We saw it with FDR, with LBJ, with Reagan, with W. We are still digging out from the last two. Well, a huge revision of labor laws all at once would be part of that. Take care of the need for flexibility but reshape how to get compensation that can support a family. I’ve not heard any new ideas of how to deal with the Uber wannabes, the demand for scarce technical expertise on weird schedules, and the propensity of employers to welsh out of their fringe benefit. And then there are pensions. There is a lot of employer-provided benefits that need to be stripped (stopping giving tax breaks) and moved to a national income-support infrastructure that pools risks.
“Strengthening the Basic Bargain for Workers in the Modern Economy” (E. Warren)
https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-5-19_Warren_New_America_Remarks.pdf
That’s the most detailed recent paper on such. Has Perez published any of his ideas?
Three words:
END CITIZENS UNITED
The `schmooze’ theory needs to go away
05/24/16 10:47 AM–UPDATED 05/24/16 12:07 PM
By Steve Benen
CBS’s Norah O’Donnell talked with Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama, in a much-discussed interview that aired over the weekend, and much of the Q&A focused on one familiar thesis. Here, for example, was the first question, on the subject of Judge Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination.
When Jarrett explained that Senate Republicans’ handling of the Garland nomination has more to do with politics than personal relationships, O’Donnell was unmoved. “But in two terms, seven years, why hasn’t the president been able to find a Republican that he can call up and say, `Help me out on this’?” the reporter asked. “Does he have any Republican friends?”
As Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum noted, the interview just kept going along these lines, with O’Donnell asking nine questions in a row – literally, nine – about whether the president is sufficiently friendly with congressional Republicans. “Isn’t politics about schmoozing?” she asked. “And isn’t politics about friendship?”
Facepalm, isn’t it?
The outrageous response would be something like, “Norah, haven’t you noticed that Republicans don’t schmooze with African-Americans? Haven’t you noticed that Republicans don’t even treat African-Americans as if they are “real” Americans? The last four Congresses have been no different despite the President’s best efforts.”
That interview was awful. She might as well have been blaming the conflict with ISIS on Obama’s inability to cozy up to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Maine’s LePage fails to defend the indefensible
05/25/16 09:21 AM
By Steve Benen
It was the sort of story that made Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) look so awful, he managed to even surprise his critics. In mid-April, the far-right governor vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense an effective anti-overdose drug without a prescription. But it was LePage’s explanation that added insult to injury.
“Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose,” LePage said in a written statement. As we discussed at the time, the governor, in a rather literal sense, made the case that those struggling with opioid addiction don’t have lives worth saving.
Maine’s legislature soon after overrode LePage’s veto, but the governor recently hosted a town-hall meeting at which he defended his position. The Bangor Daily News reported:
That’s quite an anecdote, which the Republican governor appears to have completely made up.
Even if it were true, would it be better that he be dead? LePage is such a monster.
He LIED;
AGAIN
Why am I not surprised.
The only surprising thing here is he was re-elected at all.
Doesn’t matter if we support Bernie or Hillary, firing DWS is something the vast majority of us can agree upon.