It's revealing that the establishment media in the U.S., having taken repeated notice of the number of French voters who abstained or cast blank ballots in the French presidential election to raise questions about Emmanuel Macron's legitimacy ("blank invalid ballots account for 9% of all registered voters; abstention rate at 24.52%"), is not similarly troubled about the U.S. government's legitimacy given that about 40% of adult Americans routinely abstain from voting.
"French election results: The case for saying Marine Le Pen actually came third," as one headline put it. Applying this analysis to November's results, Donald Trump came in third, Hillary Clinton second, and -- to the relief of most Americans -- None of the Above is president of United States.
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Democrats have some 'splainin' to do
"In ... poring over the exit polling, there are numerous counter-intuitive findings that explain why Trump proved to be a lot more acceptable than his detractors acknowledged." For example, "Trump won white women by a whopping 10 points (53 to 43 percent), smashing the conventional wisdom that his candidacy would fuel a historic gender gap. ... Nonwhite voters preferred Trump to" Mitt Romney, Trump won a greater share of blue-collar votes than Ronald Reagan. ... Trump won 10 percent of Obama supporters. ... The military leadership is wary of Trump, but veterans supported him overwhelmingly. ... [H]e won a larger share of the Jewish vote ... than either George W. Bush in 2000 ... or John McCain in 2008." (National Journal)
High Noon in Orange County
Needless to say, Applegate has the attention of the Democratic organization with an attendant increase in donations since June, but he's running against the richest person in Congress, so help out if you can: Doug Applegate for Congress.
The rest of the story:
Darrell Issa Gets Viable Challenger (Rollcall)
Issa may face tough re-election by Martin Wisckol (OC Register)
Extra credit:
(Don't Look Back: Darrell Issa, the congressman about to make life more difficult for President Obama, has had some troubles of his own by Ryan Lizza (The New Yorker)
Not So Grand: Behind Rep. Darrell Issa’s Three Auto Theft Accusations by Tommy Christopher (MEDIAite)
"Is Bernie Sanders an effective political leader?"
Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters are accused of idealizing their candidate and ignoring his flaws and mistakes. But part of Sanders appeal lies in the fact that his campaign is focused on process and on building a movement that will help to turn the nation in a more positive direction than it has been in since the rise of Reaganism and Clintonism. Such a movement will be able to influence the behavior of those in power, including Bernie Sanders, just as the peace, civil rights and labor movements once did. In this context, his flaws and mistakes are less important than they might otherwise be.
As for his record of leadership, Sen. Sanders was largely responsible for the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 that provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans," not an insignificant piece of legislation.
It's worth noting in this context that, even given the cooperative nature of legislating, just a handful of bills, between four and six percent, submitted by members of Congress come to a vote and even fewer, somewhere between two and four percent, are enacted. It is striking that during his years in the House the Independent Socialist from Vermont had the highest rate of successfully passing amendments, bettering the record of any member from either major party.
Developing and introducing original legislation is a small part of what members of Congress are sent to Washington to do: co-sponsoring legislation (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills) is another; also vitally important is organizing support for or opposition to proposed legislation among both legislative colleagues and the public; that he is good at this is presumably why the Democratic Senate leadership appointed Sen. Sanders to at least seven committees and named him chair of the important committee on the budget; actively participating in hearings, which Sen. Sanders also has been very active at; reviewing and voting on proposed bills; participating in oversight and investigation of the conduct of the legislative branch; and meeting and assisting constituents, which Sen. Sanders also must have a handle on, since he has held elective office for more that three decades and is viewed favorably by about 80% of his constituents in his home state.
One other thing: Sanders is frequently accused of introducing bills that have "no chance of passing." This misses an important part of the legislative process: preparing the ground for the future. In the Thirties and in the Sixties, opportunities opened up to make historic advances in social and economic progress. One important reason for the legislative achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society is that the groundwork had been laid by decades of debate over proposals that, when they were introduced, had "no chance of passing" (in fact, most of them had "no chance of passing" even in the legislative session in which they passed). The reason that the Sanders candidacy is so important is that it lays the groundwork for future advances in social and economic policy. It's not that a new New Deal will result immediately from Sanders' election, but that, for the first time since the early 1970s, we will be arguing over the right things.
About the frequently heard charge that he couldn't pass his "Socialist" (really, New Deal and Great Society) program even when "a totally Democratic Congress and Speaker" held sway: At no time since the Sixties, has the Congress not had a conservative majority. The big corner offices may have changed hands a few times, but the kleptocracy and the corporate agenda have never been seriously challenged. In so far as there has been resistance to business as usual, though, it has come from the Progressive Caucus in the House, made up of Liberal Democrats and founded by -- wait for it -- Bernie Sanders.
Despite the fact that Congress at certain points since the early 1970s has been nominally in the hands of Democrats is irrelevant, because the conservative majority -- made up of both Democrats and Republicans -- controlled both houses during the entire period. That nothing was done during the 25 working days with a Democratic supermajority underscores the the need to change business as usual in Washington by changing the makeup of the legislature. But you use what you have. Advancing the candidacy of Sen. Sanders is a step in the right direction.
Finally, it has to be kept in mind that one of Sanders' great blind spots is militarism. Although not nearly the hawk that Hillary Clinton is, Sanders supported brutal economic sanctions, drone assassinations and the legislation that paved the way for the Iraq War. One of the first jobs of his supporters if he is elected will be to oppose his endorsement of a militarized foreign policy, the same as it will be should Donald Trump or Clinton be commander in chief (the difference being that progressives will have considerably more influence in a Sanders administration).
It won't matter who is elected in 2016 if 2017 doesn't mark the rebirth of an independent, people's movement, accountable to its members, strong and disciplined enough to change the outcome of federal and local elections, and effective enough eventually either to wrest control of the Democratic Party from Wall Street and the corporations or to evolve into a viable progressive party. Sanders supporters are united in their persistent belief that change is possible, that the nation's present level of decline and dysfunction is not the way things need to be.
Follow-up: Has Bernie Sanders been given a pass on his own record on regime change? The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill tells Democracy Now! it can't be ignored that Sanders supported brutal economic sanctions, drone assassinations and the neocon legislation that paved the way for the Iraq. War:
#FeelTheBern!
While Hillary Clinton was in NYC hosting a $2,700 per plate dinner in a swanky location, Bernie Sanders was standing on a box in the Bronx speaking to more than 15,000 fans.
If you have any influence in New York, remind them that this season's presidential primary is a watershed moment in our political evolution. Let it not be said of us, as AJP Taylor said of the Liberal revolutions of 1848, that American "history reached its turning-point and failed to turn."
If you have any influence in New York, remind them that this season's presidential primary is a watershed moment in our political evolution. Let it not be said of us, as AJP Taylor said of the Liberal revolutions of 1848, that American "history reached its turning-point and failed to turn."
Second Thoughts
“I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.” -- Hillary Clinton, before the Michigan primary
“I don’t want to be the president for those who are already successful — they don’t need me. I want to be the president for the struggling and the striving.” -- Hillary Clinton, after the Michigan primary
Extra credit:
It's not over 'til it's over.
There's more to the primaries than picking the nominee. The delegates to the convention will write, amend and approve the party platform. Speeches will be made to the nation in prime time. The party chair will be chosen and DNC positions filled. Whether the nominee is Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, the more progressives that are elected to the convention, the more likely that the Democratic Party will return to its historic role as the champion of social and economic equality.
Poor me
Apparently, so desperate is the Hillary Clinton campaign it has decided to play the victim card. But if that's going to be our criterion for choosing the president, shouldn't we go with Joe Biden? He's had it a lot rougher than she has.
So it goes
As the senator from Vermont likes to say, let's be perfectly clear about this: "Bernie Sanders swept to a massive victory in the New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday in a stunning win over Hillary Clinton that will send shockwaves through her campaign and give the Vermont senator much needed momentum as he heads for tougher states further south" (The Guardian).
"The Best, uh, Person"
Is it too late to pitch a remake, no, I'm sorry, a re-imagination of Frank Schaffner's great movie The Best Man -- screenplay by Gore Vidal, starring Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson -- in time for this year's election? In the 1964 film, as IMDb puts it, "[t]he two front runners for their party's Presidential nomination, one principled and the other ruthless, vie for the ex-President's endorsement." Actually, the story's a lot more complicated and interesting than that, including the presence in the race of one Gov. John Merwin, a being so spectral even the actor who played him (William R. Ebersol) (or is it Eberson?) has vanished into the mists of time.
In the new version, the front runner, a seasoned center-right politician (Meryl Streep), is challenged from her left by an idealistic, small-state U.S. Senator (Larry David, because Sam Elliott or Tom Selleck wouldn't be believable). The race has its ups and downs -- shifting poll numbers, primaries won and lost, petty scandals, social-media hits and misses, staff screw-ups, family embarrassments, yada yada, but as we open act three, the major candidates arrive at the convention unexpectedly neck and neck.
The President (Will Smith), busy with drone targets and blueprints for his presidential library and frankly not really very interested, dithers until the day of the vote, then makes a brilliant address to convention delegates that leaves the decision up to them. The surging enthusiasm of the challengers' supporters seems to be tipping the balance his way.
The former front runner, sensing the tide has turned against her, realizing she must concede, is unable to forgive the competitor who has exposed her feet of clay. In the final moment, she throws her delegates to the third candidate in the race, the chimerical governor (Tim Daly) who is last seen for a heart-stopping ten seconds -- the mood: a new day? a perilous future? the loneliness of power? "Happy Days Are Here Again"? "Gonna Fly Now"? a lot is going to depend on the soundtrack here -- on an escalator to the convention floor to accept the nomination.
Reading list:
Eleven populist points about the Bernie blizzard: Berserk Clinton Bigwigs Launch Nixonian Attack Against Surging Sanders by Brent Budowsky (Observer)
Further viewing:
Theater Talk: Playwright Gore Vidal on "The Best Man" (YouTube).
Homework:
Buy The Best Man by Gore Vidal, directed by Franklin Schaffner, with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson (Amazon).
In the new version, the front runner, a seasoned center-right politician (Meryl Streep), is challenged from her left by an idealistic, small-state U.S. Senator (Larry David, because Sam Elliott or Tom Selleck wouldn't be believable). The race has its ups and downs -- shifting poll numbers, primaries won and lost, petty scandals, social-media hits and misses, staff screw-ups, family embarrassments, yada yada, but as we open act three, the major candidates arrive at the convention unexpectedly neck and neck.
The President (Will Smith), busy with drone targets and blueprints for his presidential library and frankly not really very interested, dithers until the day of the vote, then makes a brilliant address to convention delegates that leaves the decision up to them. The surging enthusiasm of the challengers' supporters seems to be tipping the balance his way.
Reading list:
Eleven populist points about the Bernie blizzard: Berserk Clinton Bigwigs Launch Nixonian Attack Against Surging Sanders by Brent Budowsky (Observer)
Further viewing:
Theater Talk: Playwright Gore Vidal on "The Best Man" (YouTube).
Homework:
Buy The Best Man by Gore Vidal, directed by Franklin Schaffner, with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson (Amazon).
Flushing the PACs is not enough
We need to look no
further than the current political dysfunction in the U.S. to see that without equality democracy is not viable.
But the problem with the effort to place a limit on campaign spending by moneyed interests is that it doesn't take us nearly far enough toward restoring equality of access to our political system. The 1% is buying power by stuffing dollars into PACs, yes; but wealth also acquires power in many other ways, direct, through bribes (contributions to individual campaigns, padded honorariums for speeches, make-work consultancies, donations to pet foundations, etc.) and indirect, through influential fronts (funding think tanks, academic studies, laboratory research, academic chairs, and so on), corporate advertising, and control of the mainstream media.
By itself, overturning Citizens United will not check the influence of money on politics.
In the past, political organizing helped the majority to defend its interests, but organizing is a long and difficult process, and in the last 40 years many of the mechanisms that were depended on to generate, accumulate and deploy the power of communities have either atrophied or been systematically destroyed (labor unions, to take one example). Somehow we must restore organizing to its central place in the political landscape if the many are ever again effectively to counter the power of the few.
The foremost reason to support Sen. Sanders for president is that he is the only major candidate in the race who recognizes that political inequality and economic injustice are major obstacles to further progress for this nation. Win or lose, Sen. Sanders' campaign, with its millions of donors and its fired-up activists, could be the beginning of a new era of people power.
Reading list:
Forty-three percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers self-identify as socialist -- to be very clear, the question is not whether they would vote for a socialist or sympathize with socialism; it's whether they consider themselves socialist -- more, actually, than the number who identify themselves as capitalist (38 %). This number proves Bernie Sanders can win Iowa by Aaron Blake (The Washington Post).
Extra credit:
But the problem with the effort to place a limit on campaign spending by moneyed interests is that it doesn't take us nearly far enough toward restoring equality of access to our political system. The 1% is buying power by stuffing dollars into PACs, yes; but wealth also acquires power in many other ways, direct, through bribes (contributions to individual campaigns, padded honorariums for speeches, make-work consultancies, donations to pet foundations, etc.) and indirect, through influential fronts (funding think tanks, academic studies, laboratory research, academic chairs, and so on), corporate advertising, and control of the mainstream media.
By itself, overturning Citizens United will not check the influence of money on politics.
In the past, political organizing helped the majority to defend its interests, but organizing is a long and difficult process, and in the last 40 years many of the mechanisms that were depended on to generate, accumulate and deploy the power of communities have either atrophied or been systematically destroyed (labor unions, to take one example). Somehow we must restore organizing to its central place in the political landscape if the many are ever again effectively to counter the power of the few.
The foremost reason to support Sen. Sanders for president is that he is the only major candidate in the race who recognizes that political inequality and economic injustice are major obstacles to further progress for this nation. Win or lose, Sen. Sanders' campaign, with its millions of donors and its fired-up activists, could be the beginning of a new era of people power.
Reading list:
Forty-three percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers self-identify as socialist -- to be very clear, the question is not whether they would vote for a socialist or sympathize with socialism; it's whether they consider themselves socialist -- more, actually, than the number who identify themselves as capitalist (38 %). This number proves Bernie Sanders can win Iowa by Aaron Blake (The Washington Post).
Extra credit:
The Bernie Beat Goes On
In 2008, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign was moved to share this picture of young Barack Obama with the voting public.
In 1987, while serving as Burlington’s mayor, Bernie Sanders recorded an album of folk classics for the defunct BurlingTown Recordings label. Vermont's Seven Days found it in an archive search for Bernie Beat, its digital guide to Sanders' colorful political career. Sen. Sanders better watch out; if the Clinton campaign decides to go after the folk music vote, you can bet this will be everywhere: Sanders sings The Banks Are Made of Marble, and it ain't pretty.
The leaders of both parties are underestimating Bernie Sanders
Now that the worried Clinton campaign has turned its guns on a surging Bernie Sanders, Clinton's supporters have begun to express concern that the Vermont senator will be especially vulnerable to attacks from the right (so vulnerable, in fact, that the Clinton campaign itself is using them).
What the Republicans will do, of course, is try to slime the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is.
Barack Obama, who gave his enemies nothing to work with beyond the color of his skin, was vilified as an alien, Muslim, Socialist Pawn of Wall Street, and tyrant -- a weak one at that, but they rarely bothered to question his ethics, because no one would believe that he was personally corrupt. In Sanders' case, too, they have little to work with, now that it has become apparent that "socialism" is no longer frightening the horses, although the GOP will probably attempt to have the voters take notice of his age, as one Clinton surrogate is already trying to do, and his ethnicity.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the best Democratic opponent you could wish for, if your only hope of winning is a smear campaign.
Reading list:
Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020. Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president by Walker Bragman (Salon).
What kind of experience does Bernie Sanders have? Let's take a look. Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You by Zaid Jilani (AlterNet).
Want specifics?: Bernie Sanders Releases Details on Health Plan That Would Raise Taxes but, He Argues, Save on Costs by Yamiche Alcindor and Alan Rappeport (The New York Times).
The Clinton camp is lambasting Bernie Sanders' health care plan, but its critique is blatantly dishonest. Clinton's Health Care Attack Makes No Sense by Pat Garofalo (U.S.News).
Extra credit:
Rant o' the Day: How the Democratic Establishment Manipulates Us by JosephK74 (Daily Kos).
What the Republicans will do, of course, is try to slime the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is.
Barack Obama, who gave his enemies nothing to work with beyond the color of his skin, was vilified as an alien, Muslim, Socialist Pawn of Wall Street, and tyrant -- a weak one at that, but they rarely bothered to question his ethics, because no one would believe that he was personally corrupt. In Sanders' case, too, they have little to work with, now that it has become apparent that "socialism" is no longer frightening the horses, although the GOP will probably attempt to have the voters take notice of his age, as one Clinton surrogate is already trying to do, and his ethnicity.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the best Democratic opponent you could wish for, if your only hope of winning is a smear campaign.
Reading list:
Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020. Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president by Walker Bragman (Salon).
What kind of experience does Bernie Sanders have? Let's take a look. Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You by Zaid Jilani (AlterNet).
Want specifics?: Bernie Sanders Releases Details on Health Plan That Would Raise Taxes but, He Argues, Save on Costs by Yamiche Alcindor and Alan Rappeport (The New York Times).
The Clinton camp is lambasting Bernie Sanders' health care plan, but its critique is blatantly dishonest. Clinton's Health Care Attack Makes No Sense by Pat Garofalo (U.S.News).
Extra credit:
Rant o' the Day: How the Democratic Establishment Manipulates Us by JosephK74 (Daily Kos).
What happens if Hillary Clinton stalls or stumbles?
At this point, with the Republicans in chaos and Bernie Sanders' insurgency her only significant Democratic opposition, Hillary Clinton should be dominating the polls. That she's not must be scaring the bejesus out of the Democratic establishment. But what are they going to do about it? It's not like they have a deep bench. They don't want Elizabeth Warren or Sanders, though either of them would be electoral gold in November. Joe Biden is older than dirt and goofier than a Shmoo. Andrew Cuomo gives cynicism a bad name and has not been seasoned by a previous national run. The idea of drafting Al Gore is fantastical, as is the thought that they'd find Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley fit to run (who's Lincoln Chafee, again?). That the party kingmakers should have seen this coming is beside the point. What are they going to about it now?
The rest of the story: Hillary Clinton is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states by Brett LoGiurato (Business Insider).
Reading list: Why Liberals Have to Be Radicals by Robert Kuttner: The reforms needed to restore the country's shared prosperity are to the left of all the candidates, including Sanders.
Addendum: I am asked what I have against former Senator Jim Webb. I don't have any particular issues with Webb that I don't have with any likely Democratic nominee; but I think the party poohbahs would regard him as a minor candidate, too independent, too unseasoned, too Southern, too identified with the military to please the party base, and probably a little too difficult to brand plausibly as a progressive (despite the fact that he voted with the party most of the time that he was in the Senate), something any Democratic Party nominee will have to pretend to be in 2016.
Here's the breakdown:These are all states Obama won both times and they are essential components of a Democratic victory next year. "Trustworthiness," or lack thereof, seems to be what's doing Clinton in, and there's little about her halting, content-less campaign so far to indicate she can overcome people's distrust and dislike. Instead of trying to protect Clinton in the primaries, the Democrats should designate a substitute now or face having her drag the rest of the party's congressional and state candidates down with her when she whiffs in November 2016.
Bush leads Clinton 41-36 in Colorado; 42-36 in Iowa; and 42-39 in Virginia.
Walker leads Clinton 47-38 in Colorado; 45-37 in Iowa; and 43-40 in Virginia.
Rubio leads Clinton 46-38 in Colorado; 44-36 in Iowa; and 43-41 in Virginia.
The rest of the story: Hillary Clinton is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states by Brett LoGiurato (Business Insider).
Addendum: I am asked what I have against former Senator Jim Webb. I don't have any particular issues with Webb that I don't have with any likely Democratic nominee; but I think the party poohbahs would regard him as a minor candidate, too independent, too unseasoned, too Southern, too identified with the military to please the party base, and probably a little too difficult to brand plausibly as a progressive (despite the fact that he voted with the party most of the time that he was in the Senate), something any Democratic Party nominee will have to pretend to be in 2016.
Finding the needle in the GOP haystack.
Republicans are worried that having too many candidates in the race for president will confuse voters. So the party is planning to use the low standing in the polls of some contenders to exclude them from the debates.
But polls, especially at such an early stage in a campaign, are notoriously inaccurate yardsticks. Something more precise is needed.
Since there is no way to gauge hypocrisy, two widely used and accepted methods of assessing suitability are being proposed: all candidates must submit to drug and IQ tests. Only contestants with IQs over 70 and measurable amounts of cannabis in their blood streams will be permitted to compete.
In the event that none of the current aspirants can meet these standards -- not likely in the case of cannabis, the GOP will have time to recruit replacements. Since all the candidates have supported the use of such determinations by employers, they will welcome the application of these standards to their own jobs.
If some do object, perhaps that can be added as the missing hypocrisy test.
Hillary Clnton's Bloviation Seminar
In her official presidential campaign announcement speech, Hillary Clinton said she would reform the tax code, increase public investment in research, help communities transitioning to cleaner energy sources, establish an infrastructure bank, make preschool and child care universally available, increase college affordability, expand leave time for illness and family needs, raise the minimum wage, ban discrimination against gay people, reform campaign finance, and create automatic voter registration. It is impolite to point out that every one of these initiatives is the purview of the federal legislature (or in a few cases, the states) and that the Clinton campaign is pursuing a narrow strategy of targeting only a handful of contested states, meaning that her campaign will almost certainly result in fewer Democrats in Congress? And that about the things that are the purview of the executive, such as military adventurism, the security state, international trade, we are hearing nothing?
From the Won't-Be-Fooled-Again Desk:
It's outrageous that America is the only developed country that doesn't provide paid family leave. If you agree join Hillary's campaign today! -- Daily KosReally? That's the criterion we're supposed to use to choose the next president?
How about out-of-control military spending? Is that outrageous? What's she going to do about that?Banks too big to fail? Pretty outrageous, you'd think. Will Goldman Sachs let her do anything about them?
Economic injustice? Outrageous. She's a big populist now; what's her plan?
Surveillance State abuses: Outrageous. If she has a solution, it's a secret.
Her actions at State that helped to create outrageous messes in Afghanistan, Honduras and Libya. What will she do about them?
The chaos in Syria and Iraq: Outrageous. Does she have a fix?
More outrageous, even, than that America is the only developed country that doesn't provide paid family leave, outrageous as that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
