Sunday Open Thread [5.22.16]
Right wing Christians are currently engaged in fear-mongering about transgender people in bathrooms while they mostly ignore this:
Despite all those transgender bathroom laws GOP state legislatures keep passing, a child is far more likely to be molested at church.
In 2014 the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) came out with a report on sexual abuse in the Catholic church. It turns out that from 1950-2013, 17,259 victims made accusations and 6,427 clerics had been counted as “not implausibly” or “credibly” accused. This doesn’t even account for underreporting or include the unusually large number victims who came forward in 2003 in the wake of the Boston Globe‘s eye-opening report on sexual abuse in the Catholic church by their Spotlight team…
Meanwhile, for all of their yammering about gay marriage and public restrooms, evangelical protestant churches also have a lot to answer for. In 2015, the exposure of 19 and Counting‘s Josh Duggar’s sexual proclivities revealed not only that America’s favorite Christian family wasn’t as wholesome as they seem (and that their faith community helped enable him). In February, the Washingtonian broke a story revealing decades of sexual abuse against children in Sovereign Grace Ministries, a suburban megachurch network.
Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.”
Democrats will miss him when he’s gone, and should appreciate her while she’s here, says Martin Longman:
I expected Democrats to begin expressing much higher approval numbers for Obama once they were forced to really think about Clinton or Sanders in the White House, but the trend is even stronger with independents who basically hate their choices in this election cycle:
Democrats have slowly looked at Obama more favorably since the beginning of 2015, but independents have begun to look at Obama much more favorably. After a sharp slide following his reelection, independents turned their opinions of Obama around at the beginning of 2014. Over the past year, that’s escalated. And since ratings from Democrats and Republicans are more stable, that shift by independents moves the needle a lot.
People don’t always realize that Obama’s approval numbers have been held down by the ambivalence of a lot of Democrats. The same is happening now to a much greater degree to Hillary Clinton. She won’t really have to do anything to see her negatives decline once the Democrats unite around her as the only chance of keeping Donald Trump away from the nuclear codes. If independents follow suit, which they will if they campaign is waged competently, she won’t be laboring under historically high negatives by the time people start voting.
As I said yesterday, Democrats want to fall in love with their candidates, while Republicans want to fall in line. You are seeing that now with all the Republicans falling in line behind Trump. And you will see Hillary’s numbers rise when Democrats unite. The story of the Summer is set: The Resurrection of Hillary.
Harold Meyerson, Democratic Socialist and Sanders supporter:
Over the past 48 hours, the Bernie Sanders campaign has all but eclipsed its own message. Like the antiwar movement of the 1960s—whence I came—a small group of its activists have themselves become the story, supplanting Sanders’s powerful critique of economic elites and the sway they hold over our politics. The issues that Bernie has so forcefully highlighted have been shunted to the background; the Bros have taken center stage.
We’ve seen this all before. By the late 1960s, most Americans had turned against the Vietnam War, but the extremism of a small share of the antiwar activists, and their proclivity for violent confrontations, turned millions of Americans even more decidedly against the protestors—a backlash that gave the Nixon administration the political space to continue the war for four more years.
This year, Americans have flocked to Sanders’s banner in numbers vastly exceeding any that a radical critic of capitalism has ever been able to claim. His indictment of Wall Street has resonated across the political spectrum; his proposals to break up the big banks, raise the minimum wage to $15, create tuition-free public colleges, and drive a wedge between the financial sector and elected officials have won wide acclaim, and enabled him to secure more than 40 percent of the votes in this year’s Democratic primaries and caucuses.
But now, what is arguably the most successful left campaign in the nation’s history stands in danger of being undone by an infantile fraction of its own supporters. The threats of violence, the shouting down of such lifelong liberals as Barbara Boxer, and the growing desire of some in the campaign, both on its periphery and at its core, to walk away from the real prospect of building left power by refusing to work with allies and potential allies in the Democratic Party—all these now threaten the campaign’s potential to bring lasting change to American politics.
I think Meyerson’s point is good, but I also think it is growing moot. Things seem to be calming down. And if reports are to be believed, Bernie, in quietly assuring Senate Democrats that he will not tear the party apart, is also calming down and will bring his supporters over.
Trump: "We never win" #WeWinDonald @owillis pic.twitter.com/KkeWuCSVwU
— Anne B (@abroshar) May 20, 2016
This meme must become central to Hillary’s campaign. Optimism defeats Pessimism every time.
Dana Milbank on the disdain Trump holds for America, and Americans.
Just how gullible does Donald Trump suppose the American voter is?
The billionaire showman has been the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for only a couple of weeks, yet his general election strategy is already becoming clear: hope for a mass nationwide outbreak of short-term memory loss. His top strategist, Paul Manafort, has said that the “part that he’s been playing is now evolving.” But this isn’t evolution — it’s reincarnation.
That call Trump made “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”? Turns out that was “just a suggestion,” he now says.
The federal minimum wage increase, which he repeatedly opposed? Now he’s “looking at” an increase, he says.
The massive tax cut he proposed during the primary, which analysts said would add $10 trillion to the federal debt? Never mind! He’s hired experts to rewrite it in a way that cuts taxes less for the wealthy.
Those tax returns he promised “certainly” to release? Not going to happen, he says now.
Sen. Bernie Sanders “cranked up his crusade” against the Democratic establishment, declaring that he is supporting DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) primary challenger, Politico reports.
“The move, a clear and intended affront to the Florida congresswoman, comes amid long-standing tensions between the two Democrats. Sanders and his allies contend that Wasserman Schultz has not been an honest broker during his run for the Democratic nomination and they have seethed over a number of issues ranging from the debate schedule to the amount of representation on the convention standing committees.”
NBC News: “The Trump campaign has said it will focus on about a dozen states during the general election, including Florida, but the candidate has not held a single campaign event there since winning the state’s primary in March… Even though Trump has become the presumptive nominee well before his Democratic rival, his general election team doesn’t yet have a real presence in the state. The campaign has yet to set up any of the infrastructure necessary to win a campaign in Florida, leaving its 29 delegates very much up in the air.”
“Trump’s lack of a ground game isn’t surprising. It’s been a criticism of his campaign throughout the primary process, but as both parties turn to the general election, the lack of local organization becomes more of an issue.”
Donald Trump has cheated veterans out of 6 million dollars.
Adam Gopnik: “One can argue about whether to call him a fascist or an authoritarian populist or a grotesque joke made in a nightmare shared between Philip K. Dick and Tom Wolfe, but under any label Trump is a declared enemy of the liberal constitutional order of the United States—the order that has made it, in fact, the great and plural country that it already is. He announces his enmity to America by word and action every day. It is articulated in his insistence on the rightness of torture and the acceptable murder of noncombatants. It is self-evident in the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies, made only worse by the frivolity and transience of the tone of those threats. He makes his enmity to American values clear when he suggests that the Presidency holds absolute power, through which he will be able to end opposition—whether by questioning the ownership of newspapers or talking about changing libel laws or threatening to take away F.C.C. licenses.”
“To say ‘Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that’ is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can.”
“People don’t always realize that Obama’s approval numbers have been held down by the ambivalence of a lot of Democrats.”
No, we ambivalent Democrats were acutely aware of it. Obama turned it around by acquiring a spine and moving left toward where the Democrats were. Think how much more he could have accomplished had he done that sooner.
“The threats of violence, the shouting down of such lifelong liberals as Barbara Boxer, and the growing desire of some in the campaign, both on its periphery and at its core, to walk away from the real prospect of building left power by refusing to work with allies and potential allies in the Democratic Party—all these now threaten the campaign’s potential to bring lasting change to American politics.”
The Dem establishment would love to cite this media-created frenzy to discount Bernie’s truth-to-power message. Just like they did with the Dean Scream. But it’s too late; the lasting change has already happened in hearts and minds.
Here’s hoping Bernie does one of his patented stadium-filling rallies this summer in Miami for DWS’s primary opponent Tim Canova.
Don Peterson seems to make a strong argument, though I don’t have any other insights about him or the race: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/05/17/lets-build-new-delaware-way/84491582/
That was a great article. It illuminated a problem… When one uses the term “Delaware Way”, simply because it uses the state name it carries a “good” connotation. On an emotional level, how can anything called the Delaware Way be wrong or evil?
Hence it is a hard argument to win, people may agree with your details but, … it is called the Delaware Way so it carries a nostalgic benefit-of-the-doubt through years of “tradition”
The best way to combat that euphemistic tendency, is to offer an alternative name that accurately describes what it is… and I thank that editorial for putting that idea into my head…
We, who run most of the political discourse in this state in one way or another, should after this glaring expose, start calling it the “Shut The Fuck Up” Way… We do it enough so that with any future mention of the “Delaware Way” every person’s brain associates it with the cool “Shut The Fuck Up” Way, and… just like that… the euphemistic attraction is gone and we can see what the “Shut The Fuck Up” way has been about all these years and how it has hurt our growth and development as a state by putting our resources solely in the hands of those who only want to help themselves…
If you think this is a good option, start using “Shut The Fuck Up” Way instead of Delaware Way in your posts and conversations and by the end of this Election cycle, that old name will be retired at least for a generation… being so damaged…..
As an example…… here’s a quick edit of the News Journal piece which would look like this…. and put egg on a lot of people’s faces….
“Joe Conaway, former Sussex County Administrator, ..saying “I know some people use the term ‘Delaware Way’ or ‘Shut The Fuck Up” way in a derogatory terms, but I think it’s a good thing.”
Huh?
See how that works?
@p “Here’s hoping Bernie does one of his patented stadium-filling rallies this summer in Miami for DWS’s primary opponent Tim Canova.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/22/bernie-sanders-just-declared-war-on-the-democratic-establishment/
The problem isn’t with DWS… It’s squarely on the shoulders of Bernie Sanders.
“the growing desire of some in the [Sanders’] campaign, both on its periphery and at its core, to walk away from the real prospect of building left power by refusing to work with allies and potential allies in the Democratic Party….”
Exactly who are these potential “allies” in the Democratic Party to Sanders like proposals and perspective that are not already part of his campaign? This is a phantom group as will be evident within two weeks after the convention, when all the nice Bernie-speak will end as well as the scant few platform concessions they will make to keep the convention appear united. The best that Democratic establishmentarians can manage is obligatory token kind words about Sanders. They are not asking themselves deep questions about what significance the Sanders campaign and movement have for the future of the party.
@DG “This is a phantom group as will be evident within two weeks after the convention…”
There are many liberal senators and congress people who would like to move the party to the left.
You can either work from the bottom and help get down-ballot liberals elected (that’s what the GOP has been very good at doing on the other side), or you can declare war on the entire party and start by making threats and taking hostages. After falling way short on delegates, that’s the path Bernie has apparently decided to take.
He’s lied to his supporters and he’s lied to his donors, and now we have this mess. It’s all on Bernie’s shoulders…
“You can either work from the bottom and help get down-ballot liberals elected ”
Sanders has endorsed Tim Canova and is raising money for him. That’s a good start.
@p “That’s a good start.”
No it isn’t. It’s a crappy mean spirited start.
a. He should have been helping all along.
b. He should be helping based on ideology.
c. This just looks like a temper tantrum unfairly blaming DWS for his own failures.
If by declaring war on the Democratic Party, you mean joining in to fire DWS as Chairperson, then more power to him. Anyone like her who champions the awful usurous interest rates of payday loan companies has no business leading a party that claims to support the interests of ordinary Americans. That’s just yet another example of how the Democratic Party betrays ordinary Americans and need a change from both the top down and the bottom up.
“b. He should be helping based on ideology.”
You mean like this?
“Well, clearly, I favor her opponent,” Sanders told Tapper. “His views are much closer to mine than as to Wasserman Schultz’s.”
@p … You know damn well that’s not why he’s doing it.
@DG “If by declaring war on the Democratic Party, you mean joining in to fire DWS as Chairperson”
No.. He’s not trying to fire her as Chairperson. He’s going after her day job!!
That’s a very rare thing for one Dem to do to another Dem. And when Sanders gets back to the senate, he’ll be as popular as old raw fish. They will remember him for this.
I understand that you want to scapegoat DWS, but she’s really just played by the rules that have been in place for many years. Guess who wants to throw out the rules and be appointed over the voice of millions of voters??
Well, I assume that Hillary won DWS’ district in South Florida by 3-1 margins, so good luck Bernie in trying to oust her. Indeed, Bernie may have just activated Hillary partisans to turnout and support her.
But it is not a betrayal for Bernie to do this. I have no problem with people being primaried, and for people taking sides.
@DD “But it is not a betrayal for Bernie to do this.”
Really??.. OK. Then tell me when was the last time an elected member of congress did this to another elected member of congress?
LE….
Harry “Muslims should’t run because they cant win” Reid is doing it right now to Alan Grayson.
Ben, that’s a little different since two congressmen are running for an open seat in the Senate. So Harry prefers one. No big deal. But I am sure that there has been instances where a congressman has supported a primary challenge to an incumbent colleague, especially in our party with our history of having conservative southern Democrats. I’m sorry, Liberal Elite, I am not going to get worked up about this. But turnabout is fair play. I know some people who are already planning to take out Sanders in his 2018 Democratic primary, assuming Sanders stays a Democrat.
That’s fascinating. I talked about DWS’ support of a highly exploitive business that hands poor and lower middle class persons and the analysis given in response to it is purely about her electoral prospects and speculations that Bernie only wants her job as Chairperson. Issues of substance are irrelevant. Only the horse races and notions of power politics are relevant.
Sorry… Grayson is NOT a member of congress. He’s going up against an establishment candidate and he has an ethical cloud over his head.
@DD “But I am sure that there has been instances where a congressman has supported a primary challenge to an incumbent colleague,…”
Yes. It has happened before, but it’s very rare, because it’s deeply personal and you make an enemy for life. You also make no one else from your own party want to work with you, lest you do it to them too. Sanders has basically made himself an anathema in the Senate.
“I’m sorry, Liberal Elite, I am not going to get worked up about this. But turnabout is fair play.”
Turnabout? Turnabout for what, exactly?? What has DWS done to deserve this from Sanders??
DWS is exactly the kind of Democrat that SHOULD be taken out in a primary. Shame on the Dem establishment for elevating such a piece of work to high position.
@DG “I talked about DWS’ support of a highly exploitive business…”
Yea. That really sucks. About 90% of congress suffers from that disease. And that’s fine if you want to make that the most important issue and call for her disqualification.
But that’s not really what’s happening here now, is it??
@p “Shame on the Dem establishment for elevating such a piece of work to high position.”
High position??? You’re kidding… She’s just a soldier who does what she’s told.
Sanders is basically going after a low level referee. That stinks in sports and it stinks here.
I’m not losing any sleep over DWS. I’m fine with her going away. But that doesn’t mean that I find Bernie’s motivation pure in this – It is mean-spirited, mainly due to the timing. After all, DWS didn’t just suddenly adopt her positions yesterday. So why wasn’t he going after her for years? (The payday bill was in 2010)
Go after her chairmanship. That’s fine, but let’s stop pretending that any of this has to do with her “support of a highly exploitive business that hands poor and lower middle class persons”. That’s an after thought.
@p “I’m fine with her going away.”
But the superdelegates are not. This is the one move that he made that basically ensures that they will never embrace him… even if Hillary withdraws before the convention.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-loses-his-halo-213911
Biden and Warren are more likely to win the nomination than Sanders is.
“Go after her chairmanship. That’s fine, but let’s stop pretending that any of this has to do with her “support of a highly exploitive business”
Bernie has zero chance of getting her removed from her chairmanship while she remains in Congress. She may leave anyway but would be replaced by someone similar. The better play for Bernie is to help defeat her in a primary. That also removes her from her chairmanship, and serves a warning to the next chair, while also helping Democrats where they need the most help.
The payday loan issue aligns well with Bernie’s platform and calling DWS out on it represents a teachable moment for Democrats, especially if DWS were to lose the primary. The reason Bernie is making a point of it now is that DWS is now being challenged in a primary.
I don’t understand all the bridge burning. It’s like blowing things up for the sake of blowing things up. Here’s the latest blowup: Sanders Supporters Sue To Extend Voter Registration In California
This is what rigging an election looks like.
Not to mention that California is really good at informing voters. Amazingly good.
Hey, isn’t a payday loan operation a “shadow bank”? I thought Hillary’s excuse for not breaking up the biggest banks was that she would go after shadow banks instead, or something like that.
@LE “Sorry… Grayson is NOT a member of congress.”
You’re wrong. He represent’s Florida’s 9th district. DD is right that he is running for senate, rather than Re-election like the Pay-Day cartel soldier is… but we have a US Senator (reid) actively working against another Dem running for office. You sort of have a tendency to react extremely to anything Sanders does as THE WORST THING EVER. If Captain Del Demerica isn’t upset about it, I think it’s fine.
Now, If you want to talk about an “ethical cloud”… 1, you are right about that.. Grayson’s dealings with Cayman bank accounts is upsetting… especially given his supposed Progressive street cred. I’ve never really liked him anyway. He’s kind of a dick, and I find Tea Party tactics shameful, no matter which side uses them (part of my disillusionment with Sanders)
but 2… here is another Dem from Florida (DWS) also benefits from shady financial dealings. Her Chairpersonship aside, (She hasn’t done that great of a job getting Dems elected to congress, btw) she doesnt deserve to represent democrats (or anyone). This isn’t a purity thing, this is a bare minimum thing. This is Sanders redirecting his “revolution” to the congress, (maybe what he should have done from the get-go) in order to take the anger-focus off of Clinton. I’m fine with DWS being used in that way, if it gets a failure of a DNC chair out, and a schemer who allows predators to exploit the financially disadvantaged.
Her support for payday loan operators is just the final straw. She has been an absurd failure at her job, as evidenced by the electoral wipeout in the midterms. She has the ethics of a snake.
Here’s how she fucked up medical marijuana in Florida and then showed her true colors (from Wikipedia):
“Wasserman Schultz vigorously opposed a 2014 medical marijuana amendment in Florida that narrowly failed to reach the 60% of votes in favor needed to amend the Constitution of Florida. She angered medical marijuana activists and major Democratic donors over this and her comparisons of medical marijuana dispensaries to “pill mills”, which over-prescribe and over-dispense painkillers to patients with dubious symptoms.[33] After Wasserman Schultz expressed interest in running for the United States Senate in the 2016 elections, medical marijuana activists vowed to thwart her ambitions. Attorney and donor John Morgan said that her position on medical marijuana “disqualifies her from the [Democratic Senate] nomination… Her position denies terminally ill and chronically ill people compassion.”[33]
In response, in February 2015, Wasserman Schultz’s staff emailed Morgan, offering to change her position on medical marijuana if Morgan would stop criticizing her. Morgan declined her offer and released the emails to Politico, calling her a “bully”.[34] Wasserman Schultz at first declined to comment,[34] then denied that her office had even sent the emails.[35] Morgan responded: “What Debbie leaves out in her pushback was the crystal clear message that her potential support of the new amendment [that has been proposed for the ballot in 2016] was predicated upon me withdrawing my comments to Politico. I don’t know how to view that as anything but an offer of a quid pro quo.”[35]
A few more lovely items on this proud “new Democrat”:
In 2012, Wasserman Schultz attempted to get the DNC to pay for her clothing at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, and in 2013, to pay for her attire at the White House Correspondents Dinner.[53]
Many of Obama’s advisers have questioned the move to select Wasserman Schultz as his DNC chairwoman, who they feel comes across as too partisan on television. An internal focus study of the popularity of top Obama campaign surrogates ranked Wasserman Schultz at the bottom.[54]
In February 2015, Politico, citing unnamed sources, reported that Wasserman Schultz had lined up supporters in 2013 to portray any decision by Barack Obama to replace her as DNC chair as “anti-woman and anti-Semitic”.[55]
So there are numerous reasons to want Debbie out of the job. Indeed, Liberal Elite has made crystal clear that the only reason she wants DWS to keep the job is that Bernie Sanders wants her out.
LE… the turnabout is fair play I was referring to is primarying Sanders in Vermont in 2018. I know people who are already planning it, and they have a candidate ready to go. The big question is whether Bernie runs in a Democratic Primary or whether he goes back to being an Independent. If he runs as a Democrat, Sanders should be primaried.
What is the point of primarying Sanders? He had a right to run for president and most Democrats agree with him on the issues. Why should he or his supporters help elect Hillary president if people are talking about primarying him? If the Democrats re-take control of the Senate, Bernie Sanders is in line to chair the Budget Committee. A perfect place for him to oversee a re-prioritization of spending.
” If the Democrats re-take control of the Senate, Bernie Sanders is in line to chair the Budget Committee.”
That alone will guarantee a primary.
@DD “Sanders should be primaried.”
Fine, but that’s not the issue I was addressing. The question is should people like Chris Coons be endorsing Sanders’ opponent?
And if they fail to oust Sanders with their endorsement, then how would you expect them to work together in the Senate afterwards?
THAT is why it’s rarely done. Senators and congressmen usually don’t muck around in each others campaigns… even when from different parties.
@Ben “You’re wrong. He represent’s Florida’s 9th district.”
Well.. That explains why Grayson was so angry. Reid did cross an invisible line that members rarely cross. But blocking a promotion is not the same as trying to fire someone.
Imagine how you’d feel if one of your coworkers was openly and aggressively trying to get your boss to fire you… not very good for team morale…
@p “That alone will guarantee a primary.”
I don’t think so. A smart Democrat would figure out that the best they could do is to make Sanders run as an independent again. He would still win. But if they aggressively primaried him, he would probably stop caucusing with the Democrats, possibly handing control of the Senate to the GOP.
There’s no reason to go there…
“But if they aggressively primaried him, he would probably stop caucusing with the Democrats, possibly handing control of the Senate to the GOP.”
That’s how Lieberman kept his spot on Homeland Security, and Dems were all too happy to let him have it.
It’s politics, LE. That’s how it works.
Also, If I were engaging in activities that were unethical (as Grayson and DWS are both doing) and counter to the message my company was trying to promote, I would say that I should be fired.
I dont buy into this Party version of the Thin Blue Line. If someone is supporting a Democrat JUST BECAUSE they are a Democrat, their priorities are messed up. If you can make the party better by getting rid of counterproductive and unethical members, I say go for it.
@B
There’s a huge difference between ‘lack of support’ and trying to get someone fired. If you have to actually work with the person, it’s probably better to let someone else try to get them fired.
That’s true in any work environment, but especially in politics where the only real currencies are cooperation and money.
Let someone else try? who? another colleague who has to make the decision to be “that” person?
“That’s true in any work environment, but especially in politics where the only real currencies are cooperation and money.”
You have just described THE problem with politics. I dont want my politicians loyal to EACH OTHER… or wherever their money comes from. I want them loyal to their “company”… (the country) and their “boss” the voters.
Again, if a co-worker were engaged in activities that could compromise the company , and were also objectively unethical, you can bet I’d at LEAST bring it to the attention of someone who could do something about it….. kinda like how true hero cops are the ones who help take down the dirty ones.. do you disagree with that?
@B “You have just described THE problem with politics. I dont want my politicians loyal to EACH OTHER…”
So you don’t believe in political parties?
There are plusses and minuses to having political parties. In our world it is necessary to have a functioning Democratic partly, lest the GOP takes over entirely.
…and that means they need to work together as a semi-coherent group. They cannot do that if they are constantly at each other’s throats, and deep in mistrust.
you’re making it out to be too black and white.
Political parties are fine. Fealty to more powerful co-workers instead of clients…. or donors rather than bosses is the problem. Think about unions. I love unions. I think they should exist. If you take away from this comment that Ben doesn’t like unions, you’re wrong….. BUT. when unions become corrupted and only serve to help the specific union organization rather than the members, there is a problem and it must be fixed.
@LE “No.. He’s not trying to fire her as Chairperson. He’s going after her day job!!”
And well he should! Her cozininess with groups that exploit middle class and poor Americans disqualifies any support for her from real progressive people. But not with party hacks apparently.
@Pandora “…but let’s stop pretending that any of this has to do with her “support of a highly exploitive business that hands poor and lower middle class persons”. That’s an after thought.”
And how long has she had a declared Dem primary opponent that challenged her on her non progressive views and holds real progressive views? Only recently. And when did Sanders start to go after her? Recently. You think that’s only a coincidence?
@DG “And well he should!”
For what? Failure to coddle?
Isn’t it great having a scapegoat to blame for your failures…
Sanders is blaming DWS when she was just following the rules. It’s like he’s trying to fire the umpire after he struck out swinging… like it was somehow her fault that she would allow him five strikes for his special turn at bat.
Honestly, Sanders supporting a primary opponent is EXACTLY what I want to see out of him. I want to replace Republicans with Democrats and the wrong Democrats with the right Democrats. This is what a legacy looks like.
We may not like that he’s going after DWS (although not many people really seem that enamored with her) but this is how one influences the future of the party. And 2 years from now, I want 50 Sanders people challenging for seats (held by Rs and Ds alike).
I too have to chime in how in pointing fingers at someone being primaried as if it is a bad thing to primary current Democrats, makes us sound exactly like the Republican Party establishment of old…
Primaries did not come with the founding of our country… They came out of the Progressivism of the early last century… Primaries were invented as a tool to put choosing the presidential candidate firmly in the hands of the people, and not the back rooms of Political conventions. There used to be zero input from the public on who that year’s candidate would be. And now, some Democrats are COMPLAINING how letting people decide is taking “their” power away to predetermine the next candidate….
Which if you read between the lines, has been what this thread has all been about: the “how dare he primary incumbents” versus the”how dare we let corrupt incumbents run without primarying them.”
We have only to look at our own Tom Carper to see the advantages of having an active primary system, and the disadvantage of having incumbents too solidly entrenched, that no credible candidate chooses to go up against them…
Primaries are good for the system, whether you find them “for” or “against” the candidate of your choice…
@lg “We may not like that he’s going after DWS (although not many people really seem that enamored with her) but this is how one influences the future of the party.”
Look… I have no great love for DWS, but the lynch mob that Sanders has created to bern her at the stake is unfortunate. He was terribly wrong to blame her for any of his own failures. She did NOT stack the deck to make him lose. He lost all on his own. We can argue about the details, but there’s no way his loss can fairly be construed as her fault.
And he’s not standing up to the Democratic party. He’s unfairly slapping at one particular member.
And what we have now, does look a lot like a lynch mob steeped in misogyny and anti-semitism. It’s ugly…
It’s just fascinating how @LE’s entire analysis about DWS is political. It has nothing to do with her being a corporate shill. It has nothing to do with her supporting legislation that gives cover to heinous and abusive money lenders. That’s not even a consideration. Nor is it a consideration that given her considerable power within the Democratic Party and her awful positions, she is precisely the person that Bernie and other Dems should single out for special attention. She’s a major leader and representative and yet she holds positions that are inimical to the party’s usual constituency. It has nothing to do with the people in her district or the American people at large. It’s all about giving cover to the establishment. Fascinating.
@DG “It’s just fascinating how @LE’s entire analysis about DWS is political.”
Because it is about Bernie Sanders. It has little to do with DWS.
When someone is going to be berned at the stake do you argue about how much of a witch the victim is or what kind of broom she flies? …or do you question the motives of the guy holding the torch??
This is all about Bernie. It’s a character test. He has failed.
The democratic party is driving away people like me who are liberal and very concerned about consumer, economic, jobs, fairness issues as well as funding Social Security and Medicare. The only reason for me to vote Democrat is that the republicans are a joke pushing nothing but sexual issues and anti worker legislation. If Trump didn’t spew all the crap about torture, rounding up 11 million people like the nazis and anti Muslim crap, I would seriously consider voting for him.
LE behaves like a Delaware Democratic Party shill.
Ouch No. A tried and true hard core liberal here trying to look past all the BS and impossible promises and bad behavior.
Social Security and Medicare were once part of some “impossible promises.” A tried and true liberal believes that was not the end and the dream will never die.
‘He’s not trying to fire her as Chairperson. He’s going after her day job!!”
Good. I hope he makes an example out of her.
“Unfairly” slapping at one member?
Says who? You? The person who so identifies with female politicians that she thinks people like Hillary and Debbie are liberals? Give me a freaking break.
Given that Debbie should have been tossed from the job for incompetence, I don’t care why Bernie wants her gone. Whatever removes her from the job is a welcome development.