October 28, 2015

You are correct to feel this way

There is a difference between politics and civics. In civics classes, one learns one does have the right to abstain from voting if there is not a candidate one wants to support. But if one does abstain, he or she should not complain about the results of the election and/or the consequences.

In politics, that right to abstain is ignored in favor of the arguments being made on this thread. I am very much a political junkie. I also loved studying government and civics, and I personally would never let anyone talk me into voting for a candidate that I honestly could not support. And since we all have the right to keep our votes private, I certainly would exercise that right if I abstained from voting in a Presidential selection while posting on DU.


Sam

October 21, 2015

"Don't pull that populist stuff with me."

Some time ago, I heard a story told by a Democratic candidate about meeting with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to ask for help in raising funds for his race. I always remembered the shocking response she gave him but never took the time to research the incident to discuss it here. Tonight I did take the time, and I found the incident described on of all places a website entitled democraticunderground!

From a DU post by HooptieWagon February 15, 2009, entitled "...here is the real DWS (citing the Huffington Post):

When my friend Jane saw what Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is charged with defeating Republicans and replacing them with Democrats, saw how shabbily Wasserman Schultz had treated progressive Navy veteran Doug Tudor, her astonishment was palpable. "Wow," she wrote, "We really are the New Republicans!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/debbie-wasser ...

The post then quotes from a note Tudor submitted regarding his encounter with Wasserman Schultz:

I, of course, was most anxious to meet and speak with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (DINO-FL), who is chairing the DCCC's Red-to-Blue program. I just knew that she would welcome the chance to defeat Adam Putnam, as that would allow her lay sole claim to the title of "Wonder Kid" in Florida's politics. Adam, after all, isn't her next door neighbor. Once she comes onboard, I assumed, the other members of the caucus would lose their timidity and also support me. I was dead wrong, and I should have known better. It is well known that Wasserman-Schultz supports Republicans Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen over their Democratic opponents, although lately she has been pressured into giving belated and grudging support to Joe Garcia and Raul Martinez who are opposing the Diaz-Balarts. I always figured that she was just afraid of the Hispanic backlash in her own district. What I hadn't considered is that she is just afraid of all incumbent Republicans in Florida. When I met her in Denver, she immediately told me that she couldn't support me, saying I hadn't raised enough money. I told her that I had raised $100K, that I was a military retiree, that my family is living on my wife's Air Force E6 pay, and that I wasn't able like other "viable" candidates to drop a quarter of a million dollars into my own campaign. I then told her, "Congresswoman, I am one of those working-class guys that our party claims to represent." Her response was "Don't pull that populist stuff with me." I thanked her for her time. (bold emphasis added)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/debbie-wasser ...

"Don't pull that populist stuff with me" ... populist stuff ... hmmmmmmmmm kind of sounds like she is anything but a populist and one wonders why someone demeaning populism is the chairwoman of the DNC. And the inference that she supported two Republicans over their Democratic opponents for her own self-serving reasons is very telling.

And the exclamation "We are the new Republicans" is a sentiment which today I believe would be echoed by some disenchanted Democrats dismayed over the DNC chairwoman's recent conduct.

She needs to go.

Sam

October 18, 2015

That was my gut reaction as to why the pundits called the debate for Hillary

I posted it here on DU:

1. The paid pundits which commented on cable right after the debate
knew this one thing for sure: if they did not wholeheartedly declare the corporate candidate the winner, they would not be invited back for the next five debates.

It is just as Elizabeth Warren was told by Larry Summers in 2009:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/quote-day-larry-summers-elizabeth-warren-insiders-dont-criticize-other-insiders

After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

These pundits like it on the inside and are not going to be critical of Hillary Clinton. The two acceptable candidates Wall Street liked were Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Now that it appears Jeb might lose his sponsors, the insiders will coalesce around Hillary.

After all, they cannot allow an outsider such as Bernie Sanders to become President because that would upend the top one percent, the corporate world and the billionaires that control the puppet politicians they have bought to do their bidding....

Sam

October 17, 2015

The paid pundits which commented on cable right after the debate

knew this one thing for sure: if they did not wholeheartedly declare the corporate candidate the winner, they would not be invited back for the next five debates.

It is just as Elizabeth Warren was told by Larry Summers in 2009:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/quote-day-larry-summers-elizabeth-warren-insiders-dont-criticize-other-insiders

After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

These pundits like it on the inside and are not going to be critical of Hillary Clinton. The two acceptable candidates Wall Street liked were Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Now that it appears Jeb might lose his sponsors, the insiders will coalesce around Hillary.

After all, they cannot allow an outsider such as Bernie Sanders to become President because that would upend the top one percent, the corporate world and the billionaires that control the puppet politicians they have bought to do their bidding....

Sam

October 15, 2015

Maybe the realistic answer to "who won" can be boiled down to one thing

Just put aside the propaganda spewed forth by the corporate mouthpieces. Put aside the inside-the-Beltway crowd and just ask this one question: who walked out of that auditorium with much more than they walked in with? If the stats being reported as to money raised as a result of the debate, number of new Facebook followers, and opinions of focus groups, the answer is Bernie Sanders walked out with much more than he arrived with.

I call that a winner.

Sam

October 4, 2015

Hey, I was a Republican in another life

The Republican party today is not the same as what it was when I was in my 20s and 30s. I have always been interested in government and politics, and when it came time to decide which party to register with, I actually read the platforms. I chose the Republican party because it had limited goals (basically 3 things): the government should provide for the common defense, especially protecting the borders, collect revenue to run the country, and to stay out of people's personal lives. I am a private person, and I really, really liked that last part.

But by the time the 90s rolled around, I became ashamed and embarrassed to be connected to the Republican party. So I moved on over and became a Dem. Once I made this move, I realized this is where I should have always been. I kept moving left to help offset those on the right chronically moving more to the right. I was hoping more and more Dems would do this and turned out, they did. So when Liberal became a dirty word, I started telling people I was a liberal.

I have always admired Sanders. He used to appear on Keith Olbermann's show quite a bit. I started thinking I wished he would run for President, but he probably never would consider it because it would be too grueling at his age to make it through a campaign, grinding as they are. When he announced he was running, I started telling people I had decided to become a socialist. I was just preparing myself for the onslaught of harassment wearing that label was going to be thrown at me.

Bernie Sanders is the only hope this Country has for making a U turn into the correct direction it should be moving.

I already knew the answer to your question before you posted that last sentence in your thread. I had to ask myself that same question. Elections in this Country are totally unpredictable. Beyond that, people's attitudes are quickly changing. Their minds are clearing and their eyes are opening. Many see that the only chance we have of correcting the great deficiencies we deal with everyday is to make a dramatic change in who we elect.

So I think you should not go with your head because of the volatility now in place. No rational experienced political expert can tell you what is going to happen (they can pretend but truthfully, it is a charade). So take a deep breath and vote with your gut.

Just thought I would toss this out to you because I have been where you are now.

Sam

October 3, 2015

This man is a Republican and was the same SC judge who wrote that seething dissent in Bush v. Gore

He is in my top five most respected people I have known in my lifetime. That dissent was a barn-burner. And this suggestion would clarify the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Not only is he brilliant, he is indeed a man of integrity.

Sam

Postscript: excerpt from Bush v. Gore dissenting opinion

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html

It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.