HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MaggieD » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 7,393

Journal Archives

You need to read her book - as I have told you before


This is from June 2015:

Bernie funneled campaign cash to family members

I wonder how much of his donor's hard earned money is going to straight into the Sander's family pockets this time, don't you?

"Since 2000, Sanders has used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

His wife Jane O’Meara Sanders received $91,020 for “consultation” and to negotiate the purchase of television and radio ads. Approximately $61,000 of that was “pass through” money used to pay for the ads, O’Meara Sanders told the Bennington Banner. She kept about $30,000 as pay for her services.

Her daughter Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ stepdaughter, earned $65,002 from the Sanders campaign between 2000 and 2004, records show."


ETA: It was a hoot to watch the sudden conversion about right wing sources by Sanders supporters. Now that we've seen that, here is a source where his campaign admits it is true.


"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.

Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."

The thing all these journalists and Hillary haters miss...

... is that none of you have read her book. It was published a year and a half ago, and written at least 2 years ago. And she exhibits plenty of skepticism about the TPP there. Yes, TWO years ago.

As SOS she was cheerleading for her hopes for it, even while she was trying to assist the US Trade rep in getting things like the right of workers in signatory countries to organize into unions, and prohibitions against currency manipulation included in the agreement. Those two items alone would have made a world of difference for workers in every country signing on to it.

The right to unionize in Asian markets would have done more to level the playing field than any other trade agreement in the world between any country. Indeed it would have set the gold standard and precedent for existing and new trade agreements.

Currency manipulation hurts US workers tremendously because it makes imported goods costs artificially low and therefore US products less competitive.

When neither of those things (and others) made it in to the final agreement she stated she did not support it. And that is exactly what she said in her book written 2 years ago.

AND she voted against CAFTA while in the senate. So, given that a) she stated 2 years ago what she needed to see to support the final product, and b) she has a history of voting against trade bills, I don't think you can credibly claim she ended up not supporting it for reasons of political expediency.

Progressive Pragmatism versus Liberal Elitism

That is what this nominating contest boils down to, IMO. I am a long term activist and I recognize the 2 factions from decades of working side by side with liberals. The liberal elites have always been the minority, in my experience, even though they are often the loudest.

I think Bernie represents the liberal elites and Hillary represents the progressive pragmatists. She seems to think so as well, given her debate comment that she is a "liberal that likes to get things done." IME, the other faction doesn't get much of anything done, and that is why Bernie has so few achievements in his 25 years on congress.

Let me provide an illustrative example. We have seen, probably a dozen times at least, this claim by Bernie supporters that "Hillary sold fracking to the world." The liberal who wrote that article that is often cited here shows an elitist world view, IMO. By "the world" the writer actually meant Eastern European countries.

The writer also does not mention that Russia uses its oil and gas as a political weapon, and that every year when it gets cold they shut off gas and oil supplies to these countries, effectively black mailing them. Whether people in Eastern Europe are held under Russia's thumb, or even if they freeze to death for lack of a heating fuel is really of no concern to the liberal elitist. Their "liberal principles" are more important than the practical implications of fracking as a way to remove Russia's strong man tactics against poor European countries. The purity of their views is more important than the end result. IMO and experience.

Early on in this primary contest I had a back and forth here with a Bernie supporter who claimed that Dems like me were happy to throw issues under the bus. My argument was that progressive pragmatists put the whole agenda on the table and resolve as many as politically possible at any given time. Nothing is thrown under the bus -- politics is the art of achieving as much of the agenda as possible, and it takes political capital to do so, so you spend it where you will get the most bang for the buck. S/he was incensed by that attitude. But it really is how we move the agenda forward. Always has been in my 38 years of paying attention and working on issues. That's my view.

So that is why I believe the liberal elites, or purists if you prefer, value warm fuzzies over actually being effective. And that is why, in my view, that many folks like Bernie's proposals even if they logically know that none of them will ever pass even if he was elected. And they hate Hillary because she is a pragmatist instead of a purist or elitist.

Conversely, I favor pragmatic proposals that are achievable even if they aren't the ultimate liberal wet dream. I have been called a "republican" several times today and in the past by Bernie supporters for this view. But I am no less a liberal than his supporters.

I think that is the major difference that explains the extreme comments about Hillary and her supporters here. You just have a very different way of looking at politics compared to the majority of Dems. IMO.
Go to Page: 1