If I conducted a poll of readers of this blog about their choice for the Democratic nominee in 2020, I suppose that Sanders and Warren would lead the pack, overwhelmingly.
But here is a different point of view.
The North America editor of the BBC has a warning for Americans.
Pay attention to what happened in the British elections, where Boris Johnson walloped the Labour Party.
If you want to beat Trump, he says, don’t look for someone who promises the moon.
Sanders and Warren are popular with the young, but not with older voters, he says.
Choose a centrist.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
What’s the difference between a so-called centrist and Republican-lite? Not a damn thing.
More to the point, when vast majorities support universal health care, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, legislation to stop the proliferation of guns, maintaining our international alliances, legislation and actions to curb climate change, and expanding the right to vote by letting felons who have served their time and making registration easier, are those still leftist positions? Seems to me that’s centrism.
I agree. Many of the Republicans from the ’50s and ’60s were left of some of our current Democrats. Many of today’s Republicans are libertarians and right wing extremists. We have had a paradigm shift in the meaning of left and right.
Don’t be fooled. The BBC was in the tank for the Tories in the last election and are under intense criticism for their coverage of Corbyn and the Labour Party. We see a similar phenomenon here in the attacks on Elizabeth Warren. The 1% is worried about losing their power.
The BBC is a propaganda outlet.
Other than that, their editor has a lot of credibility.
It is my opinion that centrists have ruled for too long. They get nothing of value accomplished and the frustration has led to con men like Trump being elected.
We need progressives that make life improvements for all of us. The wealthy don’t need more and corporations are thriving for the CEO’s, not the workers. Healthcare is being deprived for millions and moderates won’t change that. The environment is being destroyed.
Can we depend upon centrists to accomplish anything? Waiting and nothing happening is not a game I want to continue to play.
The Democrats nominated a centrist in 2016 & we ended up with tRump.
I don’t see loads of similarities between the UK & US elections other than the right-wing managing to exploit & divide & sow hatred. Brexit was a giant single issue, a true watershed moment that split Labor voters. It is unlike anything we have now in the US.
“Where in 2017 Labour had prioritised the needs of all working people — a stance able also to pull along sections of the middle classes — the turn to a revote did nothing but confuse this message, ensuring that we would instead be defined by the Brexit issue and our lack of consistency on it. Allowing Johnson to pose as the insurgent against a Remainer parliament, Labour looked incoherent, whatever the heroism of activists’ efforts to hammer home our real message.
The result, on Thursday, was that while the most radicalised Remainers in any case turned to the Liberal Democrats, millions of 2017 Labour voters simply didn’t vote — or even turned to Johnson and Nigel Farage.”
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/12/how-brexit-sunk-labour
I wish this wasn’t true, but I think it is. Beating Trump and taking back the Senate are more important than anything else.
I think believing that the more progressive candidates can win is thinking that Trump voters will see the wisdom of progressive programs or that young voters will come out in such force that we’ll win. Unfortunately, that seems more like a hope than a strategy.
GregB, that’s just not the right question. The right one is what’s the difference between any Dem and Trump. Our democracy can’t take 4 more years of Trump.
I will vote for the Democrat who wins the nomination. And I stand by my question. I will be prepared to oppose a Democratic president who spews the centrist corporate line if that’s what we end up with. But I believe the Orange one will be reelected because the one thing Democrats really fear are real Democrats.
Yet another corporate Democrat will not serve us well.
Brexit was a vote of older, somewhat xenophobic voters who won’t even be around for most of the effects they’re causing. The majority of young people don’t want to leave the EU. I’m stunned that the election went the way it did and that Brexit is going to happen. A corporate democrat won’t make great progress on progressive issues, but the alternative to winning is 4 more years of Trump.
Agreed!
According to a little known progressive blogger that blogs and has a podcast from Houston, the mainstream media is conflating the issues. In the UK the main issue is BREXIT, and their vote reflects it. In the US our big issue is class warfare. It is the wealthy against everyone else. A centrist candidate will maintain the status quo in where there is one set of rules for the wealthy and another for everyone else. If we want to see our economy work for everyone, we need to vote for a progressive.https://egbertowillies.com/2019/12/13/corporate-media-using-labour-party-defeat-to-smear-progressives/?fbclid=IwAR04pjXemo6G8-yXXof8JrAgr9PzTx1tLpkvYwrqbgZxht135u8EWiQ6eC0
Good article RT!
That’s what I have been hearing and reading as well. Also, Corbyn took no strong position on Brexit and was just overall a lackluster candidate. He didn’t want the job! So comparisons to the US election must be made with great care and not somewhat superficial similarities.
Gee, I’m reading this comment, sallyo57 with your cartoon image on there and the Peanuts Christmas special is on the TV just behind me. How often does that happen?
(Favorite Peanuts quote: “How can we fail when we’re so sincere.”)
And, yes, I agree that his sort of cross-Atlantic comparison can be tricky.
Take care.
Favorite Rheenuts quote:
“How can we fail when we’re so dishonest?”
The UK Labour party was decimated, eviscerated and smashed for a whole host of reasons. The Liberal Democrat party also lost out. The Scottish National Party made a good showing with feisty Nicola Sturgeon as the leader of the SNP. Is this a bad omen for the US? Who knows, I don’t have a clue.
Obama was a centrist president and the GOP blocked everything he tried to accomplish. Obama reached across the aisle and had his arms ripped off by a radical outlaw party, the GOP.
I will vote for Bernie first and if he doesn’t win the primary I will vote for ANY, ANY Democrat who does win the primary. Lots of people will not vote for Bernie because he’s 78 and he looks old. However, the man is full of energy, vim and pep and he’s for all the things that are important to this country. He gets my vote.
Nobody tells the GOP that it should be more centrist or moderate. The GOP is far right wing libertarian Ayn Randian and totally unapologetic about it. The GOP is proud to be a radical far right wing party. Why are the Democrats always admonished to cave in and be more wishy-washy to accommodate all the right wingers amongst us?
“Why are the Democrats always admonished to cave in and be more wishy-washy to accommodate all the right wingers amongst us?”
Because of the electoral college.
“Obama reached across the aisle and had his arms ripped off by a radical outlaw party, the GOP.”
A truer word was never uttered. The implications of this behavior make it necessary that good people from all points of view pull together to defeat the idea that we are all about division. Whichever opponent of trump needs to run on the idea of common purpose, rejecting the idea that division is good.
Joe, nice pitch for Bernie.
I go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth on supporting a middle-of-the-roader vs.a Democratic candidate who is more liberal. It’s sort of like how I feel about Trump supporters.
On one hand, I’ll talk to these Trump voters who are the nicest people, for example, older, rural Republicans who have never cast a vote for a Democrat in their lifetimes. Then, there are the brutish, racist, even seemingly fascist-inclined “Trumpies” who want to turn back the clock to the worst of the past.
So, therein lies a particular tragedy of the Trump era. And, I’m not sure how many people who read this blog would say this but….
Really, Trump hasn’t just divided the nation….I feel at times he’s divided my own brain…and even heart. Yeah.
So, thanks, Joe, for the push (or pull) or just nudge in the direction of Bernie.
“’ll talk to these Trump voters who are the nicest people, for example, older, rural Republicans who have never cast a vote for a Democrat in their lifetimes. ”
That sounds like what people said about those “nice” Germans who voted for Hitler but weren’t the “brutish and racist” and “fascist-inclined” SS folks. Hitler could not have come to power without their enthusiastic support, which was – deep down – because they are NOT nice.
NYC Public School Parent. interesting thing…I just happened to catch a former student from long ago conversing on social media this morning….and he basically equated the “left” (read: me and I guess you?) as being akin to the type of “nice” people who would support a “Hitler”. Yeah, some people on the “other side” have the same fear.
I’m not being nice or simple….just realistic.
And, where does this all end here in the U.S. circa 2020?
Is there a possibility of a Hitler coming to power in the United States? Absolutely. We’ve created the turnkey security apparatus for someone or someones (as in a group) to take over. It’s all there now, the surveillance state is ready to go.
Is it Donald Trump at this moment. I honestly don’t think so. (Of course, there are people on this blog who might disagree.)
But given anther major terrorist attack (biological, a dirty bomb or…?) here at home, well, all bets might be off, God help us.
Then who takes charge?
But did your student say why he equated the left with the type of people who would support a Hitler?
I could say that I believe that everyone who votes Republican also supports setting live puppies on fire and watching them slowly die, but that doesn’t make it true, nor should that opinion be considered as equal to facts that are true. If I shout even louder that Republicans all set live puppies on fire so I can’t vote Republican, that doesn’t mean I must be taken very, very seriously. But that’s how we treat Republicans who spout nonsense about Democrats.
Trump has said he is above the law. Trump has said thousands of statements that are not true, and the majority of them are attacks on people who do not deserve it. Trump voters have people who have been Republicans all their lives explaining that what Trump has done has crossed over into something that is not normal. Trump has a long history which they cannot deny — cheating people at his foundation, at his “university”, and subcontractors who learned the hard way that Trump did not believe he had to honor contracts and his word was worthless.
There are reasons that Trump is not suited to be the leader of the US and empowered to do whatever he wants.
Anyone can say anything but that doesn’t make it true. It certainly does make it the kind of false equivalency that the NY Times likes to promote, where sworn testimony and documents are dismissed as no different from people who yell the loudest that something is true.
The rural Republicans in Jim Jordan’s district are just like him. They hide it better with a fake veneer of folksy charm. In their hearts, there is nothing but selfishness and an intolerance for “others”.
Of course, I’m not saying I agree with the Trump voters. But we know that poll after poll (as well as a little election in 2016) show they are a significant part of our country. Very significant. To say they are “all this” or “everyone” is that oversimplifies an extremely complicated phenomenon.
Look, Hillary Clinton described just “half” of the Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” and look where that’s got us now.
In regards to the specific issue my former student was talking about, it was the 2nd amendment….guns.
^^Diane, can you delete this comment, please?
NYC PSP,
I hope I deleted the right one. I was away all day, just saw your note, which was in moderation, along with what I believe was your comment.
Diane,
Thank you!
“Why are the Democrats always admonished to cave in and be more wishy-washy to accommodate all the right wingers amongst us?”
Because the “centrists” who are doing the admonishing are really “rightists”.
The Center is Right
The center is right
And never correct
But public will bite
And centrist elect
The only objective must be: 1) a new president and 2) calling out the GOP senators and reps who have remained silent after 11,000 lies, obstruction, and all the machinations. PERIOD!
Sorry – save the idealism for 2024.
Get this dictator, lackeys, and goosesteppers out; then save the planet.
And, please no left wing third party. Nader did us in. It’s already too close in up for grabs states.
Nothing will change the base vote. And, the undecideds and moderates and even pure Republicans in most states don’t matter because their states are locked. There are a handful of states where those undecideds matter.
The president and his boys love to toss out the term liberal with every adjective and outrageous object of their actions attached. They have a playbook. They are very convincing to undecideds.
They keep a list for every interview. They don’t answer questions – they go straight to the “leftist, welfare-loving, killing babies, fake experts, gay rights liberals” comment. The only thing they leave out from the old days is “pot smoking, communist loving, raising-the-debt” lliberals because that now describes the GOP.
Absolutely read about UK. One die hard opposition member said essentially “I voted for Boris because things have gotten so bad and he’s the only one who gets anything done.”
Count on Jill Stein to jump in and throw the election to Trump as she did in 2016 with her one million votes.
How many votes did Johnston “steal” from Trump? At least as many. And who said any of those votes were owed to either Clinton or Trump? Votes are earned.
dienne77,
Are you saying that if Bernie wins the nomination, you would welcome a third party candidate who is a Democrat and enters the race to draw votes against Bernie Sanders? The third party candidate would spend his time bashing Bernie and taking about how dangerous and corrupt he is to draw just enough voters so Bernie loses Wisconsin, Michigan and 5 or 6 other states to Trump.
I would strongly condemn that. I would not say that if Bernie can’t earn the votes of those voting for a third party candidate who does nothing but work to convince voters how dangerous Bernie is and how he is no better than Trump, then Bernie did not “earn” his victory and should just admit he is a failure and slink off quietly. I would feel like Bernie got robbed by a third party candidate whose goal was to convince voters that he was a dishonest and terrible man who would be dangerous as President.
Well written, too, Wait, What?
So who is the non-idealistic candidate you think can beat Trump?
(Your comment: “Sorry – save the idealism for 2024”)
I’m not asking a rhetorical question…I mean, really….
Every time I hear Joe Biden talk, he sounds like he’s on the edge of unraveling on-air. He careens. Who is the moderate Democrat?
P.S. Yeah, we have a snow day…I’m off from school. I have to go back outside soon and do more shoveling. Hmmmm, shovel back-breaking, slushy snow or sit here and write about life under Trump. What is worse?
Just on the edge of unravelling?
In my opinion, he went over some time ago, but like Wiley Coyote, has managed to remain suspended in mid air for a time.
But make no mistake, gravity WILL win in the end.
My son just returned from two years graduate study in England. He cautions against drawing parallels, as the situations have more differences than most with mainly a view of one society realize. More importantly, in my view, who is most electable is hugely unpredictable. Trying to play pundit instead of trying to elect the best person seems to me an approach that will undermine the quality of government.
Corbyn was not the best candidate. He is an e tremist ideologue.
My son says that Corbyn was an incredibly bad candidate, and the public generally viewed him as such. For example, he was wishy-washy on the main issue, whether to do Brexit, while Johnson was clear. This lines up with other stuff I read. His antisemitism is horrifying, but was apparently a minor problem compared to his other shortcomings.
Other things to note: 1. In spite of a ‘thumping’ victory, as the Brits say, Johnson and the Conservatives lost in the 18-24 age group in every single one of the 650 parliamentary constituencies. 2. Johnson was pro-Brexit, but otherwise tried to steal thunder from the Left by championing public investment to improve the economy. This was shrewd, and very different from Trump’s caving to anti-government Republicans on public investment—including in education, health care, etc. I don’t pretend to understand what is going on, but simple ‘lessons’ from pundits seem to me very doubtful.
To say he “was not the best candidate” is fair. To say his is “extremist ideologue” is hyperbolic at best.
Corbyn was perhaps not a good candidate. But he doubled the number of people who joined the Labour party because of his policies which they support. The media trashed and smeared Corbyn. I’m voting for the candidate with the best policies and that’s Bernie. People need to vote for the best policies not play mindreaders over who they think will win. Everyone thought Hillary would win, didn’t they? Her centrist policies made many people say “why bother” and stay home. Can’t blame Jill Stein for that.
I can blame Jill Stein for taking 1 million votes away and tipping the swing states to Trump. Don’t forget that Hillary won 3 million votes more than the Orange Mussolini
Hillary knows how the Electoral College works. She has no one to blame but herself for thumbing her nose at states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which she should have won in a landslide. If Trump or Stein or whoever spoke to those people better than Hillary did, that’s on Hillary. Maybe the Democrats could focus on not telling poor and suffering people that it’s their own damn fault and they should stop asking for “free stuff”. And maybe stop calling people “deplorable” or “superpredator”.
dienne77,
And maybe stop citing out of context something said by a candidate 20 years ago or unless you want that turned against Bernie who claimed just last year that white people who refuse to vote for African-Americans are not racist. Isn’t it long past time to stop throwing out the same kind of lies that you encouraged all through 2016? Is that really the ugly kind of campaign you embrace? Because you don’t think you can win by simply presenting the progressive view?
One of my favorite epigrams is this line from Herodotus —
☙ τὰ δὲ μοι παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα γέγονε.
🙞 My sufferings, though painful, have been my lessons.
So in mulling over the Brexit plebiscite I consoled myself with the thought that the Brits would eventually learn from the sufferings surely to come.
But then my mind rejoined with this meme —
And I realized they probably wouldn’t learn anything at all.
Of course, they’re not the only ones …
That was the strategy with Clinton last time. My understanding is Corbyn was wishy-washy on Brexit.
G Binder
Corbyn was a horrible candidate.
He countenanced anti-Semitism, knowingly or unknowingly.
“He countenanced anti-Semitism, knowingly or unknowingly.”
Examples? Is criticizing policy of the neo-fascist government of Israel anti-Semitic?
Wow, I fear Armageddon is approaching. I actually agree with GregB. There is no evidence for Corbyn being “anti-Semitic” except his criticism of the actions of the state of Israel (not the Jewish people).
I don’t support Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. I don’t support the settlements. I don’t support Netanyahu.
I would never vote for Jeremy Corbyn
The stench of anti-Semitism is too strong.
Dienne, perhaps you have to be a Jew to smell it.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/behind-the-bewildering-recent-incidents-of-anti-semitism
The staggering large-scale defeat of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party had many causes, but the toxin of anti-Semitism within Labour was clearly one of them. It led many longtime Jewish Labour stalwarts to quit the Party, and it was italicized by instances of Corbyn tolerating acts or statements indifferent to or hostile to Jews, and by his pettish refusal to offer an apology that was not self-evidently forced and reluctant. The day after the election, it was, indeed, the first thing that London’s Labourite Mayor, Sadiq Khan, mentioned in his explication of the Corbyn catastrophe. “Labour’s shocking and repeated failure to tackle anti-Semitism, and our inability to put forward a credible and believable set of priorities for governing have made a major contribution to the scale of this defeat,” he wrote on Facebook.
I was actually was going to post the same New Yorker article here. It also glosses over SPECIFIC EXAMPLES like virtually all the punditry that exists about this subject. I’ve been following British politics for years and this “Labour anti-Semitism” schtick is getting old.
And I am very insulted by the “perhaps you have to be a Jew to smell it.” line. I think you have to be a human being who pays attention to see it, it being injustice based on inferred traits or anything else that falsely categorizes people.
I don’t have to be a Uighur to know that what is happening in China is genocide. I don’t have be a Rohingya to know that the Nobel Prize must be stripped from Aung San Suu Kyi immediately and the the world failed these people. I don’t have to be Armenian or Kurdish to understand how these populations have been oppressed by Turkey. I don’t have to be West African to understand how colonial powers have oppressed any number of ethnic groupings. I don’t have to be Black to know discrimination and its historical effects when I see it. I don’t have to be female in order to be a feminist. I don’t have to be gay to be a supporter of gay rights. I don’t have to have a disability to advocate for disability rights. I certainly don’t have to be Jewish to understand the history and today’s reality of anti-Semitism. Nor will I let anyone lecture me about it.
Greg,
I didn’t mean to insult you or anyone else. I was responding to the implied claim that anyone who saw anti-Semitism in Corbyn was defending Israel
GregB,
I think you misunderstand the criticism of Corbyn and the Labor party with regards to anti-Semitism. And I don’t think you help your argument by condescending to Diane with your comment. Sometimes there are subtle ways in which people feel oppressed that people who aren’t oppressed don’t recognize. The “me too” brought that out with regards to what women often feel and Black Lives Matters brought that out with regards to subtle racism. And far too many people who claimed not to be sexist or racist treated those people with disrespect.
Donald Trump claims not to be an anti-Semite — his daughter is Jewish so it is supposedly impossible for him to be anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, the rise of anti-Semitic incidents in the US is because of the subtle message that he puts out that makes it seem okay for others to preach their hatred. They know they are “good people” as Trump says.
I don’t think that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. But I do think that there is a subtle strain in the left in which Israel is held to a much higher standard than other countries — one that even our own country does not meet. And the cry for “punishment” is directed at Israel in a way that many American liberals would not like if they experienced some of the same treatment because of a US policy.
There a lot of conflating of “Jewish” and Israel because Israel — which is a tiny, tiny country – is the only “Jewish” state.
“I don’t have to be a Uighur to know that what is happening in China”
Have you called for a boycott of all scholars from China? Are you fighting for Trump to have a boycott of all trade with China? Should all college endowments be perused for any investments that are in anyway connected with China (or India or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Egypt or Jordan or Indonesia or even American?) Should scholars from all those countries be banned from all scholarly meetings?
So far, 80-plus comments including William Berkson claiming Corbyn’s “antisemitism is horrifying” and not ONE example cited by anyone. No wonder Netanyahu and the Israeli fascist regime gets away with murder every hour of the day as they rake in billions of American taxpayer dollars and advise and train other neofascist regimes, most recently in Bolivia. I thought this was a blog to discuss ideas, not recruit and mollify lemmings.
You can see the antisemitic ‘smoke’ about Corbyn, Labor and antisemitism in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#Jewish_activists_and_organisations. His problematic record includes his calling the terrorist organization Hamas ‘friends’—something he later said he regretted. My son was London for the past two years, and said that whenever Corbyn was challenged on antisemitism, he just dug himself in deeper with weaseling remarks.
British Jews long loyal to Labour have been distressed by Corbyn, to the point of leaving, as this NYT article documents: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/world/europe/britain-election-antisemitism.html .
From the article: “Mr. Corbyn once defended a mural featuring grotesque caricatures of hooknosed Jewish bankers. He accused longtime Britons who were Zionists of failing to ‘understand English irony.’ And several whistle-blowers have accused Corbyn allies of interfering in the party’s anti-Semitism complaints process.” I don’t have personal knowledge of this story, but when a group says it has been subject to bigotry, I tend to believe them.
William, have you even read the Wiki link you cite? I think not. Everything in the section you cite goes completely against what you argue.
The NYT link causes me to think you like to pick cherries. The article is quite balanced with point-counterpoint arguments and the paragraph you cite was chosen by you because it underscores your biases. Two points, there are other other paragraphs that completely refute your cherry. And every instance of anti-Semitism cited does not refer to him. It’s certainly not cut-and-dried in the way you imply.
Your quote “I don’t have personal knowledge of this story, but when a group says it has been subject to bigotry, I tend to believe them.” says it all.
GregB,
I remind you of the wise words of Andrew Gillum:
“I’m not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist. I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist.”
All of us have unwitting biases. I don’t believe Bernie Sanders is racist; nonetheless, when he said that white people who refuse to vote for an African-American political candidate are “not necessarily racist”, he revealed something that was unconsciously racist in his thinking.
There are subtle things is what the Labor party was willing to condone that demonstrated subtle anti-Semitism. Just like there are subtle things in what the Republican Party was willing to condone that demonstrated subtle (and not so subtle) racism.
We all have our biases and prejudices even when we believe we are somehow immune. I believe some of the problem was not what Corbyn did, but how he reacted to incidents.
I see this in America, too. Reducing any Jewish person who had a more nuanced view of Israeli politics as having “dual loyalty” is odd. Even the term “pro-Israel” is odd. Do we do that anywhere else? Are you “pro-China” or “anti-China”? Are people “pro-Russia” or “anti-Russia”? Why simplify the complicated issues of the Israel-Palestinian conflict to being pro or con? Does it make someone pro-China if they don’t agree that all academics from Chinese universities should be banned from academic conferences? But if one objects to that about Israeli academics, they get called “pro-Israel”. It is that double standard that is anti-Semitic.
Just dismissing it instead of trying to be cognizant of why people might be bothered is a useful exercise that all of us should use whenever someone who is non-white or non-Christian or non-male points out something that is easy for those not in groups that have been oppressed to dismiss.
I add here that I was deeply offended when Trump signed an executive order declaring that Judaism is a nationality. My nationality is American.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, Diane. There is much more to this than anti-Semitism or Israel. It is another action to chip away the intent and power of the first amendment. It is an attempt to set a precedent to make a state religion in this country. And they way they did it puts it beyond the reach of judicial review.
But the U.K. already has some of the “socialist” aspects that we don’t.
It’s one thing to preach centrist when you have healthcare.🙄
Every country is different. And the U.K. is a hell of a lot smaller and gerrymandered than we are
“Less gerrymandered”
Of course, the Brits make such good choices of leaders themselves.
Who better to give us advice?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
The Brits also still have a Queen — and a Prince of Pedophilia.
Enough said.
One fear is a candidate on the left, who after elected, ignores the gaining political influence of the religious right particularly a Catholic theocracy. Prof. Sandy Levinson (University of Texas scholar of constitutional law) makes a connection between the Catholic-dominated SCOTUS and the court’s relative silence on free trade and climate change issues.
(“Why Ken Kersch’s book is an indispensable revelation about our constitutional situation”- Balkinization 7-7-2019)
Citizens should be wary of a program like the Statehouse Civic Scholars program. Paraphrasing its self-description- the program builds a “Catholic university network at the highest levels of state government”. The program has “jumpstarted careers and infused the Statehouse with Catholic university talent.” With lament, the description states that public university students were represented in the Capitol. The Catholic program would find placements for Catholic university students. Catholic students in the program receive a $1500 stipend as well as housing. The program’s goal is for students to have placements in “the governor’s office, attorney general’s office, the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Environmental Council”, etc. “The cohort mission of the program (has purpose)- sending students to Columbus as a group… working in policy and legislation” with others working for lobbying groups.
It sounds just like the billionaires’ TFA placements in D.C.
What is needed is a person who will galvanize the voters who do not like trump. We can complain about the electoral college, but it will be intact for the 2020 election and should be considered. The last time we elected a president from New England, JFK, the country was very different. Before that it was Calvin Coolidge, who more resembles the current mentality in modern Republicans (the business of America is business). It can be done, but Warren and Bernie are up against it. Good luck to them. If either of them runs against trump, they have my vote. If Susie, my lapdog, ran against trump, I would vote for Susie. But how many people are like me? Few in Tennessee.
Trump’s signing of the family leave legislation yesterday signals his beginning to paw his way toward the middle, following the republican formula of setting yourself solidly on the right, the rowing hard for the center (was that Kevin Phillips” idea?) Is there any doubt that this strategy has produced a nation far to the right of any other? Was it this move to the right that has produced opiates as the drug of choice?
Perhaps the lesson of Great Britain is that candidate with a far left bent cannot get elected, but I think that is stretching it a bit. People in this country have historically voted for the person who appealed to them in a non-ideological way. That is why few senators ever made it to the White House, and the few who have were short term senators like Obama. Governors have had better success over the years. Trump got elected by appealing to the voter who wanted change from an outsider (drain the swamp worked). Democrats need to realize that you have to be an outsider to win.
I wish history still mattered as much. (i.e. Your comment that “People in this country have historically voted for the person who appeals to them in a non-ideological way.” -which I think is correct.)
We seem to have accelerated into being some sort of ahistorical society where what happened 10 minutes ago is what really matters to so many voters.
Sometimes this phenomenon has been good for us. I still marvel at the fact that we had a president named Barack Hussein Obama. Or, the wonderful reality that same sex marriage is now the law of the land. Moving forward quickly can be a great thing.
On the other hand, we now find ourselves stuck with a phony, Know Nothing celebrity TV show president. God, help us all. Trump’s MAGA craziness is yanking us back not just to the ‘bad old days’ that actually existed but also to a new, nightmarish version of our worst impulses as a nation. What happens when so many citizens don’t know or could care less about the difference?
If history doesn’t matter then who will worry about all the lies? Just wait a while and figure this colossal dishonesty will magically go away.
There is a scary volatility these days. And, If something big and really bad happens, will we be sitting here saying, yeah, we saw this coming…? Or will it be more ‘hope and prayers’ and phony, Hallmark sentimentality?
I have to think about my career as a “social studies” teacher and how the study of history continues to be further marginalized day after day. Who is to blame there? Well, I could cast a wide net.
Yes, we need to imbue young minds with memorable, educational stories from history. Like the story of how Germany descended into barbarism in the 1930’s. Unfortunately CA has embraced new “frameworks” that turn history into a confusing “grappling” with difficult texts rather than the instilling of good stories. The fetish for “inquiry” and “historical thinking skills” will defeat the transmission of important history knowledge. Thus our ed school careerist hacks accelerate the decline of our republic.
ponderosa, I was a primary writer of the 1988 California history standards. I (we) emphasized great stories.
I view the new frameworks as a coup designed by Constructivist ed school ideologues to undermine the 1988 standards, which I love. They elevate process and vague skills over learning content. By the frameworks’ light, having kids listen to a good historical yarn in order to get some history knowledge in long-term memory is very bad teaching. Learning history is not the point; developing “inquiry skills”, “literacy skills” and “historical thinking skills” is the sole point.
Yes, things have changed a lot since 1988, that’s for sure. If anyone wonders why so many people now have absolutely no idea when important events happened in time, step into some of the Common Core-ized classrooms of today. And, this half-assed teaching has been going on long before Race To the Top, too.
I’m NOT advocating the memorization of heaps of trivial dates and facts. But, c’mon, if I was a veteran of World War II or Vietnam (or a family member of someone who gave their life fin those wars for our country) wouldn’t you hope that citizens had some vague notion of when and where these conflicts took place? Time and place matter.
AS usual, I enjoy your musings, John. I too recall the wonder of electing a president named Obama. My students, however, mirrored the overt hostility their parents felt about this as they listened to their far-right radio shows. I was obliged, as a math teacher in those days, to joke that I would never vote for Obama or any other Irishman. This would end up with my explaining my joke (you know, all Irishmen are named O’something….students roll eyes and forget their hostility).
The problem is that the extreme media found in the name Obama the fodder for ad hominiem ad nauseum attacks on supposed liberals, pushing the country to the point of electing trump while Hillary votes stayed away. As Democracy in Chains suggested, that was the battle plan all along. I do not have to run faster than a bear, just faster than you.
What amazed me is that trump’s base did not care a bit about Russia. That would have drowned any other candidate, but it flowed off trump’s back like flux off a copper pipe. I was amazed. It was as if history had become meaningless.
Susie your lapdog and “flux off a copper pipe”. Great stuff.
Well said, RT!
Nobody is promising the moon (Are universal health care and affordable housing human rights that are beyond our reach?) and one should not compare apples and oranges as Brexit played an enormous role in the UK election. Senators Sanders and Warren are infinitely more personable and trustworthy than Jeremy Corbyn. If the neoliberal centrists want to make the case that American families should keep settling for crumbs from the table, they can take their case to Democratic primary voters and let the chips fall as they may…
Amen to this!
Yes, nominating a centrist in 2016 worked so well, let’s do it again. Someone remind me of the definition of insanity?
She had high negatives, yet won the popular vote. I don’t think he’s gained any support since election and has definitely lost some voters. A similar candidate should win based on the math and previous behavior. Whether a more progressive candidate could win is pure speculation. Just doesn’t seem worth the risk this time around.
Hillary had high negatives, higher than Biden?
Trump supporters back in 2016 already thought that there would be civil war if Trump loses. How about now?
Máté Wierdl: That video is just plain freaky. These people have no idea of what Trump is doing. They are voting because they trust everything that comes from Trump’s mouth and probably are Fox watchers.
Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers
Updated Dec 06, 2017
Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers.
Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll…
Article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html?ncid=engmodushpmg00000006
Biden is at 47% unfavorable. Clinton was at 56% at this point in 2015.
I suppose the core Trump supporters still think the same way.
Insanity: thinking that Trump is no worse than a mainstream Democrat and has never done anything improper that justifies impeachment.
I absolutely agree with you that anyone who proclaims that only a “centrist” can defeat Trump is as deluded as those who proclaimed that only Bernie could have defeated Trump in 2016. And it is especially galling if those people try to make their prediction come true and actively work to undermine Bernie Sanders (if he is the nominee) by smearing him and attacking him and amplifying ever right wing attack on Bernie and insisting that it is absolutely true and of course, telling everyone that Bernie is no better than Trump.
Bernie Sanders can defeat Trump. Elizabeth Warren can defeat Trump. Amy Klobuchar can defeat Trump. Joe Biden can defeat Trump.
And Bernie Sanders can lose to Trump, Warren can lose to Trump, Klobuchar can lose to Trump and Joe Biden can lose to Trump. IF the people who keep claiming that one of those candidates can’t defeat Trump then work hard to amplify all the right wing talking points to smear that candidate so voters believe that candidate is corrupt and no better than Trump.
Bernie Sanders can easily defeat Trump if all Democrats work together to tell voters in the middle they should trust him.
Bernie Sanders can easily lose to Trump if some Democrats work hard to tell voters in the middle how untrustworthy and dangerous he is.
Same goes for Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, etc.
Now there’s the point I was going to make, Dienne!
Tea Time
Brits are interfering
Tell us they know best
Crass electioneering
King George learned the rest
I like it, SomeDAM.
And, wow, this post stirred up a beehive of comments (but I thought it would)
My family went out Christmas shopping just now but, teacher that I am, I’m staying put. I have to get up early and there’s a heap of research papers to read. The topic: Modern U.S. politicians who are Machiavellian. Yeah, how appropriate, right?
Machiavelli believed in using impure methods to achieve good government. He said you need to play hardball –not that you should be a nihilist. McConnell and Co. are nihilists, not merely “Machiavellian”. At least that’s my take on The Prince.
John,
I posted it knowing that it would create a huge backlash. My job is not to agree with everything I post, but to make everyone here think.
Yup… I know that Diane. I just wish I had time to think more about the Sackler post (above) and now I have to go to work. I’m late again, ha, ha. There’s a lot in here.
The Sackler story is VERY important. It shows an important connection.
See you
I am very tired of so-called experts telling voters what to do.
Everyone should vote for the PRIMARY candidate that they prefer, without listening to pundits who claim to know which candidate has a better chance of winning. And then I hope we all enthusiastically support whoever wins to defeat Trump.
The primary should be about candidates being challenged to explain the views they have the debating policies Not about using right wing talking points to mischaracterize one another.
Every moderate who is running should address the progressive in this way: “We both want to make this country better and you have good ideas but I don’t think they will pass Congress so I am going to offer these ideas that have a better chance of passing or that I think will work better than yours.” Then they should offer up their ideas and explain why they are better.
Every progressive who is running should address the moderates in this way; “We both want to make this country better and you have good ideas but I believe we need more change than that and I am willing to work very hard to make it happen. My belief is that these are the policies that are best for this country and I am going to fight for them whether or not other people believe that it is possible to get them passed.” Then they should offer up their ideas and explain why they are better.
There is only one thing that I can predict with 100% accuracy about 2020. Whoever the nominee — whether it is Bernie, Warren, Biden, Buttigeig, Klubuchar, etc — that person is going to be bashed with right wing talking points that will be repeated non-stop in the so-called “liberal” media, with the NY Times and Glenn Greenwald types on the left blasting headlines questioning that Democrat candidate’s character, judgement, greed, opportunism, and corruption and amplify that main talking point that the primary winner cannot be trusted no matter what words come out of his or her mouth. I can predict with 100% accuracy that whoever wins will be mischaracterized as someone with a questionable character who can’t be trusted so it doesn’t matter what policies that candidate is offering.
Whether or not those right wing talking points convince enough voters that (insert name of primary winner here) is far too (insert right wing talking point here that makes voters know that the candidate can’t be trusted) and even Donald Trump is no worse – will decide the outcome.
Democrats have to resist helping to amplifying and giving credibility to right wing talking points about how corrupt and untrustworthy whoever ends up as the primary winner is. There is no need to attack the character of other candidates and push false narratives about how their ideas are “pie in the sky” or making criticisms that are really character attacks, not policy debates.
A policy debate on whether to have Medicare for All: Will people want to give up their private health insurance? Can it get passed if Congress has too many Republicans? Won’t private health insurance companies pick off the healthiest customers and dump them when they are sick?
A character attack on whether to have Medicare for All: Candidate X is deceiving you by offering ideas that will never work and claiming that they will, offering pie in the sky proposals, is just saying what you want to hear and secretly plans to enact whatever the drug companies order him to do, etc. etc. etc.
I hope all voters vote in the primary for whoever they want to become President, regardless of whether an expert tells us that candidate can defeat Trump.
But after everyone votes for their choices in the primary, anyone who doesn’t enthusiastically get behind whichever candidate is on top of the Democratic ticket is simply pro-Trump and pro right wing Republicans picking the entire Supreme Court.
It’s all about the swing states
(dienne77 – Hillary was no centrist – she’s as washington insider and sadly too intellectual for the base and billionaires that swung the election)
John – – – – –
Snow day in this Red State!
So – here it is – – –
Swing states that carried it for president (can’t utter his name): Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
Question is – Who appeals to these states? NOT A Stereotypical PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL – that’s for sure.
Needed to beat president in those states – – – –
Fiscal Conservative & very Moderate social liberal (Rockefeller Republican only a Dem);
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs;
What is he hiding in his taxes?
A Sound TRADITIONAL(ist) education (to combat. charter frenzy);
Against Trade wars (it’s killing rural and industrial midwest)
Highlight what this admin has done to national debt and corporate wealth / not taxing rich
Show respect for military expertise (not just patriotic parades)
Point out nepotism – elitism –
Pres spews anger with base but he’ll turn on them in a second (how many of his fired up ralliers would ever be invited to mara lago for dinner)
Stay away from –
Climate change
LGBTQ rights
Washington Insider
LABELS – “health care for all”
immigration and walls and responding to the fear mongering that makes us look soft
Say what?
Does your description match swing state red Senator Sherrod Brown? Is Sherrod Brown now a “fiscal conservative”? Does it describe Gov.Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania and Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin? Does it describe Sen. Tammy Baldwin?
It describes where the president won and some where Hillary didnt get on a plane to visit.
That’s what.
You’re in NY. What’s your presidential vote worth. Just keep those nasty reps out if Congress. My red state vote is worth nothing and no Senate election this year.
The suburban GOP reps should be getting blasted for not speaking in public and hiding behind photo ops.
Because of our absurd electoral college system, my vote in NY means nothing. I should move to Ohio.
Imagine if, one day in the future, the swing states have all turned reliably red or blue, and nobody’s vote anywhere means anything.
Or, imagine that one day, almost every state but one is either deep blue or deep red. And the election hinges on only one state.
Florida? Ohio? Michigan? Pennsylvania?
Yes but I grew up in the midwest and many of my family and friends are still there and I frequently visit. You did not answer my question as to whether those Democrats who won state-wide office were following your prescription for what they are allowed and not allowed to mention to pander to voters who (mystifying to me) you believe would reject them if they dare mention climate change or healthcare for all.
Hillary Clinton did talk about all those things, but she was victimized by a media who ignored all of that to focus only on the things they wanted to focus on.
No candidate — whether Bernie or some “centrist” — can talk about anything if the media only wants to talk about how she is mean to the people who work for her, how he is a crook, how she is corrupt, how he is lying to you, and how she does whatever billionaires tell her to do so don’t believe a word she says.
Trump didn’t won because voters in the midwest didn’t like the policies of “she who must not be named”. They voted against “she who must not be named”, or didn’t vote at all, because they heard the constant drumbeat that she was not to be trusted.
I’m not quite sure if some of the Democratic issues “work” prior to the election rather than after the election. (Win the damn thing first.)
Or, if those issues can (and should) work EVER, for that matter.
Case in point: those Democrats who attacked what I consider an important part of their base….union teachers. I’m talking idiots like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and his ilk.
We had a near Great Depression 2.0 ten years ago and who do some of these Democrats go after? Public schools, teachers and our children.
Either these pseudo-Democrats were dumb idealists or stupid realists….or a combination of both. Cowards might be the best label for some of them, actually. Whatever… they lost in 2016 and we are paying a heavy price now.
Yeah, I’m still mad all these years later.
John,
Agreed. After the great recession of 2008-09, Cuomo, Rahm Emanuel, and some other prominent Democrats (Obama? Duncan?) attacked teachers and unions, an important part of the Democratic base. How stupid was that?
Sherrod Brown could have lost the election if his opponent had been a strong candidate.
“Or, imagine that one day, almost every state but one is either deep blue or deep red. And the election hinges on only one state.”
You should read the Isaac Asimov short story “Franchise”. A single voter is decided to be representative and a 1950s version of a computer asks him questions about his likes and dislikes and then decides which political candidate wins based on his answers!
It’s a classic of science fiction! (I confess to being an Asimov fan)
“(dienne77 – Hillary was no centrist – she’s as washington insider….”
That’s almost the definition of “centrist” – those Washington insiders who pretend to be “progressive” while doing everything they can to protect the status quo and those who benefit from it (including themselves).
Hillary is indeed a centrist and a Washington insider. No question about that.
Her candidacy was good until:
1) James Comey announced 11 days before the election that he had reopened the investigation of her emails (based on Anthony Weiner’s computer); and then closed the investigation 2 days before the election, saying the FBI found nothing (the State Department recently declared that there was nothing problematic in the emails on her computer, and now, of course, we know that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump use private email servers and Donald Trump uses an unsecured cell phone).
2) The Russians and other Trump allies spread lies about her on the Internet and released her emails…drip, drip, drip…through Wikileaks, creating the appearance of impropriety.
3) Jill Stein (who went to the same Putin party for RT [Russia Today] in Moscow with Michael Flynn, siphoned off 1 million votes
4) Hillary’s campaign ignored critical swing states and took them for granted.
5) I am not convinced that this country is ready for a female president.
I believe that Comey was the crucial factor. Without his completely inappropriate intervention, Hillary would have won easily.
I worked in the federal government (first Bush administration). The ethics officers warned us not to get involved in any way in the 1992 election. It was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Comey ignored institutional norms.
Diane: I agree completely about the Comey action. This is so unprecedented that it seems to evidence a conspiracy, something I avoid for the most part. Comey’s subsequent justification and position in Trump’s doghouse makes me all the more suspicious.
All of which goes tot he question of why we are proceeding with impeachment without more investigation. It would seem to me to benefit the democrats more to try to Bengazi and email trump to death the way the republicans went after Hillary. Choosing impeachment quick instead of long-term investigation seems to be calculated to give democrats facing electoral challenges the line that the republicans who voted against impeachment are ignoring the truth. It seems to me that the republican voters do not really care about the truth, or they would have voted differently in the past.
NY…
We agree that they voted against her …. but I stand by my non-expert opinion that midwest states ,particularly those swing states (not FL) wanted “government” to hear them. He screamed and yelled at regulations; she stayed home. He blamed people for those voters’ problems and soaked it in; she stayed home. He said things they can’t say at work and loved it.
And how’s that and his trade war working out for them now.
As for other offices. GOP boys are scared of a lousy tweet. So are those voter and their free pressing calling them out for not saying a word?
I agree that for many voters, policy positions don’t matter. It’s persona, gender, a gut feeling… Bernie appeals to many male blue collar Trump Dems because he’s a gruff male and because he seems to be a non-politician who speaks his mind. This is powerful with the masses. Of all the Dems, I think he may have the most of the Trumpian magic elixir.
I think that people respond positively to Joe Biden for the same reason. He seems like a regular guy, not an elitist, not an egghead. He has cultivated that image.
When we went on strike in January, there were many teachers who worried we would make things worse instead of better, that we would lose. What if we’re asking for too much? What if the public doesn’t get behind us? What if we bankrupt the district? What if… Why don’t we accept what we have? Conditions are unjust, but we’re surviving. Better to accept centrist austerity than risk it all.
But we held to our ideals and went on strike. The public supported us. We fought. We won. The district didn’t go bankrupt. We won. We influenced others to fight. We changed our world. That is the correct attitude to take to politics. Stand up for what is right. Fight. We will not win everything — Bernie knows that — but we will make progress. If we move to the center, there will be no left, and we will lose in the long run, regardless of what happens in November. Go Bernie. Don’t feel fear, don’t feel lukewam-th; feel the full fire of progressive passion, feel the Bern.
Not surprising. The BBC is a very right- centrist organization.
Charles Koch wants progressives to compromise. No more compromises.
The best thing that can be said about Buttigieg (other than that he claims to be a Democrat) is that his election would vex the theocracy.
Roy is right that we need a candidate who will galvanize the anti-Trump electorate, and a centrist won’t do that. As of 2018, according to Pew Research, 31 percent of Americans are Democrats; 26 percent, Republicans; and 38 percent, Independents. But of the Independents, 17 percent lean Democratic, and 13 percent lean Republican. So, making those adjustments, we get the following:
48 percent Democratic or Democratic-leaning
39 percent Republican or Republican-leaning
So, the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the electorate. So, why don’t they win every time? Well, large numbers of Democrats simply don’t show up at the polls. They did for Obama because, being the first African-American nominee of a major party, he galvanized the Democratic electorate. We need that again. Dems lost in 2016 because a lot of them took a look at the “centrist” Hillary Clinton, rolled over, and went back to sleep, while others actually believed the populist snake oil that Trump was selling–that he was, for example, going to roll out a two-trillion-dollar infrastructure program to put “forgotten Americans [poor whites]” back to work.
Corbyn lost because he tried too hard to appear “centrist.” If we learned anything from 2016, it should be to not try to be meek and moderate.
Paraphrasing MLK, the question is if we feel strong and brave enough to deliver justice to our kids, our poor and the environment or we want to survive for another four years in the order established by the billionaires. Do we believe that Hillary-like centrism will work against Trump this time, or people have had enough of Trump? The Republican party certainly is united in the trenches and behind Trump. They are prepared to fight without risking a second thought.
Chances are, another peaceful 4 years will make the billionaires stronger, bolder. They will make even more laws that will take decades to reverse.
In Eastern Europe they chose to make the transition from communism to capitalism peaceful, and the result was that the communist leaders simply sold all the government owned factories and properties to themselves for pennies, and they continued to be the leaders, but now with neoliberal slogans and sporting enormous wealth.
If we don’t dare to risk, we may not gain anything, and probably will lose a great deal more.
So the least we can do is think about what centrism really means and how much of it we are willing to tolerate. Personally, I possibly can live with Klobuchar, but Biden will be eaten alive by the billionaires, and we cannot do anything about it since we voted for him.
Biden his Time
Biden is a bot
Sanders he is NOT!
Joe is bound to trot
Oiligarchic rot
Well said, SomeDAM!
Joe Biden? No problem… Not a fan but I’ll vote for him and stand out in the cold to do so. I would vote for a turnip at this point – anything but the possibility of another term and the inevitable end of American Democracy. If Putin’s puppet is installed again America is toast – or more specifically – America will be transformed into a soviet-style anti-constitutional dictatorship.
If Bernie had won the primary, Jill Stein would not have gotten so many votes. It is our system that is the problem. I refuse to vote for someone I don’t believe in. I have not voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter and will not. However, I might vote for Bernie because he is a socialist. The problem is the two party system that is established because of the laws and supreme court rulings have made it impossible for more than 2 parties to play a part except as spoilers. I will continue to vote for whom I believe in, not the lesser of two evils, because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Yes Trump is evil and centrists have a better chance to win. But I will not support one.
I didn’t vote for Jimmy Carter, being smug in my knowledge that by making sure the Ronald Reagan had a free hand to dismantle the parts of the federal government that made things better for the working class and the poor, I was really helping the working class and poor.
I expected the working class and poor of America to be grateful to me for sticking up for my principles and helping them so much by empowering Reagan to make their lives a little more miserable. I was smug in my certainty that it was a small price to pay to stand up for my beliefs, and of course, I didn’t have to pay it, people in much more vulnerable positions did.
But I think I can be forgiven as I was 18 and thought i knew it all. By the time of the next election, I stopped thinking only of myself and started thinking about people who weren’t as privileged.
“Yes Trump is evil” should always be followed by “and I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is so he is defeated.”
However, I hope America nominates the most progressive candidate in the primary. Because centrists and conservatives also have a moral duty to defeat Trump and vote for the Democratic nominee if he or she is a progressive.
I probably need correction by someone more knowledgeable about Brit politics, but the comparison seems a little off to me. Mainly for reasons one or two already stated, i.e., our supposedly wildly-left Dem candidates don’t even scratch the surface when compared to major issues, e.g., UK’s longtime socialized medicine (not to mention their generous “dole”). The Brits are throwing up their hands on centrism/ neoliberalism/ pro-immigration policies and socialist policies. We have done little on the latter & there are many willing to try, as long as we’re careful not to call it socialism 😉
Trump has already labeled the Democratic Party as a “Socialist Party.” This is now part of his standard diatribe. No matter how centrist the candidate, Trump will call him or her a wild-eyed socialist.
I’d say, based on a Guardian column this morning with which I overall disagreed comparing and contrasting Corbyn and Bernie, the UK is more split on the globalization versus protectionism thing and doesn’t really translate to the US because Bernie is opposed to trade deals that internationally suppress labor wages and rights. On other issues, Corbyn is left of Bernie, but Brexit dominates UK politics right now. My opinion.
It’s amusing to watch the impeachment debate today. The Democrats and Repugnicans are taking turns:
Representative
Rich, white fat cat and/or good ole boy with bad grammar and confused usage (“Today, we will be remembered as the day. . . .”)
Representative
Rich, white fat cat and/or good ole boy with bad grammar and confused usage (“this Ukraine corruption. . . . this Russia collusion”)
Representative
Rich, white fat cat and/or good ole boy with bad grammar and confused usage (“The Democrats have a criminal, but they don’t have a crime.”)
and so on
Lord, where do the The Republican Gun Club Knights of Know-Nothingness these people?
find these people?
Bad grammar is forgettable, but many can’t even read their own mumbo-jumbo!
I made the mistake of turning on the impeachment debate. The Republicans say that Trump is the greatest history in the president of the U.S. They say there is no evidence, not a scintilla, that he did anything wrong. Didn’t they attend the hearings? They say all the hearings were “behind closed doors.” I watched them on TV, how could that be “behind closed doors.” I’m having a cognitive dissonance attack.
I love how the Republicans keep whining about lack of evidence and completely ignore the fact that Trump is withholding evidence. I hope the high school debate judges of America come out and declare the Republicans the losers in this debate!
Did they listen to that long list of witnesses—Marie Yovanovitch (smeared by Guiliani), Gordon Sondland (everyone was in on it), William Taylor, Fiona Hill, Col. Vindman, etc.? That was public testimony. No closed doors. No star chamber. The Reoublican Party is disgracing itself by its obeisance to Trump.
A gentleman from Georgia, who could barely read, claimed that this outrageous procedure robs the American people from their rightfully elected president. “How do theses elitists in DC dare to do that?” he asked. He didn’t even bother referring to the cause of the impeachment, implying that once the president is elected, he is untouchable.
Máté Wierdl: “…this outrageous procedure robs the American people from their rightfully elected president.”
This is fancy BS coming from a Republican. Remember when Moscow Mitch feverishly tried to get Obama to be a ‘one term president’?
Trump didn’t win the popular vote SO he is not the ‘rightfully elected president’. He is the ‘electoral college elected president’.
He never read the Constitution.
Neither has Trump.
Says Article 2 allows him to do “whatever he wants.”
He never read Article 2.
This article is saying that the Democratic Party needs to return to the party that belonged to FDR and LBJ. Dems stayed in power because they helped people. Progressives are the way to get back that power.
…………………
‘How America Broke Up With the Democratic Party’
DEC 17, 2019
…The Democratic Party had built a three-generation governing majority once in the past. All they need do today is reimplement Democratic policies from 1933 to 1979, updated for modern times.
Raise taxes on the rich, bring our factories home, expand the safety net, support GI Bill-style free education, and restore union rights. The party should know its history, after all, and should remember how well it was received by the American people.
Like a partner who wants to repair a wounded relationship, the Democrats must return to core principles and stay faithful to them. And we still have the template.
Today, the Democratic Party has two presidential nominees who carry the values and economic policies of FDR and LBJ, while embracing modern-day values of diversity and inclusion in ways neither party dared before this century. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the second-largest Democratic caucus and the third largest in all of Congress.
If the Democratic Party follows its base and promotes progressive candidates and policies, it has a good chance of pulling America back from the brink of authoritarianism and oligarchy, and to restore our moral authority in the world. A return to big thinking and big goals like those of FDR and LBJ will put Democrats on a track to a second multigenerational governing majority.
If the party uses its convention and superdelegates (on a second vote) to choose another candidate committed to DLC (now Third Way) policies, get ready for either another four years of Donald Trump or a “moderate” one-term pause in the continuing deterioration of the middle-class American Dream…
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-america-broke-up-with-the-democratic-party/