Tuesday, April 19, 2016

What did I tell you?

The Republicans confirm a key point that I've made in many previous posts...
And yet, prominent Republican operatives are chomping at the bit to face Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont and self-described democratic socialist, in the general election, believing he'd be an easier opponent than the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state.

“Republicans are being nice to Bernie Sanders because we like the thought of running against a socialist. But if he were to win the nomination the knives would come out for Bernie pretty quick,” said Ryan Williams, a former spokesman for 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney's campaign. “There's no mystery what the attack on him would be. Bernie Sanders is literally a card carrying socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. There'd be hundreds of millions of dollars in Republican ads showing hammers and sickles and Soviet Union flags in front of Bernie Sanders.”
Doug Heye, a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said Clinton would be a tougher opponent due to her foreign policy fluency, “her toughness as a candidate,” and the “Clinton attack machine” around her—groups like Correct the Record and Americans United for Change that are active on her behalf. He added that there's less room for the GOP to define Clinton than Sanders as “out of the mainstream.”

“Her negatives are set in. There's no American out there who doesn't have a definite opinion on Hillary Clinton,” Heye said. “That's just not the case with Bernie. The fact that some of his success has been looked on with bemusement, I think, speaks to that.”

Believing that Sanders may be too far outside the mainstream to win the Democratic primary, the Republican National Committee is doling out reams of opposition research on Clinton, and virtually none on Sanders.
Have the Republicans been covertly helping Sanders, especially in the areas of social media, blog comments, and control of Reddit? Reince Priebus may offer a hint in the following...
“I would rather run against Hillary Clinton,” Reince Priebus said Friday on CNN. “I think anybody who's analyzed this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far into the ditch she is going to go, but she's not doing well.”
At a debate in January, Kasich joked that “we're going to win every state if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.” The same month, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer tweeted Sanders-friendly commentary during a Democratic debate and quipped that he was trying to “help” the underdog.
A short while ago, I blocked a BernieBot commentary (perhaps written by one of Priebus' trolls?) which claimed that Bernie has been "shut out" by the national media. It is to laugh. That guy has been getting nothing but fellation from the mad Clinton-haters who scribble for the mainstream media. Sweartagod, I almost want to see Bernie get the nomination. As I said before, the look on his face will be hilarious when the media's Big Blowjob suddenly turns into a Big Bite. CHOMP!

What he said. Considered for your approval, this letter to the LAT...
The loutish behavior of some supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with access to the phone numbers of superdelegates committed to Hillary Clinton suggests that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. ("Sanders' supporters are lashing out, but here's how they might be hurting his campaign," April 15)

Having viewed all nine Democratic debates of the campaign, I have watched as Sanders has transformed from a thoughtful, even-tempered candidate with a coherent message to an increasingly strident, petulant and self-righteous crank.

Since it appears highly unlikely that Sanders can overcome Clinton's substantial lead to win the Democratic nomination, I hope that he and his enthusiastic backers will show Clinton the same magnanimity in 2016 that she showed Barack Obama in 2008.
That won't happen. Progressive purists are perpetually piggish.
Comments:
I'm not sure why you are in such a mess about bernie. He'll pull an al (still fat) gore and roll over at the election on gores part, convention after he receives more money for Vermont ANG, a few more jobs in the never ending defense industry. I do hope he might find a few bucks for schools and etc. He'll say it was for the good of the corp. owned demodog party. I would think about 70% of his fans will vote for hillabillie because the demodogs are the lesser evil.

Relax man, take a chill pill we don't you having any health issues;)
 
As a syncretic populist, not a progressive I can hope that Sanders can help partly rehabilitate the image of the USSR just as Putin has done so in large part, all in the way of building Russ camraderie resisting Anglo-Zionist unipolar domination.
Not that Putin had to do so in certain respects, large percentages of Russians liked and like Soviet socialism more than the capitalism run amok introduced and exacerbated by American imperialism in the 1990s.

From the other vantage, there probably would be less American imperialism to resist should Sanders defeat Clinton and win the presidency. Less even from Trump than Clinton as well, Trump expressing admiration for Putin while Hillary compared him to Hitler and is NATO hawkish contrasted with Trump's more nearly America First statements.

But obviously the spectre of the hammer and sickle repulses Joe more than scenes of anarchial bloodied Iraq, Libya, Syria, partly the result of Clinton's politics and which
she is far more likely to bring to eastern Europe if past is prologue.
I guess that's "progressive" in certain circles.
 
Hmmm. The Naderites, Occupy Wall Street, and GOP ratfkers all pulling together for a guy that honeymooned in Soviet Russia, and had good things to say about Castro's Cuba.

His politics are actually very moderate Social Democracy (by world standards), but it's noteworthy that FDR never called himself a Social Democrat. In a nation as obsessed with symbols as the USA, words and images matter. Just ask the marketers of Coke, Apple, Disney, Johnson & Johnson, and Boeing. These brand names are extremely valuable and treated as the crown jewels of multibillion-dollar corporations. Other brands are toxic and are beyond recovery, like asbestos, cigarettes, "clean diesel", nuclear power, or Superfund sites.

Although large parts of any modern economy are de facto socialist, Americans don't want to hear that. Marketing 101: don't tell people what they don't want to hear. Put it another way, and use different words that sound better. FDR and JFK knew that, and chose their language carefully.
 
Sanders is a bull in a china shop. He doesn't know careful, or nuance, or grey area. Criminy, look at the Vatican goofery. He'd be a god-awful nominee or president. We had a chance at a leap in political evolution with the disarray of the Republicans and the Dems ascendant. His candidacy gave Clinton room to move left, where I believe she'd generally like to be, while retaining mainstream credibility. Then the CDS kicked in, media and halfwit dudebros got buzzed, this guy got big eyes, and has hyped the phenonema in ludicrously mendacious ways ever since, to the detriment of Clinton and the party. He's a weasel and a dipshit. And a crank. Thanks for a place to vent, Joe.
 
"Superfund" sounds like a good thing too me. I guess it's pr.

Harry
 
You know what I think is funny? The BernieBots will not simply GO AWAY, even though I have made them feel unwelcome.

A sure sign of mania.

Don't trust fanatics.
 
There are powerful forces such as Move on Dot Org and the Young Turks driving the Sanders wagon. They strike a chord with younger voters and progressive lifers. Move on tried to start a conservative version back in the day, and Cenk used to be a conservative.
I suppose Huffington Post has toned down its anti HIllary Rhetoric, especially compared to 2008 when it was off the chats, yet it is ironic that Ms. Huffington has conservative roots as well.
 
Hillary cleaned Bernie's clock. She especially trounced him in the Bronx. Can we now do away with the stupid caucuses?
 
And what I think is funny, Joseph, is that you and about 90% of your commenters think that anyone who would want to vote for Bernie is crazy, stupid, idiotic, arrogant, politically ignorant, and is labeled a "BernieBot", with whatever derogatory connotation that has.

I recently agreed with a poster named Hoop and was immediately called a bot ("bot alert, bot alert...."). As I said before, I have been a reader of your blog for over ten years and have really enjoyed most of your writings. I have learned a lot from your blog about a broad spectrum of issues. I plan to keep reading it, hoping that the Bernie-bashing stops in time and you turn back to issues that I enjoy reading.

Yes, I feel unwelcome right now, but will weather this storm because I value your blog. It may come as a shock to you that I can support Bernie Sanders and not be a "fanatic" or suffer from a "mania". I am not and have never been a 'true believer'. I DO, however, believe that the New Deal was the best thing that ever happened to our country. If that makes me a true believer or a fanatic, I'll cop to it.

I was born during the dust bowl, just 8 miles from where the mythical Joad family had their farm, and our family stayed alive because of the WPA and the CCC. Sanders is just closer to my beliefs than is Hillary. That shouldn't make me a 'bot' or a troll. Should it?
 
Jacktheokie, Did Bernie Sanders rail against parallel foreclosure? Did Bernie Sanders rail against the addictive structure of credit card debt? The answer is no. Bernie rails against credit card interest rate charges and that foreclosure is bad, both of which miss by a mile in terms of what is actually wrong with credit card and parallel foreclosure.
Hillary Clinton has won more delegates than Bernie Sanders in each and every month of the 2016 campaign, yet his supporters believe he is gaining on Hillary Clinton, that is in part where the bot term is coming from.
 
And it should be noted that it is the revisionist history regarding the Bill Clinton era that is raising the ire of myself and probably Mr. Cannon as well.
 
I think your take on Sanders has a lot going for it. I also think the support he's getting from people up to no good may be broader than your reports indicate. You only scratch the surface.

All this scheming for Sanders can't all be so that Trump gets installed in the White House. For your theory to make sense, it's necessary to believe that Trump won't be allowed to become the GOP nominee.
 
jacktheokie, first of all, you understood something Hoop said? ;p

Second of all, have you read anything Joseph posts? Bernie followers show pictures of Hillary embracing Byrd and call her a KKK supporter. That's an issue. It shouldn't be but who made it so? Hillary supporters don't go around posting porn pics and calling Bernie out for writing that women fantasize about being raped by three men. Even tho he actually did. At age 32.

What is it you don't get about labeling the idiots who are demonizing Hillary? I very much enjoy these posts. You can go anywhere else on the world wide web and see how uncomfortable Hillary supporters are being made to feel: for no reason.
 
I appreciate Joseph's writing on this. I think the Berniebot phenomenon is not anywhere near the Obamabot phenomenon in terms of craziness and vileness (of course, we have Trump supporters for that in this election), but there are similarities. I am convinced that the right wants to run against Bernie, not Hillary. I still find more to agree with with Sanders than Clinton, but either one would be preferable to what the Republicans are offering. I agree with Joseph about movements though.......they are rarely what they seem on the surface, for one thing.

Of course, I'm probably even more cynical than Joseph because I don't think voting actually has any bearing at all on who becomes President. They are not chosen by us voters, that's for sure. I assumed a year ago that Hillary was the next chosen one, and so far I haven't seen much to make me think that was an incorrect assumption. The corruption and status quo will be safe with her. It would probably be safe with Bernie too, for different reasons (he would very likely be stopped at every turn, not just by Republicans but Dems as well, if he were to become President and actually try to implement any of his policies......heck, that may well happen with Hillary and most certainly would with the Donald). The wealthy elites and their corporations are not about to relinquish control to We The People anytime soon. So I don't really expect, despite the circus like nature, the current election will make much of any difference. That said, Obama was not the total disappointment I expected, though nearly so. He does seem to have pulled back a bit the last 4 years from full on neocon mode. It will be interesting to see what Clinton does, though my expectations are quite low (which wouldn't be any different no matter which candidate gets in).
 
okiejack-- lived a couple of years in Texhoma and actually liked the place. The people reminded me of home (WNC). With that said, no one said you can't post your support for Bernie all you wish but as Machi and prowlerzee noted the tolerance for reality stretching and revisionism is low, so don't expect to be unchallenged. If you find "bot" insulting, let us all recall being "bitter clingers" and "racists" for the bile to rise a bit higher. In my mind, a bot is someone who posts the usual CDS propaganda without a wrinkle or a fact to support it--- something Bernie supporters have done quite regularly. I'm long time Clinton supporter and as zee said-- that makes you the target of all the insults hurled at Clinton. And to the universe in general re NY primary: I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
 
Prowlerzee said:

"You can go anywhere else on the world wide web and see how uncomfortable Hillary supporters are being made to feel: for no reason."

Spot on. The St Bernard Brigade has dominated social media with all sorts of foul name calling and right-wing accusations. Bernie pivoted into negative campaigning land during the last month--she's unqualified to be president, she's corrupt by association, etc.

Did not work. In fact, it backfired in New York, big time. Now, we're into Baghdad Bob territory as Weaver and Devine talk about flipping super delegates, even though Hillary is winning in pledged delegates and the popular vote by large margins. She won over 1 million votes last night alone; she's won more votes than anyone on either side.

The "but, but Bernie's would be stronger in the General" nonsense is just that, as Joe rightly points out. Clinton and her team have not waged a scorched-earth primary. In the General, Sanders would be skinned alive by the Republicans. The memes are just sitting there waiting for the Republican opposition to gleefully pick them up and then slice and dice Bernie's ass through November.

Hillary trounced Sanders last night and sealed the deal for the nomination. Time to deal with it.

Peggysue
 
All these prowlerzee type comments are so tangential. I'm a naif so I can't guess
whether they are purposely so.
Those out of power will of course tend to use more scatter shot propaganda than those in power have to. If you want to examine all this from the salient perspective, ballot access laws
maintaining Elite power would be a good place to start.
Sanders has pulled punches on Clinton, even from his own political history. Why isn't he running videos showing Clinton spouting Cheney lies about WMDs and asking "This is experience?" Activists are entitled to ask if not answer authoritatively if even Sanders
fears destabilizing the system should he lose.
But Hillaryphobes (a laudatory term) like Ian Welsh appear to believe Sanders has acheived a good campaigning tone, so I'm not sure myself what his optimum strategy should have been.
I do agree with Welsh when he points out the hypocrisy of the progressives who tacitly assume American business-as-usual stabilization is warranted as they ignore the total anarchy brought to large sections of the world by neolib intervention of the Hillary stripe. I guess it's because as one truly naieve blogger, wrote, Albright , Power and Clinton meant well, and must be defended accordingly, while Cheney and Condi Rice didn't.
Now THAT'S unbridled unsophisticated political wet behind the ears arrogance.
 
Oh no, the Repubs are going to smear Bernie as a commie?!

That'll terrify the old coots and be hilarious to most people born after 1980, considering the Soviet Union has been gone for 25 years. The Republicans will paint themselves as totally out-of-touch old people. But you know, just in case, the Dems should run someone far the Bernie's right. Can't be too careful.

Hillary has the highest negative ratings of just about any Dem presidential candidate ever. Of course, it'll be hard for the Repubs to smear her, considering she does exactly what they do: support needless wars, suck up to Wall St, trade on her office for millions, etc. I think the RNC will secretly support her--she's basically what passes for a moderate Republican these days. Instead, they can just let Hillary's terrible reputation--entirely earned among many people on the left--work against her.
 
"Did Bernie Sanders rail against parallel foreclosure?" Hell, would anyone know what that is (real term: dual tracking)? How about securitization, SIVA, NIVA, NINA? Who knows what that is? I'm not sure it would turn too many votes.

Bill Clinton? Did a lot of good things, but his bad stuff lingers (Liberal, Liberal by Thomas Frank).

"jacktheokie, first of all, you understood something Hoop said? ;p"

This is the kind of haughty arrogance I have spoken of. Really no need for that. There was no attack on you, or even Joseph, for that matter. As I said, I enjoy his blog and respect his knowledge and take on things.

Second of all, as I said in my post, I have read most all of Joe's posts for over ten years now, probably longer than most readers.....or was that question just another dig at me? And my point wasn't that no one was smearing Hillary, but that most of Bernie's supporters, of which I am one, DON'T do that sort of thing, but have differences with Hillary's choices of policy, especially her neo-con friends, her rigid backing of Israel, and her hawkish stances toward the Middle East and Europe (Ukraine). Heck, I didn't even mention the war criminal, Kissinger.

And, no, most Hillary supporters don't go around posting porn pics, etc., about Bernie at age 32. But I guess now you have done it. Okay.

My point was that I don't want to be broad-brushed as a raving maniac out to eviscerate Hillary simply because I prefer Bernie Sanders, and that I want to continue to read and enjoy this blog. But you guys win. I'm out. Discuss among yourselves.
 
Actually Parallel Foreclosure IS the real term. Dual Tracking is harder to google beause dual tracking has multiple meanings in different professions and nobody knows what that means. Parallel Foreclosure is pretty obvious, one is trying to save their home and the same entity that holds the note that is allegedly trying to help them save their home has actually started foreclosure proceedings on the unwitting homeowner. The actual number of parallel foreclosure victims unknown during the Obama presidency, could be 250,000, or it could be as high as 3 to 4 million homeowners.

As soon as Bernie Sanders grandstands about credit card interest rates being too high, I know he is clueless about why credit cards are evil.
 
Since when is explaining, attacking?
 
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/20/yes_bernie_sanders_is_not_a_democrat_and_hillary_represents_the_very_worst_of_the_party/

Didn't Joe say the fix was in for Bernie several times recently? Well, maybe Norton said the fix was in for Hillary prior to writing this.
 
Joseph, did it never occur to you that maybe Republicans are claiming that they want Sanders as a candidate precisely because they fear facing him as a candidate? That they want Sanders to be rejected because they fear he might win?
 
That makes no sense.

But I do believe that, in the long term, the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party would be a Sanders presidency. Sanders would accomplish nothing. There would be constant media attacks on the failures of socialism. The Democratic party would forever be tainted as the party of Marxist disaster. A Republican tsunami would drench Congress in 2018 -- AND 2020 and 2022. The Republicans would have a lock on the next three or four presidential election cycles. And the Dems would compensate by going even further to the right than is already the case.

Revolution SUCKS, dude.
 
I suspect that at least half the Bernouts here would probably find Hillary acceptable, if the media--openly reactionary, corporate "mainstream", and "progressive" alike--had not spent the past 25 years or so smearing the Clintons as Mr. and Mrs. Beelzebub, and the Bernouts had not fallen for the Official Media Narrative hook, line, sinker, and flopping in the boat.

If the media tell you "2 + 2 = 4", do the math yourself just to be safe.
 
Actually Ivory Bill, most of us can think just fine for ourselves. The media has nothing to do with my preferences for President. I actively avoid that crap because it is crap and has been for a very long time. I don't subscribe to the "Vince Foster was killed by the Clinton's", etc., etc. school of smearing. I thought Bill Clinton was the greatest President of my lifetime so far (despite a few missteps that had more to do with compromise......remember that?....than with poor decision making). No, I prefer Sanders because I think he'd be a better President and because I don't support a number of Hillary's stances. She's a Washington insider, and that's enough to turn me off. So is Bernie, though he has a pretty consistent voting record that shows he's an actual Liberal, unlike Hillary Clinton. I happen to actually hold her responsible for her time as Secretary of State as well. As I've said many times, I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but it would not be my first choice. Of course, at this point I'm almost hoping Trump becomes President, but I think he's just what this nation deserves (it would also most likely spell the end of the Republican party, which would be the only good thing about him being President). Frankly, I'm not very happy with ANY of my "choices" this time around, but people have become so used to getting nothing but establishment candidates they have forgotten what it means to have an actual choice in elections (rather than a "lesser of two evils").
 
Gus, it is always, always the lesser of two evils. So you hate your fellows citizens enough to wish a Trump revolution, i.e. scorched earth for the poor and ethnic? I'm sure you don't really but that is certainly what it sounds like. The Establishment. Quaint. The last true outside was Carter and look what happened to him. His own party began gnawing on him the minute he was elected and the GOPers gleefully egged it on. I'll take someone who is competent on the inside of the game but motivated to try and do the best for the people over some sputtering nuke-em who would think nothing of destroying the lives and livelihoods of half of the population as long as he can still adored by the raving few.
 
Bob, I did write "almost". I don't hate anyone. However, I do find the glorified popularity contest that is the never ending Presidential election season (we get what, maybe a year of no campaigning before the next one starts? talk about bread and circuses). I just get fed up with the "choices" we are given. They aren't choices at all. That said, I'm not anti Hillary at all (though I had thought one of the good things about our nation was that we didn't have royal families......I was mistaken, apparently). I also get fed up with the constant bickering within the parties and the "if you're not with us you are against us" rhetoric. Voting based on policies, research, and principle is NEVER a wasted vote (assuming voting means anything at all these days, which I'm not sure is the case). I get sick and tired of the notion that voting for who you actually want to vote for is handing the election to the person from the other party. Also that there are no other parties in Presidential elections, essentially.

So you don't have to worry about me voting for Trump, because it will never happen. Obviously I can't speak for everyone else. Personally, I never thought he had a chance and that still looks like the case.

As I said before, Clinton will be President. I assumed it was a forgone conclusion 2 years ago and it's looking like I was right. We will no doubt spend the next 4 years wondering why she wasn't the President all her supporters thought she would be. The pattern is pretty clear.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?






























FeedWind












FeedWind