Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2019 11:40 pm
@blatham,
Thoughts will be on you and a speedy recovery.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2019 11:59 pm
@blatham,
Be well.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 12:25 am
@Olivier5,
Good luck.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 01:07 am
@blatham,
FAUX is a paper tiger, and Bernie slayed it. In politics, it's important to show a bit of courage.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 05:33 am
For anyone who was not convinced that the DNC is leading the fight against progressivism in general and Bernie Sanders specifically, here is one of the smoking guns.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bernie-sanders-science-smears-823138/
Excerpt:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made headlines this week by taking on the Center for American Progress, long known as a messaging arm of the mainstream Democratic Party. Sanders wrote a letter criticizing the CAP board for playing a “destructive role” in the “critical mission to defeat Donald Trump,” a critique seemingly crafted in response to recent efforts by ThinkProgress, a news site founded by CAP, to paint Sanders as a hypocrite for being a millionaire author.

The Sanders letter to CAP formalized the rift between the Democratic establishment and the labor-based movement of millions Sanders represents. That we’re talking about a petty PR battle and not the hardcore disagreement about policy and (especially) campaign funding sources that created this divide is Exhibit A proving the old propaganda method is still working.
The practice of painting dissident challenges as selfish, hypocritical acts — as opposed to the selfless altruism of corporate-funded candidates — has been going on forever. Long before Sanders was framed as a thin-skinned, cranky narcissist who’s “all about himself,” Dennis Kucinich went through the same thing.

Kucinich was/is living proof of the Bierce aphorism. When he announced his run for president in October of 2003, the Ohio congressman “stood up against corporate interests,” promised to revoke NAFTA, endorsed decriminalization of marijuana, called for universal health care and trumpeted “amnesty and legalization for illegal immigrants.”

He was the only candidate promising to withdraw troops from Iraq, and in those jingoistic years after 9/11, he not only brought an imam on stage for his launch, he took a shot at Columbus Day. From the New York Times account:
“The Cleveland event had a tailored multicultural appeal, starting out with prayers from a rabbi, an imam and a Baptist preacher. The speakers were racially diverse, and Mr. Kucinich took a moment to acknowledge the American Indian communities on Columbus Day.”

Many of these ideas are now blue-state orthodoxy. “Universal health care” is an official goal of the Democratic Party, even if the party doesn’t mean it in the same way Kucinich did. He was right about Iraq — he was the only one right about Iraq in that field — and significant parts of the electorate are beginning to suspect he was right about NAFTA, the legalization of marijuana and a bunch of other things.

Kucinich may even have been ahead of the curve on Columbus Day: four states and 50 cities now celebrate “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” instead.
But back in the 2000s, when Kucinich still had a small voice in national politics, he was routinely denounced as something worse than a radical: a kook, nut and egomaniac. I covered both of the Kucinich runs for the presidency and saw how frustrated he became over time as his ideas were ignored and his campaigns were denounced as indulgences.

What little coverage he got tended to be stuffed below the fold, and focused on him as a “lower-tier” eccentric, a vegan who dabbled in ventriloquism, wore wing-tips and was too short (the standard modifier attached to him was “elfin,” as in “the elfin peace candidate”).

Reporters from 2008 will remember the “hot mic” debate exchange between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, when the contenders whispered about thinning a field of eight that included Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
“We should try to have a more serious… smaller group,” Edwards offered, leading to the following exchange:
Clinton: Well, we’ve got to cut the number, because they are just being trivialized.
Edwards: They are not serious.
Clinton: No.

About the seriousness: when asked later that year by Wolf Blitzer why he was the only candidate who’d had a chance to vote on the Patriot Act to vote against it, Kucinich shot back, “Because I read it.” He was probably right that none of the others had.

But he was seen as the unserious one. By 2010, when he was opposing the Affordable Care Act for many of the same reasons driving today’s Medicare-for-All movement, even would-be liberal commentators like Markos Moulitsas were denouncing him. He was a modern Nader, pushing “unrealistic” and “self-defeating” politics, someone who’d never accomplished anything.
The treatment of Kucinich was pure high school. I used to get an unpleasant pang of recognition listening to the cool kids on the press plane laughing at the “lefty elf” who refused to get the hint he wasn’t wanted on the debate stage.

Back when Sanders didn’t seem like a threat to win anything, he got much of the same. He was dismissed as a geek and a wallflower who’d be defined by whether he chose to be a help or a hindrance to the real candidate, Clinton. The New Yorker’s John Cassidy in early 2015 mock-welcomed Bernie to the race, insisting the entrance of the “loner” would be a “plus” for the Clinton campaign, since he would “occupy the space to the left of Clinton, thus denying it to more plausible candidates, such as Martin O’Malley.”

It wasn’t until Sanders started piling up delegates that he began to take on the villainous characteristics for which he is now infamous. After he won primaries in 2016, suddenly reporters ripped him as a divisive narcissist with three houses who was the ideological mirror of Donald Trump, boasting racist, sexist and violent followers.

This was all part of the age-old technique of focusing on the person instead of the ideas or the movement behind them. Sanders wasn’t winning in 2016 because Bernie Sanders is some great stump act — he isn’t. A fair portion of his support was coming from people who were fed up with both parties even before he decided to run.

The easiest way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths is to create an ick factor around the politician benefiting from them. That was Sanders in 2016 and it’s still him, mainly. However, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii have also been pre-emptively dipped in the ick this cycle, cast as crippled politicians whose mere presence in the race will “undermine” Democrats in the end.

Additionally, and I could see it coming even a year ago, politicians benefiting from domestic discontent with the status quo are being denounced as Kremlin favorites as well as selfish agents of division.

On the day Gabbard announced her run for the presidency, MSNBC ran a story claiming Russian-linked social media accounts were pushing a “possible campaign of support” for the Hawaii Democrat. The story was sourced to the firm New Knowledge, which had been caught by the Times faking an almost identical story about Russian trolls and Alabama Republican Roy Moore.


Sanders was described as the Kremlin candidate in the Washington Post just a few days ago. This was unsurprising since the Post was asking as far back as the fall of 2017 how Democrats would respond to Putin playing dirty tricks for Sanders in 2020.

There are people who will protest that descriptions of such Russian activity boosting Sanders are rooted in fact, as efforts to reach his supports are described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of the Internet Research Agency. That’s fine. I would counsel anyone who thinks Russia is responsible for the rise of Sanders or people like Gabbard or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should go out and interview voters around the country, especially in remote areas.

The anger toward the political establishment that drives support for such politicians began to be visible over a decade ago, long before Sanders or Gabbard were factors in any kind in national politics.

Those voters aren’t selfish, or hypocrites, or Kremlin favorites, and they’re not going anywhere. What a lot of DC-based reporters and analysts don’t grasp is that if you remove Bernie Sanders from the scene, there will still be millions of people out there mad about income inequality. Remove Gabbard, and discontent about the human and financial costs of our military commitments will still be rampant. Removing Warren won’t cancel out anger about Wall Street corruption.

Covering personalities instead of political movements only delays things for a while. Sooner or later, the conservatism of tomorrow arrives. You can only delay the inevitable for so long.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 06:14 am
Zaid Jilani
@ZaidJilani
·
15h
I voted for Dennis Kucinich in 2008, and had to endure pretty much everyone I know rolling their eyes and laughing at me. But being committed to your ideas and honest even in a superficial political system might be on the rise, as
@mtaibbi notes.
—————————
Thankful that we have a few talented, honest writers, fighting the power with us.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 06:30 am
@Lash,
Kucinich was a joke.

He purposely bankrupted Cleveland.

Aliens told him to do it.

Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 06:47 am
Vote Kucinich.
Vote Often.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 06:55 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Kucinich was a joke.

He purposely bankrupted Cleveland.

Aliens told him to do it.



Appreciative of such a rapid piece of evidence, proving the effectiveness of the DNC smear job on one of the smartest, most forward-thinking pols in recent history.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 06:58 am
@Lash,
Common knowledge.

Try it sometime.
Brand X
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 07:07 am
@gdebenedetti

'to that last point from @jmartNYT, this is why we shouldn't be surprised to see immense pressure on candidates to drop as soon as this summer/fall if the debates don't go as planned for them. The Winnowing will be an active effort.'



@jmartNYT

'While the anxiety among many establishment-types is about Bernie, there are others in the party (who don’t want to be quoted!) who are nervous simply bc of the rules and big field:

Longtime pros believe they will *not* have a nominee at end of the primary'
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 07:13 am
@neptuneblue,
Buffoons and short-sighted know-nothings amass a collection of biases and fairy tales from ignorant people who parented them or accepted them into their social circles — and they call it ‘common knowledge’ or ‘common sense’ because they are too lazy to think for themselves.

I think for myself.

Try it sometime.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 07:30 am
@TulsiGabbard

'By vetoing War Powers Act, Trump again proves he’s the servant of Saudi Arabia—the theocratic dictatorship spending billions spreading the most extreme & intolerant form of Islam around the world, supporting al-Qaeda & other jihadists, & waging genocidal war in Yemen w/ US help'
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 08:36 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I'll be out for a bit. Down to the big city tomorrow to prep for a heart procedure (nothing too big) so catch you on the flip side given there is one.


I do sincerely wish you well. Profound disagreement about external issues is only marginally related to personal regard and friendship. I suspect that gives both of us a little trouble.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2019 02:38 pm
In an hour, Nina Turner takes the podium. Five minutes later, Senator Bernie Sanders, the hardest working man in show bidness.

I’m here for justice reform and education reform discussion. Tomorrow, broader subjects.

(grin)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2019 05:25 pm
@Brand X,
@TulsiGabbard wrote:
waging genocidal war in Yemen w/ US help

al-Qa'ida are the only ones who are waging a genocidal war in Yemen.

The US and Saudi Arabia are merely defending ourselves from those who would commit genocide against us.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2019 05:27 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
FAUX is a paper tiger, and Bernie slayed it.

Come now. All they are is a media outlet that doesn't succumb to leftist propaganda.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2019 07:34 pm
@Olivier5,
He showed incoherence
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 02:51 am
I went to a Kucinich rally once. Out of curiosity. He was singularly unimpressive. It would have been unimaginable to see him on the world stage representing the USA. (As much as I dislike and distrust Trump, he's as "American as apple pie" and clearly represents a significant percentage of the electorate who can be expected to remain loyal to him.) Kucinich looked like someone who was only empowered by the projections of the idealistic people who believed in him, someone who sucked up the adulation of the crowd by mouthing predictable, simplistic, and largely impractical slogans and phrases. He'd make some statement, pause for effect, and bask in the applause. It was revolting. No, he wasn't Elizabeth Warren. Or Gabbard. Or Sanders. Reciting progressive goals, even when well ahead of the curve, didn't surmount the air of unelectability which surrounded him. His showing confirmed this.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 04:01 am
@hightor,
We each come from disparate perspectives. Some people can get hung up on mannerisms and appearance, while others are intently listening to policy, and then make it their business to research what a candidate has done and said before, calculating believability.

Bernie reminds me of Kucinich. I looked around a packed black church yesterday, half-grinning because I know what soaring, rhythmic oratory they hear from that pulpit every Sunday and Wednesday night. The emotional crescendo, the powerful figurative language... that old man Bernie just speaks straight, jabbing the air with that foreign accent.

But what he said brought them to their feet and made them holler in agreement and respect.

Kucinich was saying the same things years ago. He was maligned by the establishment then just like Bernie was for decades until 2016 because the establishment was horrified that the voting public would take them seriously and demand their policies.

That time has finally arrived, and I thank Kucinich for his part in getting us to this point.

Mannerisms and appearance are meaningless to people desperate for change.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/22/2019 at 09:37:01