That Guy 888
That Guy 888's Journal
Hometown: San Antonio, Texas
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2007, 03:40 PM
Number of posts: 1,049
Hometown: San Antonio, Texas
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2007, 03:40 PM
Number of posts: 1,049
What makes 2016 a disaster for Democrats is not merely the party’s epic wipeout in Washington and the state capitals, but that the contest was fought out on a terrain that should have been favorable to them. This was an election about social class –about class-based grievances – and yet the Party of the People blew it. How that happened is the question of the year, just as it has been the question of other disastrous election years before. And just like before, I suspect the Democrats will find all manner of convenient reasons to take no corrective action.
Trump's health secretary pick: not big on women's health
But first let us focus on the good news. Donald Trump has smashed the consensus factions of both parties. Along the way, he has destroyed the core doctrine of Clintonism: that all elections are decided by money and that therefore Democrats must match Republican fundraising dollar for dollar. This is the doctrine on which progressive hopes have been sacrificed for decades, and now it is dead. Clinton outspent Trump two-to-one and it still wasn’t enough.
Neither were any of the other patented maneuvers of Clintonism. With Hillary carrying their banner, the Democrats triangulated themselves in every way imaginable. They partied with the Wall Street guys during the convention in Philadelphia, they got cozy with the national security set, they reached out to disaffected Republicans, they reminisced about the days of the balanced federal budget, they even encouraged Democratic delegates to take Ubers back and forth from the convention to show how strongly Democrats approved of what Silicon Valley was doing to America. And still they lost.
This is important because winning is supposed to be the raison d’etre of centrism. Over the years, the centrists have betrayed the Democratic party’s liberal base in all sorts of ways – deregulating banks, securing free trade deals, signing off on Wall Street bailouts and the Iraq war. Those who bridled at all this were instructed to sit down and shut up because the Clintons and their triangulating ilk were the practical ones who would bring us victory.
Posted by That Guy 888 | Wed Nov 30, 2016, 07:46 AM (5 replies)
Petition to Congress:
Donald Trump’s continued personal stake in his business empire creates an unacceptable conflict of interest. News reports confirm that Trump has used official meetings with foreign leaders to advance his personal business interests, in an unbelievable breach of the public trust. Please immediately pass the Presidential Accountability Act (HR 6340) to require presidents to end their conflicts of interest.
News reports confirm Trump is already using his power as president-elect to benefit his business empire:
-Asked British officials to oppose wind farms he says would mar the view from his company’s golf course in Scotland.
This is a breach of the public trust. There must be no question that America’s highest elected official uses their power to serve the public good, not to get personally richer.
Rep. Katherine Clark has a bill in Congress to force Donald Trump and any future president to end their conflicts of interest. If we’re going to prevent unprecedented corruption of the presidency, Congress must pass this bill.
Sign the petition to Congress: Do not allow Donald Trump to abuse the power of the presidency to enrich himself and his business empire.
I know Congress is controlled by the GOP, but better to fight Trump at every step.
Posted by That Guy 888 | Tue Nov 22, 2016, 08:42 PM (0 replies)
My Sister's question: Why didn't the GOP opposition research find out about tRump's sexual assaults?
My answer: Maybe they did and just didn't see anything wrong with what he did. Anyone else have any opinions?
Edit to clarify: my sister meant the goppers in the primary, not tRump's campaign. And I meant that the gopper's didn't see anything wrong with sexual assault, not me.
Hopefully final edit: My sister, who is less cynical/paranoid than me thought I was being unfair to the republicans. I reminded her of former Congressional Representative Mark Foley. He "groomed" underage Congressional Pages I don't know if things went any further than that, but the GOP definitely knew what he was doing. There were reports that the republicans warned Congressional Pages about him in orientation - republican Congressional Pages. They also let Foley sit on a committee that was supposed to design laws to protect minors from sexual exploitation.
Posted by That Guy 888 | Fri Oct 14, 2016, 09:10 PM (34 replies)
Source: The Sun-Sentinel
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared her enthusiastic support Tuesday for U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, detouring her campaign to personally deliver her seal of approval.
"I'm here today with a very simple message: I can't think of anyone who deserves your support for re-election, starting with the primary on August 30th, than my friend Debbie. And I am committed to doing whatever I can to support her as she returns to the Congress with your support," Clinton told about 50 people at Wasserman Schultz's campaign headquarters in Davie. "Please do everything you can to make sure Debbie has a resounding victory on August 30th."
Clinton's stop at Wasserman Schultz's campaign office came at the end a two-day campaign swing through Florida — and three weeks to the day before Wasserman Schultz faces the first-ever primary challenge of her congressional career.
The presidential nominee's involvement in the Broward/Miami-Dade County congressional primary is personal and political.
Read more: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-hillary-clinton-wasserman-schultz-20160809-story.html
Posted by That Guy 888 | Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:39 AM (22 replies)
As Bernie Sanders gears up for next phase of his political revolution, Senate Democratic candidates are clamoring for his support in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where his anti-trade, populist message could give Democrats a key political edge come November.
So far, Sanders has stumped for just one Senate Democratic hopeful: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a former colleague in the chamber and a kindred liberal spirit. And it’s unclear at this point how much energy Sanders — a longtime independent who has never exactly been a Democratic Party stalwart — is willing to expend on behalf of the party.
And while the two camps are regularly in touch, Sanders and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are nowhere near far enough in their discussions to map out where Sanders could stump for candidates or what kind of fundraising appeals he’ll send out.
Still, top Democrats are already eager for Sanders to mix it up in several key down-ballot races.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/senate-bernie-sanders-226524#ixzz4GFRjxSgQ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Posted by That Guy 888 | Wed Aug 3, 2016, 01:29 AM (6 replies)
That the party holding the Whitehouse for two terms will lose.
Reagan, Reagan, George H.W. Bush.
Hope we can all push back the "trend" that the Democratic Nominee is "fated" to lose in the general election.
hmm... Was this trend started to protect bush*'s feelings?
Posted by That Guy 888 | Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:16 AM (0 replies)
This was originally posted in response to a deleted post questioning the very idea that the Clintons engage in political revenge:
Well, score one for the "politician actually delivers on a promise" column, because here's how Clyburn recounts that conversation, which took place at around 2 A.M.
"If you bastards want a fight, you damn well will get one," Clinton thundered.
As Clyburn tells it, the former president phoned to pin blame on the congressman, vent his frustration and seek an explanation on how his wife got whipped so badly ...
"I had kept that promise. I asked him to tell me why he felt otherwise. He exploded, used the word 'bastard' again, and accused me of causing her defeat and injecting race into the contest," Clyburn writes.
When you decided to support Sen. Sanders, did you catch any heat?
"Oh, my god yes. I’ve had white Hillary supporters saying to me that I betrayed the Clintons and saying I’m not going to have a future in politics. I mean, they marked me for life, and I’m sitting back thinking: The Clintons never helped me to do a thing in my life, and all of a sudden they control my destiny? That was very condescending to me.
"I had a white woman here in Ohio who supported my Secretary of State run in 2014. I’ll never forget this. I was at a Planned Parenthood lecture a couple of months ago and she came up to me and said how disappointed she was in me. Very condescending. And I let her know that I really didn't care about her disappointment and I’m not on the plantation. That’s exactly what I told her.
"Then she said, 'After all we’ve done for you.' Now, see. That was it for me. I interpreted that as, 'After all we’ve done for you, Black girl, you owe us.' They would never say that to anyone else, but the fact you feel you can say that to a Black woman? I thought she was supporting me because I was the best candidate to be Secretary of State, because I was trying to protect access to the ballot box for all people — not because you own me or I owe you."
Even as Schaffer was getting his record swiped clean, Clinton’s political appointees at the EPA were moving to crack down on one of the agency’s top whistleblowers, Hugh Kaufman, the lead investigator in EPA’s ombudsman’s office. Kaufman has been a fly-in-the-ointment at EPA for more than 20 years, exposing corruption in industry and government. In his position at the ombudsman’s office, Kaufman has opened field hearings where citizens have been able to grill EPA administrators about clean up plans.
While I consider the Daily Mail about as reliable as the NY Post:
'Don't cross them, otherwise a door in the floor opens up': MSNBC host warns about the Clinton revenge machine
Hillary and Bill Clinton are known in Washington for being vindictive against people on their 'enemies list'
The list came about after Barack Obama defeated her for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination
TV host Alex Wagner said 'we are led to believe that there is this kind of Clinton Industrial Complex where names are kept, sins are recorded'
A 2014 book reported that Hillary staffers would joke about the political demise of people who had crossed her and sided with Obama
By David Martosko, U.S. Political Editor
Published: 11:35 EST, 8 May 2014 | Updated: 13:41 EST, 8 May 2014
MSNBC host Alex Wagner said Thursday morning that Democratic politicians are treading lightly around Hillary Clinton out of fear that failure to enthusiastically endorse her could bring dire consequences.
‘The fear mongering around the Clintons like, “Don't cross them, otherwise a door in the floor opens up,' she said.
Clinton, along with her husband the former president, reportedly build an 'enemies list' after she failed to win the Democrats' presidential nomination in 2008, keeping tabs on all the people they believed had betrayed her by siding with Barack Obama.
1 year ago
First on CNN–Confidant’s diary: Clinton wanted to keep records for ‘revenge'
CNN 's Dan Merica, CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
Fayetteville, Arkansas (CNN) - Shortly before Hillary Clinton’s effort to pass health care reform died in the summer of 1994, the first lady asked a close friend and confidant for advice on “how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular.”
When asked why, according to the friend’s June 20, 1994, diary entry, Clinton said, “Revenge.”
That exchange is among thousands of pages of notes, letters, and diary entries penned by Diane Blair, a political science professor and longtime Clinton friend whose papers were donated to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000.
Blair worked on Bill Clinton’s two presidential campaigns and advised the president and first lady throughout their eight years in the White House. In particular, she was very close with Hillary Clinton, who called Blair her “closest friend” in her 2003 memoir “Living History.”
Blair’s notes from 1994 and 1995 shed light on Clinton as first lady, especially her persistent interest in recording her and her closest advisers’ accounts of their time at the White House in order to both tell her own story as well as document what she saw as the truth.
To be fair, maybe Hillary was joking, like her highly entertaining "we came, we saw, he died" knee-slapper.
While bringing other politicians "to heel" is impressive, who do we want our politicians answering to? Their conscience? Their political party? A leader who will strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger if they disobey?
I think our elected officials should answer to their constituents, while guided by their conscience. Political parties should serve as a guide to both voters and officials about core values and policies. Loyalty to leadership should be earned through actions and ideas, not intimidation.
Posted by That Guy 888 | Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:48 AM (10 replies)
While they have all been historic in their own way, this one is unique. Not because a woman may become President. Not because we may have our first Jewish President, nor because we may have someone nominated who wasn’t a party member. This primary is historic because there are two very different paths taken to get the nomination. On the surface Secretary Clinton’s campaign looks very traditional, and Senator Sanders’ looks radically new. To me, it’s actually the opposite.
Secretary Clinton is succeeding where Jeb? failed. She amassed an incredible monetary war chest before anyone else even announced they were going to run. She has successfully sought out support among key leaders among labor unions, current and former elected officials in the party and other social organizations. All of this support should have intimidated anyone from having any support for their own run at the nomination. John-Ellis-Bush-Bush tried to do this, IMO Secretary Clinton has largely accomplished this.
Senator Sanders on the other hand has a lifetime record of strong liberal principles which used to attract the most voters to the Democratic Party. He has attacked republicans for their version of “family values” and “strong foreign policy” with positions that “New Democrats” were taught to fear. Senator Sanders campaign has been focused on small donations, rather than bundling parties and <wink> unaffiliated super PACs.
So what IMO makes Secretary Clinton's campaign radically new? The elimination of voter input into the nomination process. If Secretary Clinton succeeds, why will any future Democratic nominee attempt to get to know the average voter? Why listen to ordinary Democrats (or Americans for that matter) when you only have to amass money (enough to outspend your opponents) use the momentum of monetary success to get support of leaders before the primary even starts, and reduce the average voter to easily stereotyped blocks (Women, Blacks, LGBT, Latinos, blue collar, “hard working rural Whites”, etc.) with leaders that can be impressed by your cash raising acumen.
What makes Senator Sanders campaign traditional? Rather than running away from traditional liberal values, he embraces them, and has all his life. Senator Sanders listens to average voters, even when the cameras are off, and even when he’s not running for office (Brunch with Bernie is a call-in segment on the Thom Hartmann radio show and has been for years). Because of his real commitment to his values, Senator Sanders doesn’t have to worry about contradicting himself in videos. In short, working to earn your votes matters more than cash.
I see it this way: if Senator Sanders wins the nomination, we can see a return to what used to be core Democratic Party principles. Helping the people in our country who need it most yet receive the least. A realization that our justice system is biased and dangerous unless you’re economically insulated. The acceptance that our wars damage average Americans who see no benefit from that “racket”(hats off to General Butler).
If Secretary Clinton wins, then we ordinary voters are further marginalized. In future primaries we can cast our vote for the sole remaining candidate who has successfully out-raised their competition. After all, you wouldn’t want to throw your vote away, right?
If you’ve read through this, thanks.
TLDR? The short version: Senator Sanders is trying to earn our votes, Secretary Clinton is trying to win the primary regardless of how we individual voters may feel about her candidacy.
Posted by That Guy 888 | Wed Nov 25, 2015, 03:46 AM (22 replies)
Would it be possible (if it isn't already) to have some sort of notification/announcement email or post to provide more awareness of off year elections? Maybe through pinned posts by places/state or DU Mail if you're subscribed to a group(don't know how difficult or time consuming that might be)
I'm in Texas, and the local media is a bit light on ballot info, last day to register to vote in the election, early voting dates, and election day notification. For instance, we have a Texas Constitutional Amendment election coming up and it would be good to get as many DU members out voting in all elections possible.
Posted by That Guy 888 | Sat Oct 24, 2015, 03:01 AM (1 replies)