merrily
merrily's JournalThere is are several so called third party runs, including Johnson/Weld and Jill Stein
in the Libertarian and Green Parties, respectively.
IMO, we need to stop using the term "third party."
First, it is hopelessly inaccurate. Many national political parties exist besides the two largest. In 2008, six parties ran a candidate for President: Constitution, Democratic, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Republican. In 2000, it was Constitution, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law and Republican. I am not sure what, if anything, the Working Families Party did those years.
Second, using it again and again as though it were accurate keeps re-branding in our minds the falsehood that the two largest political parties are the only ones, unless someone suddenly pops up to tilt at windmills.
We needed to wake up back in 1985, but we didn't. Now that the Democratic Party chooses its Presidential nominee eight years in advance, and has fensies on incumbents, we really need to wake up, look around and stop reinforcing falsehoods in our own minds.
So, what made the news yesterday?
Ex-Aide to Hillary Clinton Testifies About Email Server
By ERIC LICHTBLAUMAY 18, 2016
WASHINGTON — A former aide to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state testified behind closed doors for two hours Wednesday in the first in a series of depositions that are likely to raise more questions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server just as she prepares for an election campaign against Donald J. Trump.
The former aide, Lewis A. Lukens, testified under oath about his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton’s private email system as part of a lawsuit brought against the State Department by a conservative legal advocacy group, Judicial Watch.
At least five other officials — including two of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin — are also scheduled to testify in the lawsuit over the next six weeks in what promises to be an unwelcome distraction for the Clinton campaign.
The last deposition is set for June 29 — less than a month before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, where Mrs. Clinton is widely expected to win her party’s nomination for president over challenger Bernie Sanders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/ex-aide-to-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html?1=0&_r=1
What was the big topic of discussion yesterday, though? The NOT throwing of a chair, supposedly by a supporter of Sanders.
And before that, what was the big political news possibly affecting the primary?
Notify Californians to register DEMOCRAT, not NPP
My best understanding:
1. Voters who are registered as not affiliated with any political party (indie) seem likelier to vote in the primary for Bernie than for Hillary.
2. In California, voters who register as not affiliated with any political party are referred to as NPP (No Party Preference) voters.
3. In California, each political party decides if NPP voters can vote in each primary.
4. The Democratic Party is allowing NPP voters to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary, BUT
5. Poll workers will be giving only provisional ballots to NPP voters who request a Democratic ballot.(hat tip madflorian)
6. I just emailed everyone I know in California to be sure they are registered Democratic, not NPP. (I had emailed them only last week, telling them that being registered either Democratic or NPP would work.)
Here is a link to more information about California's NPP voters, which is quite unusual. If you are in California or communicating with anyone there, PLEASE read it. [url]http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-preference/[/url]
MAY 23 is the deadline to register to vote in the California Primary and May 31 is the deadline for absentee ballots.
Other info: [url]http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/june-7-2016-presidential-primary-election/[/url]
If anyone knows of better information that is in this post, please post on this thread and I will edit the post as I learn more. Thank you!
Here's the video revealing that the instruction about the provisional ballot is in the manual used for training poll workers.
[url]https://twitter.com/BernieVolunteer/status/733147225040113664[/url]
Dear Bernie Group. I must come before you very sorrowfully...again.
Remember when I sadly informed you that your candidate had ended an interview with a reporter? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=151508
Well, I have much worse news now. Apparently, you are a very clueless lot, bless your hearts,* despite every media outlet drumming this into you. I must solemnly inform you (brace yourselves): Every Presidential hopeful does not win a Presidential primary. One wins; the rest lose. The same is true of the general election. Even if you keep donating, Bernie may not be President and the only thing you will have gotten for your money will quite a few incredibly wonderful sea changes in U.S. politics. (Please see "Sea changes in US politics, thanks to Senator Sanders and his supporters" http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280109865 )
Only a few primaries and caucuses remain in 2016. Bernie is behind in pledged delegates. On the other hand, California alone has hundreds of pledged delegates to apportion. Also, something or other about Hillary or Bill may finally convince the Party PTB that Hillary will be a weaker candidate in the general than they had imagined. (BTW, Today Show this morning reported that Trump is only 3 points behind Hillary nationally. I'm guessing that's in the neighborhood of margin of error.) There is even a chance that the Democratic nomination could end up being between Bernie and Biden at the Convention in Philadelphia. Who knows? If people can nominate Trump, anything is possible this year, but, again, there is no guaranty Bernie will win, even if you keep donating.. There is also no guaranty he will lose. After all, Bernie did start out 65 points, hundreds of endorsements and millions of dollars behind and, for some reason, one state party after another has been falling short on that whole "fair elections" thingie. Yet, Hillary still is not the nominee.
Finally, when donating for any cause, please use common sense and don't send the only money you have for groceries or rent or the mortgage. I know that I don't want that for you and I very much doubt Bernie does.
Are we crystal?
As for me and mine, we are with Bernie and his sea change agenda as long as he wants us and then with whoever takes up his torch. And I am still donating. (To all internet altruists: I have it on good authority--several, actually--that I am capable of deciding how I wish to spend my own money and I know I am better able to decide how to spend my own money than someone who has never met me, so relax, k?)
What you do or don't do is entirely up to you. However, if you do want to donate, the minimum donation is $1 and here are the links:
DU ActBlue Link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie
JPR ActBlue link: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jackpineradicals4bernie
*Although I have lived only in three Northeastern states, I am, of course, using this brief prayer that God bless your heart as condescending snark. I don't know why you lot did not give up on your candidate when I told you that he had literally ended an interview with a reporter. I certainly hope you've finally learned your damned lesson. And speaking of lessons, I leave you (for now) with a variation on a Third Way classic: Never let a tiny turd in the punchbowl become the enemy of no turd at all.
People didn't know about this? A lot of the cameras on streets are equipped with audio.
Thank you, Homeland Security!
Also, the government developed microphones that can listen from outside buildings like, oh, I don't know, your HOME, from outside. I learned of this technology when I read something--don't remember where--about Justice Brennan's telling a someone to lower his or her voice and explaining that they could be overheard. I don't know when he said that, but he died in 1997, so I imagine the technology to be much more powerful than it was whenever he mentioned this.
They can also plant bugs, read your emails, follow your online activities, tap your phone, un-encrypt your phone, follow and/or film you as you perambulate the streets of your city or town (think all the pics you've seen of the Tsarnaevs as they traveled parallel to route or the Boston Marathon), track your car with a GPS device and do lots of other great things, often with no warrant or a warrant obtained after the fact. And then, there are all those private security cameras in every store, many workplaces, etc.
It's just like Paul Revere and all our other heroes who demanded that the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution always said never, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what the fuck is your problem with all this crap?
Dedicated to the Fourth Amendment, with love and respect.
Well, the origin was a conservative group in Jackson Hole, Wyoming
that was horrified by Nixon's plan of an employer mandate and no individual mandate. Then it became the Heritage Foundation Plan, then Billarycare, then Romneycare, then Obamacare, with Rahm overseeing the process. Then, much as DU loves to blame Lieberman, the people cited upthread made it even worse.
Where were the great policy reasons supposed to come from? But, never let a stuff on shingle sandwich become the enemy of no sandwich at all! 
Remember how it was supposed to be the first step toward Medicare for all, but now Medicare for All is impossible and shame on Bernie Sanders for pretending otherwise? Good times.
David Brock: Mr. Right, Mr. Right Now, or Boogie Man?
[CENTER][SIZE=4]David Brock: Mr. Right, Mr. Right Now, or Boogie Man?[/SIZE]
[IMG] [/IMG][/CENTER]
Reading between the lines of the wikipedia article about David Brock, excerpted below, raises Oh! so many questions--and red flags (no pun intended). For example, the article dubs someone so connected to the Clintons as the most influential operative in the entire Democratic Party, rather than only as one of the many tools in the Clintons' shed. Also remarkable is describing Brock or any of the entities that he runs as "progressive" or "liberal" or "left wing," when his professional life has for years been devoted primarily to the Clintons, who, in turn, have spent much of their political careers taking the Democratic Party rightward.
[QUOTE]David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American political operative, author, and commentator who founded the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[1] He has been described by Time magazine as "one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party" [2] He had been a journalist during the 1990s[3] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter, but in the late 1990s switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[4] He has since also founded super PACs called American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record, has become a board member of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, and has been elected chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The Nation has described Brock as a "conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder;"[6] National Review has called him a "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin";[7] and Politico has profiled him as a "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader."[/QUOTE]
From the excerpt, we also gather as well that Brock is more political than principled: He smeared law professor and attorney, Anita Hill, who claimed to have endured sexual harassment from her employer, now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, but championed Paula Jones, a clerk for the state of Arkansas whose lawsuit made a sexual harassment claim against former Governor of Arkansas and then President Bill Clinton. During a relatively recent interview, Brock, now working on behalf of a candidate whose most loyal demographic is older women, rather conveniently expressed regret about having done a hit piece on Hill. If asked, I think he would have said he also regrets having written Troopergate , but media doesn't seem to ask revealing questions of establishment figures. How media merits its First Amendment protection these day is beyond me, but I digress....
Not long after writing Troopergate, Brock accepted an advance of $1 million to write a book about then First Lady Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE] The expectation was that it would be a takedown in the style of his writings on Anita Hill and Bill Clinton. The project, however, took a different turn, and the resulting book, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, proved to be largely sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another bestseller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point: He had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. The National Review proposed another theory: since “no liberal source in the world would talk to Brock,” he could not collect the kind of information he was after. NR also maintained that while writing the book, Brock had been “seduced” by Sidney Blumenthal, a prominent champion and friend of the Clinton circle.[12] A political enemy had alleged Brock "decided he liked the style and corrupt politics of the Clintons."[/QUOTE]
Of course, Clinton email and Foundation scandals have recently placed Blumenthal's name in the news, but, again, I digress....
Brock claims to have been politically liberal until college. I have met people who were Republicans, but who went left politically in college, but I have never met anyone who claims to have entered college a liberal and gone to the political right while in college--and Brock went to Berkeley, no less. However, in order to have this post move on (no pun intended), let's say his conversion version is gospel. Brock's boomeranging back to the left seems to have begun somewhere between Troopergate and turning a wannabe hit piece about Hillary into a 1996 "nothingburger" (his term for the email scandal and F.B.I. investigations). Seriously? Dear reader, does that seem at all plausible to you? How many rightists do you know, or know of, or are able to imagine, who would have been turned left(ish) by either of the Clintons circa 1996?
Of course, the Paula Jones affair (no pun intended) led to the Monica Lewinsky matter (no pun intended), which, in turn, led to to the Clinton impeachment, aka possibly the worst nightmare of a middle school or high school history teacher. I have heard of Democrats who went right because of those things, but not of a Republican, especially a prominent, "investigative" Republican, who was driven left by them. (Riddle me this: What is better than getting a million bucks to write a hit piece about a Clinton? I'm guessing millions of dollars every year in salaries from various Clinton-serving entities, plus indulgent expense accounts and other perqs?) And now, we have the Koch brothers hinting that Hillary may be a better choice for President than Trump? After Donald Trump claimed that Bill Clinton encouraged him to run for President? Seriously? But, again, I digress....
I don't blame necessarily fault Brock for a primary campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination that has been tarnished "tinged" with racial and religious anti-Semitic bigotry. We saw appeals to racial and religious bigotry during the 2008 Hillary primary campaign in which, as far as I know, Brock did not have a leading role. Even the 2016 mainstream media and social media blitzkriegs on "Bernie bros" had their precursors in 2008 attacks on the racially- and misandrically-tinged, "Obama boys." Those themes in the 2016 campaign are therefore "merely" déjà vu vu (sic), albeit on steroids. However, the 2016 false flag tactics make Rove seem unimaginative and timid, including hiring "Hillary supporters" on message boards and social media, Hillary supporters, real and/or hired, pretending to support U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders online, in social media and in mainstream media (and possibly IRL), etc.
I will not claim that Brock "outAtwaters" Lee Atwater, who has been understudied and/or studied by Karl Rove all other political operatives. (Atwater famously or infamously claimed a different kind of conversion as his life was ending, when he apologized for, among other things, the "naked cruelty" of his tactics against then-Democratic Presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.) However, the distastefulness of Hillary's 2016 primary campaign goes well beyond even her 2008 primary campaign, both in quantity and in absence of quality: It is redolent with eau de Brock.
While this is unlikely to cost the Clintons and/or Brock as much as I believe it should, it is very likely costing the Democratic Party, the DNC and its chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (now facing the first primary challenge of her Congressional career from Professor Tim Canova). And, after all, wasn't hurting the left the goal of the Kochs and other "big spenders" when they helped Hillary and Bill Clinton, Al From and Will Marshall found the Democratic Leadership Council? And wasn't that also Brock's goal from at least his college days until he began championing the Clintons? Perne in a gyre!
Sources:
Yeats, William Butler, Sailing to Byzantium [url]https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/sailing-byzantium[/url]
Facebook post of New Hampshire State Representative Timothy Smith, datelined September 23, 2015 at 8:13 a.m. (Democratic politicians under pressure to support "another candidate," rather than Senator Sanders)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater[/url]
[url]www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?5447-Bernie-Supporters-are-the-worst-human-beings-in-the-USA-if-not-the-world-STOP-IT[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?3326-IGNORANT-Bernie-Bros-must-END-their-name-calling!!![/url]
[url]http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/[/url]
[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Democratic_Leadership_Council[/url]
[url]http://www.democrats.com/node/7789[/url]
[url]http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html[/url]
[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/2010037/hillary-clinton-buying-twitter-followers-audit-says-yes-and-facebook-fans-too/[/url] (twitter and facebook)
[url]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207emo445569691773&set=a.1644207439415.84086.1663748386&type=3&theater[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?6730-Two-videos-you-must-see-Possible-infiltration-of-Sanders-campaign&highlight=sourcewatch[/url]
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518537/-Clinton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls[/url]
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/bill-clinton-denies-calling-donald-trump-2016-run-stephen-colbert-214499[/url]
[url]https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/03/behind-the-clinton-campaign-dark-money-allies/[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?2795-Just-realized-that-David-Brock-owns-Blue-Nation-Review[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?3459-Bubba-was-not-impeached-for-a-bj[/url]
David Brock: Mr. Right, Mr. Right Now, or Boogie Man?
[CENTER][SIZE=4]David Brock: Mr. Right, Mr. Right Now, or Boogie Man?[/SIZE]
[IMG] [/IMG][/CENTER]
Reading between the lines of the wikipedia article about David Brock, excerpted below, raises Oh! so many questions--and red flags (no pun intended). For example, the article dubs someone so connected to the Clintons as the most influential operative in the entire Democratic Party, rather than only as one of the many tools in the Clintons' shed. Also remarkable is describing Brock or any of the entities that he runs as "progressive" or "liberal" or "left wing," when his professional life has for years been devoted primarily to the Clintons, who, in turn, have spent much of their political careers taking the Democratic Party rightward.
[QUOTE]David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American political operative, author, and commentator who founded the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[1] He has been described by Time magazine as "one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party" [2] He had been a journalist during the 1990s[3] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter, but in the late 1990s switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[4] He has since also founded super PACs called American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record, has become a board member of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, and has been elected chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The Nation has described Brock as a "conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder;"[6] National Review has called him a "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin";[7] and Politico has profiled him as a "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader."[/QUOTE]
From the excerpt, we also gather as well that Brock is more political than principled: He smeared law professor and attorney, Anita Hill, who claimed to have endured sexual harassment from her employer, now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, but championed Paula Jones, a clerk for the state of Arkansas whose lawsuit made a sexual harassment claim against former Governor of Arkansas and then President Bill Clinton. During a relatively recent interview, Brock, now working on behalf of a candidate whose most loyal demographic is older women, rather conveniently expressed regret about having done a hit piece on Hill. If asked, I think he would have said he also regrets having written Troopergate , but media doesn't seem to ask revealing questions of establishment figures. How media merits its First Amendment protection these day is beyond me, but I digress....
Not long after writing Troopergate, Brock accepted an advance of $1 million to write a book about then First Lady Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE] The expectation was that it would be a takedown in the style of his writings on Anita Hill and Bill Clinton. The project, however, took a different turn, and the resulting book, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, proved to be largely sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another bestseller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point: He had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. The National Review proposed another theory: since “no liberal source in the world would talk to Brock,” he could not collect the kind of information he was after. NR also maintained that while writing the book, Brock had been “seduced” by Sidney Blumenthal, a prominent champion and friend of the Clinton circle.[12] A political enemy had alleged Brock "decided he liked the style and corrupt politics of the Clintons."[/QUOTE]
Of course, Clinton email and Foundation scandals have recently placed Blumenthal's name in the news, but, again, I digress....
Brock claims to have been politically liberal until college. I have met people who were Republicans, but who went left politically in college, but I have never met anyone who claims to have entered college a liberal and gone to the political right while in college--and Brock went to Berkeley, no less. However, in order to have this post move on (no pun intended), let's say his conversion version is gospel. Brock's boomeranging back to the left seems to have begun somewhere between Troopergate and turning a wannabe hit piece about Hillary into a 1996 "nothingburger" (his term for the email scandal and F.B.I. investigations). Seriously? Dear reader, does that seem at all plausible to you? How many rightists do you know, or know of, or are able to imagine, who would have been turned left(ish) by either of the Clintons circa 1996?
Of course, the Paula Jones affair (no pun intended) led to the Monica Lewinsky matter (no pun intended), which, in turn, led to to the Clinton impeachment, aka possibly the worst nightmare of a middle school or high school history teacher. I have heard of Democrats who went right because of those things, but not of a Republican, especially a prominent, "investigative" Republican, who was driven left by them. (Riddle me this: What is better than getting a million bucks to write a hit piece about a Clinton? I'm guessing millions of dollars every year in salaries from various Clinton-serving entities, plus indulgent expense accounts and other perqs?) And now, we have the Koch brothers hinting that Hillary may be a better choice for President than Trump? After Donald Trump claimed that Bill Clinton encouraged him to run for President? Seriously? But, again, I digress....
I don't blame necessarily fault Brock for a primary campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination that has been tarnished "tinged" with racial and religious anti-Semitic bigotry. We saw appeals to racial and religious bigotry during the 2008 Hillary primary campaign in which, as far as I know, Brock did not have a leading role. Even the 2016 mainstream media and social media blitzkriegs on "Bernie bros" had their precursors in 2008 attacks on the racially- and misandrically-tinged, "Obama boys." Those themes in the 2016 campaign are therefore "merely" déjà vu vu (sic), albeit on steroids. However, the 2016 false flag tactics make Rove seem unimaginative and timid, including hiring "Hillary supporters" on message boards and social media, Hillary supporters, real and/or hired, pretending to support U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders online, in social media and in mainstream media (and possibly IRL), etc.
I will not claim that Brock "outAtwaters" Lee Atwater, who has been understudied and/or studied by Karl Rove all other political operatives. (Atwater famously or infamously claimed a different kind of conversion as his life was ending, when he apologized for, among other things, the "naked cruelty" of his tactics against then-Democratic Presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.) However, the distastefulness of Hillary's 2016 primary campaign goes well beyond even her 2008 primary campaign, both in quantity and in absence of quality: It is redolent with eau de Brock.
While this is unlikely to cost the Clintons and/or Brock as much as I believe it should, it is very likely costing the Democratic Party, the DNC and its chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (now facing the first primary challenge of her Congressional career from Professor Tim Canova). And, after all, wasn't hurting the left the goal of the Kochs and other "big spenders" when they helped Hillary and Bill Clinton, Al From and Will Marshall found the Democratic Leadership Council? And wasn't that also Brock's goal from at least his college days until he began championing the Clintons? Perne in a gyre!
Sources:
Yeats, William Butler, Sailing to Byzantium [url]https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/sailing-byzantium[/url]
Facebook post of New Hampshire State Representative Timothy Smith, datelined September 23, 2015 at 8:13 a.m. (Democratic politicians under pressure to support "another candidate," rather than Senator Sanders)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater[/url]
[url]www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?5447-Bernie-Supporters-are-the-worst-human-beings-in-the-USA-if-not-the-world-STOP-IT[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?3326-IGNORANT-Bernie-Bros-must-END-their-name-calling!!![/url]
[url]http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/[/url]
[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Democratic_Leadership_Council[/url]
[url]http://www.democrats.com/node/7789[/url]
[url]http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html[/url]
[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/2010037/hillary-clinton-buying-twitter-followers-audit-says-yes-and-facebook-fans-too/[/url] (twitter and facebook)
[url]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207emo445569691773&set=a.1644207439415.84086.1663748386&type=3&theater[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?6730-Two-videos-you-must-see-Possible-infiltration-of-Sanders-campaign&highlight=sourcewatch[/url]
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518537/-Clinton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls[/url]
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/bill-clinton-denies-calling-donald-trump-2016-run-stephen-colbert-214499[/url]
[url]https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/03/behind-the-clinton-campaign-dark-money-allies/[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?2795-Just-realized-that-David-Brock-owns-Blue-Nation-Review[/url]
[url]http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?3459-Bubba-was-not-impeached-for-a-bj[/url]
Let's see. After Nixon were Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Obama.
I don't know how liberal Ford was, but Nixon was no liberal. Eisenhower and Nixon were part of the Republican shell shock resulting from having Democrats win five consecutive Presidential elections, with one man winning four of them something that was, and probably always will be, a one of a kind event in US history. It wasn't that Eisenhower and Nixon were liberal. Clearly, they were not. It was that they both wanted to be re-elected, they both wanted their stinking Hoover Party to have a shot at the White House after they left it, and they both had Democratic Congresses, courtesy of the very long and long-lived coattails of FDR.
Look into Nixon's history before he was Ike's VP. He was far from a liberal.
LIke the Congress we had in 2006 and 2008 that never passed a public option, EFCA,
election reform, stiffer penalties for election fraud, etc."
A Democratic President was supposedly off the hook for anything and everything because a massively Democratic Congress wouldn't do the correct things and a Democratic President supposedly has no power over members of the Party he heads; and Democratic Congress was supposedly off the hook because conservative Democrats. Yet, that is the only kind the DCCC and the DSCC recruits.
So I guess we really need a Democratic President, a Democratic majority in the House and a Senate of 100 Democrats before we can before we can hope to hold any Democrat in Congress or the Oval Office accountable? Good luck with that!
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
