The Rockhouse contention is Hillary Clinton destroyed the concept of centrism in the context of the Democratic Party for at least, oh, the next thousand years.
Tip: candidates supported by Our Revolution have been winning 60% or better of political races. The Centrists are going down but do count on more screeching from those vipers before they go.
Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The Democratic establishment is desperately trying to formulate a narrative that gives them a mandate to maintain their political power in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ supporters holding Democrats accountable and building an infrastructure to take over or replace the Democratic Party. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and wealthy donors are pouring their resources, finances, and hopes into Georgia special election congressional candidate Jon Ossoff. While the DCCC received criticism for failing to provide substantive support to special congressional elections in Kansas and Montana, where both Democratic candidates were backed by Sanders, the DCCC has doubled down on the party establishment’s preferred strategy of targeting wealthy suburbs.
Observer: Democratic Elites and DCCC Try to Resuscitate Centrism
In English, they didn't learn one damn thing from 2016 and will be over as a political entity of any singular value as a result. If we want something which only curries favor with the rich, we'll get a dog.
We of the Socialist Left don't particularly care what kind of dancing neoliberals / Centrists do since we have no reason to trust them after all the flip-flopping about on the beach and their simple gullibility regarding Russian collusion, etc. They're simply not good credit risks, particularly with political capital.
Here you have the gist of it.
One of the major problems with the DCCC’s strategy to capitalize on Romney voters that switched to Hillary Clinton in 2016 is that this shift toward the center drove the Democratic Party into the ground in the first place. Areas of the country have been widely ignored and economically abandoned. The wealth and income inequality gap continues to widen and wages for the working, middle class and low income Americans remain stagnant. Getting Ossoff in office so that the Democratic leadership can add another moderate and tout it as a victory does nothing to solve the underlying problems of the Democratic Party and Americans. Establishment politics are not the solution; they are the problem. Indeed, Ossoff’s appeal is predicated on trying to “make Trump furious.” He’s branded himself as fiscally conservative and has spoken about curbing “wasteful spending” in order to win over moderate Republicans. Instead of addressing the issues that divide Americans, he toes the line between Democrats and Republicans. As Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi recently wrote, “The true divide in the population has never been between Republicans and Democrats, but between haves and have-nots.”
- Observer
The approach with Ossoff is just more of the same insofar as it's weak, ineffective, and is only an attempt to maintain a status quo which sucks mightily for a growing percentage of the country. Liberalism has not ever been about maintaining a status quo since you can get that kind of simplistic thinking from a clock.
As the divide between haves and have-nots widens, Democrats ignore voters in favor of their wealthy donors, who would rather see the party pour resources into a Republican-lite rather than a candidate who would embrace policies that would help working, middle class and low income Americans. A strategy that depends on record fundraising and coasting off of anti-Trump rhetoric isn’t sustainable for Democrats’ survival nor is rebuilding the party with corporate, fiscally conservative Democrats that lead to the decline of the Democratic Party in the first place.
- Observer
The idea of the Republican-lite Party is the way Hillary Clinton and neoliberal aspirants before her torpedoed the party since they sucked as Republicans and also sucked as Democrats. That culminated in an ugly ink blot in history in which the Republican-lites never tried to do anything about taxes to try to mitigate the problem and instead have kept pouring money down the rathole with ever-increasing fervor.
There are those who saved up, say, a few million during their working careers and they're the meat shields for the ultimate filth at the top who have drawn up most of the capital in the Western world. Clinton tried to play into that but wound up a ridiculous caricature of a Democrat which showed Monty Python's view of the party just came true.
Bernie Sander is and remains the obvious choice for the Socialist Left since he doesn't waver; he doesn't bob and weave; he supported the $15.00 minimum wage from the start. None of those things were true regarding Hillary Clinton nor her predecessors, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Republicans during the period were rubbish and nothing more than second-rate Reagan surrogates who, coincidentally, was also rubbish. It was during Reagan's administration that America again escalated reckless militarized imperialism and it hasn't stopped over thirty years later without even much of a deviation in the trail, regardless of administration, since that time.
The general cop regarding that aspect is Bill Clinton didn't spend so much on the military ... but he also didn't drop it that much either. The overall trend never stopped and was never seriously interrupted as has clearly been shown by twenty years of pointless slaughter in the Middle East. Barack Obama delivered the biggest improvement to nuclear weapons technology in decades with the B-61 mod 12. (WIKI: B61 nuclear bomb)
In any case, by killing Glass-Steagal, Bill Clinton did more damage to America than Russians could do in a lifetime if they were of a mind to do anything at all and there's no evidence they are notwithstanding the Clintatonic confustication on the matter. The unleashing of the McCarthy Red-baiting Cold War again by Clinton cost another generation lost to pseudo-political hell and, get this, they're proud of themselves as they wave flags with great vim and vigor.
Kee-rist
Tip: candidates supported by Our Revolution have been winning 60% or better of political races. The Centrists are going down but do count on more screeching from those vipers before they go.
Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The Democratic establishment is desperately trying to formulate a narrative that gives them a mandate to maintain their political power in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ supporters holding Democrats accountable and building an infrastructure to take over or replace the Democratic Party. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and wealthy donors are pouring their resources, finances, and hopes into Georgia special election congressional candidate Jon Ossoff. While the DCCC received criticism for failing to provide substantive support to special congressional elections in Kansas and Montana, where both Democratic candidates were backed by Sanders, the DCCC has doubled down on the party establishment’s preferred strategy of targeting wealthy suburbs.
Observer: Democratic Elites and DCCC Try to Resuscitate Centrism
In English, they didn't learn one damn thing from 2016 and will be over as a political entity of any singular value as a result. If we want something which only curries favor with the rich, we'll get a dog.
We of the Socialist Left don't particularly care what kind of dancing neoliberals / Centrists do since we have no reason to trust them after all the flip-flopping about on the beach and their simple gullibility regarding Russian collusion, etc. They're simply not good credit risks, particularly with political capital.
Here you have the gist of it.
One of the major problems with the DCCC’s strategy to capitalize on Romney voters that switched to Hillary Clinton in 2016 is that this shift toward the center drove the Democratic Party into the ground in the first place. Areas of the country have been widely ignored and economically abandoned. The wealth and income inequality gap continues to widen and wages for the working, middle class and low income Americans remain stagnant. Getting Ossoff in office so that the Democratic leadership can add another moderate and tout it as a victory does nothing to solve the underlying problems of the Democratic Party and Americans. Establishment politics are not the solution; they are the problem. Indeed, Ossoff’s appeal is predicated on trying to “make Trump furious.” He’s branded himself as fiscally conservative and has spoken about curbing “wasteful spending” in order to win over moderate Republicans. Instead of addressing the issues that divide Americans, he toes the line between Democrats and Republicans. As Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi recently wrote, “The true divide in the population has never been between Republicans and Democrats, but between haves and have-nots.”
- Observer
The approach with Ossoff is just more of the same insofar as it's weak, ineffective, and is only an attempt to maintain a status quo which sucks mightily for a growing percentage of the country. Liberalism has not ever been about maintaining a status quo since you can get that kind of simplistic thinking from a clock.
As the divide between haves and have-nots widens, Democrats ignore voters in favor of their wealthy donors, who would rather see the party pour resources into a Republican-lite rather than a candidate who would embrace policies that would help working, middle class and low income Americans. A strategy that depends on record fundraising and coasting off of anti-Trump rhetoric isn’t sustainable for Democrats’ survival nor is rebuilding the party with corporate, fiscally conservative Democrats that lead to the decline of the Democratic Party in the first place.
- Observer
The idea of the Republican-lite Party is the way Hillary Clinton and neoliberal aspirants before her torpedoed the party since they sucked as Republicans and also sucked as Democrats. That culminated in an ugly ink blot in history in which the Republican-lites never tried to do anything about taxes to try to mitigate the problem and instead have kept pouring money down the rathole with ever-increasing fervor.
There are those who saved up, say, a few million during their working careers and they're the meat shields for the ultimate filth at the top who have drawn up most of the capital in the Western world. Clinton tried to play into that but wound up a ridiculous caricature of a Democrat which showed Monty Python's view of the party just came true.
Bernie Sander is and remains the obvious choice for the Socialist Left since he doesn't waver; he doesn't bob and weave; he supported the $15.00 minimum wage from the start. None of those things were true regarding Hillary Clinton nor her predecessors, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Republicans during the period were rubbish and nothing more than second-rate Reagan surrogates who, coincidentally, was also rubbish. It was during Reagan's administration that America again escalated reckless militarized imperialism and it hasn't stopped over thirty years later without even much of a deviation in the trail, regardless of administration, since that time.
The general cop regarding that aspect is Bill Clinton didn't spend so much on the military ... but he also didn't drop it that much either. The overall trend never stopped and was never seriously interrupted as has clearly been shown by twenty years of pointless slaughter in the Middle East. Barack Obama delivered the biggest improvement to nuclear weapons technology in decades with the B-61 mod 12. (WIKI: B61 nuclear bomb)
In any case, by killing Glass-Steagal, Bill Clinton did more damage to America than Russians could do in a lifetime if they were of a mind to do anything at all and there's no evidence they are notwithstanding the Clintatonic confustication on the matter. The unleashing of the McCarthy Red-baiting Cold War again by Clinton cost another generation lost to pseudo-political hell and, get this, they're proud of themselves as they wave flags with great vim and vigor.
Kee-rist
No comments:
Post a Comment