We live in the world that exists, in the US, as it is currently constituted. In
this world, each of us must make choices among existing possibilities. There
is, in this current US, no functioning party composed of the working class and
others who are opposed to the two major parties, that has enough money, power,
or members, to accomplish anything. Third party candidates can't even
participate in presidential debates without meeting the impossible requirements
set by the Republican and Democratic parties. And in America today, there is
not the mentality that will bring masses of people into the streets to force
politicians to change what they are doing. So that is why people are trying to
figure out how to take over the mechanism of the Democratic Party. That choice
seems to many, more pragmatic, than dreaming about a new party.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 11:47 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: How Corporate Democrats Aim to Stifle Criticism
There exists the danger of becoming bogged down in the swamp. The fact is that
there is only one functioning political party, the Republicrat Corporate
Capitalists. There is the potential for a second political party, but as of
now it has no name. This "No Name Party" is mostly the Working Class and the
Forgotten Class, once called the Lower Class. But at the moment the
Republicrats are doing a masterful job of keeping the American People in
turmoil.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/26/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How Corporate Democrats Aim to Stifle Criticism By Norman Solomon,
Reader Supported News
26 December 18
Well-informed public discussion is a major hazard for Democratic Party
elites now eager to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the 2020
presidential nomination. A clear focus on key issues can bring to
light the big political differences between Sanders and the party's
corporate-friendly candidates. One way to muddy the waters is to
condemn people for pointing out facts that make those candidates look
bad.
National polling shows that the U.S. public strongly favors bold
policy proposals that Sanders has been championing for a long time. On
issues ranging from climate change to Medicare for All to tuition-free
public college to Wall Street power, the party's base has been moving
leftward, largely propelled by an upsurge of engagement from
progressive young people.
This momentum is a threat to the forces accustomed to dominating the
Democratic Party.
In recent weeks, Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke has become a
lightning rod in a gathering political storm - largely because of the
vast hype about him from mass media and Democratic power brokers. At
such times, when spin goes into overdrive, we need incisive factual
information. Investigative journalist David Sirota provided it in a
deeply researched December 20 article, which The Guardian published
under the headline "Beto O'Rourke Frequently Voted for Republican
Legislation, Analysis Reveals."
Originating from the nonprofit Capital & Main news organization, the
piece reported that "even as O'Rourke represented one of the most
solidly Democratic congressional districts in the United States, he
has frequently voted against the majority of House Democrats in
support of Republican bills and Trump administration priorities."
Progressives have good reasons to like some of O'Rourke's positions.
But Sirota's reporting drilled down into his voting record, reviewing
"the 167 votes O'Rourke has cast in the House in opposition to the
majority of his own party during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many
of those votes were not progressive dissents alongside other
left-leaning lawmakers, but instead votes to help pass
Republican-sponsored legislation."
The meticulous and in-depth reporting by Sirota was a public service,
but some angry reactions were classic instances of blaming the
messenger for the unfavorable news. At times vitriolic, the
denunciations of Sirota came from people who apparently would have
preferred that Congressman O'Rourke's actual voting record remain
shrouded in a hagiographic haze.
But it's better to learn revealing political facts sooner rather than
later.
Thanks to Sirota's coverage, for instance, we now know "O'Rourke has
voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said
reinforced Republicans' anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted
the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump's immigration policy."
The backlash to Sirota's news article was in keeping with a tweet two
weeks earlier from Neera Tanden, the president of the influential and
lavishly funded Center for American Progress, who has long been a
major ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton. On December 6, Tanden went
over-the-top in response to a tweet from Sirota simply mentioning the
fact that O'Rourke "is the #2 recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in
the entire Congress."
Tanden lashed out via Twitter, writing: "Oh look. A supporter of
Bernie Sanders attacking a Democrat. This is seriously dangerous. We
know Trump is in the White House and attacking Dems is doing Trump's
bidding. I hope Senator Sanders repudiates these attacks in 2019."
Such calculated nonsense indicates just how panicky some powerful
corporate Democrats are about Bernie's likely presidential campaign -
and just how anxious they are to protect corporate-oriented candidates
from public scrutiny. The quest is to smother meaningful discussions
of vital issues that should be center stage during the presidential campaign.
Corporate Democrats are gearing up to equate principled, fact-based
critiques of their favored candidates with - in Tanden's words -
"seriously dangerous" attacks that are "doing Trump's bidding." Such
demagogic rhetoric should be thrown in the political trashcan where it
belongs.
This is not only about Beto O'Rourke - it's about the parade of
Democratic contenders lined up to run for president. Should the
candidates that mass media and party elites put forward as
"progressive" be quickly embraced or carefully scrutinized? The question must
be asked and answered.
Email This Page
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org.
He
is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents
and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner