Robert Reich: Wasserman Schultz "Insider Politics Run Amok"

[Hissyspit]

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 11:47 PM - Edit history (3)

From his Facebook page:

Apparently Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, doesn’t care if she alienates Bernie followers. The Sanders campaign had been hoping for a significant role at the Democratic convention, but Wasserman Schultz has picked 75 members of the convention’s key committees -- rules, credentials and platform – and accepted only 3 of Bernie’s choices, failing to acknowledge the proportion of the vote Bernie has won in the primaries and caucuses. Negotiations with the DNC have failed to add any additional Bernie picks to any of the standing committees. Worse yet, she’s named as chairs Hillary backers known for their harsh criticism of Bernie (among them Barnie Frank, as co-chair of the influential Rules Committee).

This is insider politics run amok, at the very time and in the very election that insider politics is disdained – and at the very moment it’s vitally important to unite the Democratic Party. How Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC be so obtuse?

What do you think?

[highprincipleswork]

1. i think she and they are obtuse, and some smarter people better get in charge or there's trouble.

No need for us to be fighting each other, except for those who grip too tightly onto power.

If the Democratic Party unites behind a Progressive candidate and Progressive principles and runs with that, versus turning on its chickenshit heels and disenfranchising large parts of its base, it will win.

[Hortensis]

4. I suspect DWS and the DNC don't have much choice.

The Sanders faction's stance all along has been adversarial; obstructive when obstruction might gain their minority power over the majority, manipulative of rules and rule breaking when that might gain their minority power over the majority.

Sanders demands too much and would not be satisfied with what the winning faction would be likely to be able to agree to. His plan is always to fight for more.

Putting these factionalists on committees in anything like a proportional number (not that that'd be done anyway) would guarantee tremendous strife and failure of the purpose of the convention, and it would embarrass our party tremendously at a time when we need to be recognized as the responsible alternative to the Republicans.

Notably, Sanders ran as an anti-Democrat on the Democratic ticket. Except for 3 handpicked people he liked, Sanders refused to fundraise for and help other Democrats get elected. Sanders made attacking, abusing, threatening unjust lawsuits, and lying about the party a major part of his campaign. That 3 of his people were named to the committees is in fact both a proportional response to his adversarial behavior and refusal to help elect Democrats and recognition that he intends to continue this behavior during the convention.

Some of those who voted for his promises no doubt were unhappy with his tactics and deserve better representation than he can give them. Bernie himself certainly does not deserve more, nor IMO do his many anti-democratic supporters who excused and lied about his tactics all the way.

[highprincipleswork]

5. Listen, I'm a lifelong Democrat, over 47 years, and I stand with Bernie. Furthermore, his

Progressive politics are the way to go this year.

Gestapo tactics and reactionary bullshit is going to cost a lot of Democrats their elections.

This is the year of the outsider, after so many years of bullshit Ronald Reagan genuflecting. Even Trump and those who follow him realize that.

If the Democrats don't realize this, and if they resort to the same old Establishment methods of triangulating and pissing on large parts of what should be their base, they are simply too stupid to govern.

[Hortensis]

9. High, "I'm a lifelong Democrat, over 47 years"

also, and I have always strongly believed in advancing our nation through progressive government policies.

Neither Bernie's capabilities nor his ethics and behavior meet my standards. By a long shot.

It's a shame. I'd still love to have him rally the nation and work with the party to get control of the extremely powerful people who have been sacking our country. The more the people demand that, the more power the Democrats will have to make it happen. But that's up to him.

[highprincipleswork]

10. This is not about Bernie. It is not even about Hillary. Let me attach something that is really

what I'm almost positive it really is all about.

If we can come together to help our Democratic powers that be realize the political implications of this historical connect the dots that I outline here, it won't matter so much who's leading the charge. In fact, we all should be.

It's a way for us to come together and win. And it starts first of all, like most good things, with a fundamental insight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511963569

[Hortensis]

12. Yes! The Reagan Revolution is over, the new Progressive era begun.

We definitely agree on that. Likely the official date the new era began will be considered 2008 with the election of Obama. It is exciting.

Political scientists and other professionals study this stuff constantly, and political and social policy professionals are constantly experiencing and interpreting it for themselves, as well as educating themselves on the results of research. That the conservative wave is in eclipse and what should turn out to be a lengthy liberal progressive era has begun is not news to them.

Also not brand new are plans of Democratic Party leaders and policymakers to achieve large progressive advances. Bernie and Hillary are among them, and of course President Obama, but they are the tip of a very underestimated iceberg. (And as you and I and many others have said, it's never been about Bernie or Hillary themselves.)

Democratic leaders are having tremendous difficulty making others realize what they are trying to do, however. The ultraconservative ideologically driven message of contempt for and disillusionment with government has infected our entire nation, not just the right.

And proving it by results has its own problems. People are angry and frustrated; they want change now and delay is seen as proof that nothing has changed. But he progressive wave didn't make its enemies go away. They're extremely powerful, extremely well entrenched, extremely determined to stop it, and extremely busy at just that.

An analyst once told me at a party that the 17ish-year delay between the GOP's shooting down Hillary's attempt to reform healthcare during her husband's presidency and Obama's finally being able to pass it during his was the expected "textbook" interval based on historical data.

Oh, gotta go get breakfast. I really liked the excitement in your linked post because I share it. As more people come to realize the era of the conservative march backwards has given way to an era of liberal uplift, a lot of the anger should give way to excitement and hope in spite of all the enemies of progressive government are doing to keep that from happening.

[highprincipleswork]

13. Thanks!

[Baobab]

16. Sanders people and America don't understand, ITS HER TURN!

Obama took 2008, Hillary got four years of SOS and 2016.

It's a done deal. Just like health care. The election is just a formality.</sarcasm>

Read paper in my sig- for why I'm outraged.

[Baobab]

17. Hortensis, neither Obama nor Hillary are progressive!

I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but they aren't.

[Hortensis]

23. Baobab, you need a non-generic name

that doesn't require you to relabel or restyle the rest of the political world. It's obviously very confusing.

[immoderate]

27. Hillary is not a progressive. What's confusing you? Hill, like Barack, is a Reaganite.

--imm

[Hortensis]

28. Imo, your name works fine.

Intransigent or Intolerant could do also, but I'm guessing they probably would not be an improvement on Immoderate.

Tell me, Immoderate, if we called you "Progressives" instead of "The Only True Progressives," TORPs for short, then what word would we use instead of "progressives" to describe other progressives and their progressive ideas and plans? If Americans can't talk about an idea, will it grow and thrive or be smothered into oblivion by the "mine!" possessiveness of a few, whose hard-clutched identity would itself fade into obscurity?

See the problem? Of course you need an identity. How about "TORPs," The Only True Progressives, as a possibility? It should satisfy your need to consider yourselves the only true progressives, seems fitting enough to me, and shortens into an easily pronounceable and memorable acronym.

[immoderate]

30. Thanks, immoderate has served me well.

I would think that progressive would not apply to folks who would limit the safety nets, medical care, education, and social security.

Hillary is a moderate. Last thing we need.

--imm

[AzDar]

37. ...

[ViseGrip]

22. And Bill and Hillary's ethical standards don't meet mine. When it comes to their paid jobs

Bernie has shown ethics...while Clinton's both have not.

100 million from mid east leaders into the foundation? you support these ethics that make it impossible for her to represent any of us?

Her server? ooops! war vote? ooopsie again! on and on. "we came, we saw he died".....I will not go on. It's all documented.

And when it comes to ethics, her instance during the debate, that she was under an 'inquiry' and not an investigation, was just clarified by Comey as untrue. They only do investigations.

Now, Rachel Maddow said Scott Walker could not run as he was "under an investigation". She said "Rick Perry cannot run because he is under an investigation". But Hillary? It's okay. Hypocrisy does not know ethics. Look outside the campaigns, and to their records....and bank accounts. Look at the policies we are living under and who signed off on them. Look at who still profits from these policies and these wars. Then, look up the word 'ethics'.

[grasswire]

29. yes, this.

There is no moral equivalency between Bernie and Hillary.

[BillZBubb]

32. Pure clueless, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Sanders is far more a Democrat (the real, old school FDR, New Deal Democrat) than Third Way (not too Democrat, not too Republican) Hillary.

The Third Way was created by Hillary and her cronies to drag the Democratic party to the right. She's on the right wing of the Democratic party. Bernie is right where FDR was.

Bernie wants us to go back to actually being Democrats. That's not too much to ask.

[Hortensis]

35. Bernie would have fought with and very possibly, in that situation,

genuinely hated FDR, the way so many of those on the farther left did. They had a real chance to change everything, the revolution Bernie calls for now, and FDR, the epitome of establishment, cut them out of the decision making because he wasn't interested in any kind of revolution. Instead he joined moderate liberal and moderate conservative progressives to rescue America with programs that would not cost his class anything they couldn't afford and protect their privilege.

You guys like to pretend Bernie's a "true" liberal and that liberal Democrats are practically (or genuinely!) conservative, but that's ridiculous. Bernie has said he was not many times, but you want to hide it -- why apparently you may be the last to know, if then.

Imo, if you had a lick of sense you'd be proud of him for what he is. And yourselves. To your left are confident leftists with integrated values who are proud of who they are and what they believe in.

Here's a further hint: I am a strong liberal, well over on the left of the range of liberals. If I'm not "progressive" enough for you as you like to call it, you're over to my left with Bernie. His ideas are not all that far-left at all because I would support them. However, the silly tendency to reject other progressives suggest that on the subject of cooperation at least you are extremist. Choosing possible failure over joining with liberals to achieve common goals is definitely an extreme behavior.

[BillZBubb]

36. LOL. Revisionist history. Here's a clue, if you support Hillary, you support

the Third Way. That is NOT a liberal agenda, except to a certain degree on social issues. The whole point of the Third Way was to move Democrats to the right.

Spin it however it allows you to assuage your conscience, but you are not supporting a liberal/progressive candidate on bread and butter issues. If you know that, and still support her, then you are not a liberal although you'd like to believe you are.

[Hortensis]

42. Go read a book.

[snowy owl]

39. They have a choice. Trump may sound more democratic than Clinton. He can win.

They need to be careful.

[B Calm]

2. She better start caring, this is the first time in my life I will select none of the above for

President if Hillary continues to cheat her way to the nomination.

[B Calm]

8. The party in the case you haven't noticed is

being taken over by not insane republicans upset with the teabaggery in their party. They come into my party with their Republican values and sense of entitlement demanding that I get the fuck out.

[AgingAmerican]

26. Hillary supporters would rather see Trump win than Bernie

They can't drive Democrats out of the party fast enough, apparently.

[TriplD]

43. I've been sensing this for a while - Trump doesn' threaten the esblishment gravey train

like Bernie does.

These scorched-earth tactics are indicative that they'd rather Trump than Bernie.

[Betty Karlson]

3. I think Debbie is working active for another 2014-style "victory".

I think Debbie pals around with Ross-Lehtinenn too much. And with loansharks too.

I think Debbie doesn't deserve that D behind her name.

[B Calm]

11. Debbie's agenda is to make the Democratic party the new Republican party.

[FlatBaroque]

15. Debbie doesn't have an agenda. She gets instructions.

[djean111]

18. Yep. And she is doing a swell job of it.

Grandson and I cannot wait to switch to unaffiliated, after the Florida primary in August. We will be voting for Grayson, against Murphy (DINO-FL), and then we are out.

[Hissyspit]

14. Ah yes the right-wingish ad hominem talking point

Expressed by someone anonymously on the Internet.

[Hydra]

19. Ironic, isn't it?

The privileged and protected attack the people in the streets by saying, "You eat cake, don't you?"

[BillZBubb]

33. Pulled that one right out of the right wing bag of insults!

I'm sure you know them all.

[pdsimdars]

20. And the Democratic Party has been on a LONG, BIG LOSING streak with her in charge.

[MisterP]

25. 11 Governors, 13 Senators, 69 Reps, 913 state seats, and left with 26% of the electorate

but as long as they can blame the voters they have no reason to think their campaign plans are anything but terrific

[Ferd Berfel]

21. The continued rigging of this Primary will only

speed up the ultimate destruction of the current democratic party. But maybe for this 'suicide run' that's the goal.

We've seen many articles here that suggest, even indicate, that the Clinton (DWS and THird Way cabal) are working to merge the right wing corporate neocon democrats and the 'centrist/moderate' neocon republicans (even the Bush Dynasty) into a new party -and call it perhaps the democrat party, or Neo-Dems. The Party of TPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.

The People are in trouble

[summerschild]

24. Last week on "With All Due Respect" (new on MSNBC),

Mark Halperin and John Heilemann were discussing running mates for Clinton.

They both proffered that a moderate republican might be a good choice as her VP. I never heard them mention any names. They did suggest that a person from the corporate business world (rather than political) might be a good choice.

I think there's more going on here than we are allowed to know.

[Ferd Berfel]

40. If she has a republican on any kind as VP I will actively work against her

Still won't vote for Drumpf, but I"ll work for the Greens or something.
Thats the day I change my registration to Inde.

[Dems to Win]

31. I think the Dem Party has lost an entire generation and has no viable future

I'm astonished at the disdain toward younger voters that has been shown by the DNC establishment.

The Barney Frank choice is just rubbing it in the noses of Sanders supporters that they did not win the convoluted, chaotic, of questionable honesty, primary process.

If we had fair elections, I don't think Hillary would have any chance to win in the fall. But I believe that the people who rig the voting machines will do so in her favor, so I do expect her to be declared the winner.

So I guess the DNC maybe doesn't care how many people they alienate.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

[CobaltBlue]

38. Hissyspit—The real power from the Democratic Party has become exposed.

[kgnu_fan]

41. She is in for her own short term personal gain. She sold out the Democratic Party for $$$$.