May 17, 2015

Yoo Hoo, I need and I'd welcome your input on this thread in the Bernie Sanders Group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844

May 17, 2015

What the hell is an "avowed Democratic Socialist," anyway?

The minute you see "Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist," you can bet you are in for a slanted info and/or about to hear from someone who doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. But, that doesn't sound as bad as "Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist," now does it?

What is the difference between a socialist and a Democratic Socialist? First, socialists believe in government or other collective ownership, whereas US Democratic Socialists believe not only in working within capitalism, but also in working within the Democratic Party. (The US Democratic Socialist Party existed only from 1898 to 1901. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_America )

US Democratic Socialists are political activists, not a political party.

Who we are & what we do
Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people.

http://www.dsausa.org/

The DSA does not run its own candidates, but sees its strength as within the Democratic Party.

In electoral politics, DSA, like DSOC before it, was very strongly associated with Michael Harrington's position that "the left wing of realism is found today in the Democratic Party." In its early years DSA opposed Republican presidential candidates by giving critical support to Democratic Party nominees like Walter Mondale in 1984.[9] In 1988, DSA enthusiastically supported Jesse Jackson's second presidential campaign.[10] DSA's position on US electoral politics states that "democratic socialists reject an either–or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on [either] a new party or on realignment within the Democratic Party."[11]

During the 1990s, DSA gave the Clinton administration an overall rating of C-, "less than satisfactory."[12]

The DSA's leadership believes working within the Democratic Party is necessary because of the nature of the American political system, which rarely gives third parties a chance politically. That said, DSA is very critical of the corporate-funded Democratic Party leadership.[13] The organization believes that:
Original DSA Logo

"Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements... Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end..."[14]

Indeed, since becoming a member of Congress, Sanders has worked with, and been welcomed by, House and Senate Democrats.

In 1991, he became a member of the U.S. House and, that same year, co-founded the House Progressive Caucus and became its chair for eight years. He still caucuses with the House Progressive Caucus, as well as with the Senate Democratic Caucus. (The Senate has no Progressive Caucus.) While in the House, he indicated that he would like to run for the Senate, but only if and when Senator Jeffords chose to retire. (The late Senator Jeffords had begun as a Republican, changed to Independent and caucused with Senate Democrats.)

....and after Jeffords's announcement that he would not seek a fourth term, Sanders entered the race on April 21, 2005. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders: a critical move, as it meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and Democratic National Committee Chairman and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who "votes with the Democrats 98% of the time."[46] Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont. Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.[47]

In the most expensive political campaign in Vermont's history,[48] Sanders defeated businessman Rich Tarrant by an approximately 2-to-1 margin. Many national media outlets projected Sanders the winner before any returns came in.

Sanders was reelected in 2012 with 71% of the vote.[49]

Tenure

Polling conducted in August 2011 by Public Policy Polling found that Sanders's approval rating was 67% and his disapproval rating 28%, making him then the third-most popular senator in the country.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

So, it seems that being a Democrat Socialist is not very radical, after all.

I am the first to admit that I don't know much about anything in this post, except for the Democratic Party--and I did not start learning much about that until relatively recently. So, I welcome corrections and other input.

May 17, 2015

Back-handed compliments to Bernie from unexpected sources

When you google Bernie Sanders, you never know what you might find.



The Cato organization deems other Senators further left, fiscally, than Bernie.

http://www.cato.org/blog/bernie-sanders-most-liberal-senator (my only visit to the Cato Institute site, so I hope nothing worse than being Republican is on the site )

The Ron Paul Institute credits Bernie with exposing bloated military and surveillance budgets. (I will not give the link because I know Ron Paul has a history of publishing ugly things and I do not wish to encourage the clicks. Take my word for it, or don't.) This is the you tube link to the video the Ron Paul Institute includes in its article.

May 17, 2015

Bernie Sanders has had consistent message for four decades.

That headline doesn't say it all, but it says a lot about the difference between Bernie and others. This is a mixed bag article at best, so I will quote the parts that best support the headline.


Bernie Sanders has had consistent message for 4 decades
Associated Press By DAVE GRAM
May 11, 2015 3:31 AM

.......

Clinton has gone from opposing same-sex marriage rights to supporting them. Howard Dean, the last Vermont presidential candidate, was a centrist governor who became a liberal representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," when he saw the left flank open in the 2004 primary campaign.

Sanders, now 73, favored gay marriage rights before it became fashionable in Democratic circles. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the mid-1990s signed by Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton.

Early in her primary campaign, Clinton has spoken about the gap between the rich and the middle class, in an appeal to the party's liberal wing. The Republican contenders, too, are taking up the problem of income inequality, although with much different solutions in mind than the Democrats.

Steady-as-he-goes Sanders has been at it for decades. He's admired Canada's single-payer health care system since way back, talking up "nationalized health care" during his unsuccessful run for Congress in 1988. When Republicans charge that Democrats would bring European-style socialism to the U.S., Sanders says bring it on.

........

http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-had-consistent-message-4-decades-073148655--election.html;_ylt=A0LEVi._alhVmbEA5g4nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZjZpNzAxBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZVSUMwXzEEc2VjA3Nj

May 17, 2015

New York Magazine (also) does Bernie's hair.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/bernie-sanderss-hair-is-a-media-magnet.html

May 15, 2015 article.

Once again, DU is ahead of the curve. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=2638

I must say, I am surprised that a publication like New York Magazine went where this poster dared to go. I would have preferred a different kind of article. However, given that Bernie can use free publicity at this point, I am glad for the article.

Bernie's Hair. You heard it here first!

May 17, 2015

Disclosure doesn't do the job. To an extent, you have to play the odds and age affects the odds.

It's not like an ordinary job where the people who hired you can observe you daily and fire you if you don't seem to performing up to standard for any reason. Once the President is elected, the White House protects him and impeachment is the only way to remove him or her, absent resignation.

The health of President doesn't usually make news except for the first time he runs and if there is a problem that we learn about. In the meantime, the public is in the dark and isn't even aware of it because its attention is not focused on the health of the President on a daily basis. Even if it wondered about health daily, how would it find out?


Recently, I've been watching West Wing, where the President did not affirmatively disclose his multiple sclerosis. Because it was dormant most of the time, it would not show up on his annual physicals, which showed him to be in excellent health, which the press secretary would announce.

In real life, Paul Tsongas ran for President. He disclosed that he had had cancer, but apparently did not give all the details. I once met the woman who had his medical files locked in her desk. He ran for the election and died in 1997. I don't know at which point he became incapacitated. Had he won the nomination, presumably the party and country would have expected him to serve a full term at peak health and to be able to serve a second term, if re-elected. And they would have been SOL on that account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas

More importantly, we have reasons to believe that Reagan's Alzheimer's was affecting him while he was in office, but concealed by his wife and staff. If so, people for whom not a single American had voted may have been having the final say on decisions.

On the other hand, McCain, whom many Democrats considered too old to run in 2008 seems as healthy as ever. So, we don't know.

So, we have to look eight years out from election day and play the odds and pray or cross our fingers, or whatever our beliefs lead us to do.

This go round, all the candidates but O'Malley are older than I personally consider optimal, including my own favorite candidate. So is Warren, who did not announce, but whom many wanted to run. It is what it is. But that doesn't mean we kid ourselves.

May 16, 2015

Media seems to have decided to ignore the fact that Sanders is a candidate--

except when they take a snarky pot shot. But mostly, just ignore his candidacy. This includes those we have heretofore considered our friends, like those on the Comedy Network and on MSNBC. Clinton entered the race with 91% name recognition and hundreds of millions of dollars. Is this additional thumb on the scale really necessary? If so, for whom? It's certainly not for the benefit of readers or viewers. Even as bad for democracy as mass media has become in recent decades, this is not justifiable.

I am not sure programs or networks pay any more attention to our emails or calls than do our elected "representatives." But, sponsors might. Social media is also an option. Other ideas, anyone?

May 16, 2015

Coincidentally(? ), MSNBC has been singling out Warren and Brown (as in Sherrod), even though

they were not the only Democrats who were opposing TPP.

As a populist leftist who has had it with New Democrats, I don't think I will pretend that MSNBC is "my" political news station.

May 15, 2015

Repeal of Glass Steagall, aka Gramm, Leach, Blilely: DU memes versus reality.

Meme: Repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with economic collapse of the United States and several other nations, That was due to deregulation and collateralized mortgage obligations.

Reality: Um, repeal of Glass Steagall WAS the "deregulation" that permitted banks to deal in collateralized mortgage obligations.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/where-credit-due-timeline-mortgage-crisis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2127466 (and many, many other sources)

Not only that, but...

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/08/717702/-VIDEO-from-1999-Byron-Dorgan-vs-Gramm-Leach-Bliley-WOW#



Meme: Republicans are to blame for Gramm, Leach, Blilely. Gramm, Leach, Blilely were three Republicans. Duh. And Republicans were in the majority.

Realty: Republicans did indeed have a majority in both Houses of Congress. While Gramm, Leach and Blilely were all Republicans, a number of Democrats voted to repeal Glass Steagall.. Not only did a number of Democrats vote for it, but Bill Clinton signed it. He could have vetoed it. Not only did he fail to veto it, but he and members of his White House, like Summers and Sperling lobbied Democrats in Congress hard to pass it. That lobbying by a Democratic White House was why so many Democrats supported it.


Meme: Clinton had a veto-proof majority.

Reality: Not the first time. Veto proof is, in theory,* two-thirds of each house. The first vote was 343 to 86 in the House (more than veto proof 292) **and 54-44 in the Senate (less than veto-proof 67).

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241***–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[12][15] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[16][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[17][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[18]

id.

So, after much work, much lobbying by Greenspan, Clinton and the White House (see above) and much compromise between the two houses, the bill did pass the Senate 90 to 8.

Those voting nay were Senator Shelby (R), and Democratic Senators Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski, Wellstone. Senator Fitzergerald (R) voted present; Senator McCain did not vote (but, when he ran for President in 2007-2008, did appoint Gramm as one of his campaign's financial advisors. Oops.)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354&TB_iframe=true&width=720&height=540

Not only that, but there was a rush to pass the bill lest a Congress less favorable to repeal be elected.

Besides all the above, a theoretical veto-proof majority does not preclude a veto and President Clinton seemed quite happy to sign the bill.

What did our wise leaders say when that bill was signed? "The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it," said Phil Gramm. "In the 1930s ... it was believed that government was the answer ... We have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers."

''This legislation is truly historic,'' said Bill Clinton. ''We have done right by the American people.''

''With this bill,'' said Larry Summers, ''the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century -- one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.''

Actually that bill helped crash the economy, costing trillions and leaving millions of people un- or underemployed. They, on the other hand, all got rich.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-dumbest-bipartisan-mo_b_1374301.html

* Unless and until a Presidential veto in fact occurs, the alleged existence of a veto-proof majority is only theoretical. Overrides of Presidential vetoes have been very rare. Even the threat of a veto often gets action from Congress.

http://www.princeton.edu/~ccameron/The%20Presidential%20Veto%20v3.pdf

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presveto.htm

**House vote was on The Financial Services Act. For those who care, Senator Sanders, then a member of the House, was one of the 86 who voted "no."
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml

***51 less less than veto proof 292, but I don't know how this vote interfaces with the House vote on the Financial Services Act.

ETA: See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=9158 discussing, among other things, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. A Senate compromise of the House Bill allowed unregulated mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. The Clinton White House also lobbied hard for passage of this act.

May 9, 2015

Volokh :puke: Hate speech and "fighting words" ARE the same. Matthew Shephard.

No, not every negative comment about members of the GLBTQ community can be regulated consistently with the First Amendment. However, obviously, some cross lines, even fatal lines. Courts draw those kinds of distinctions all the time.

PS. I am expressing no opinion about the cartoons.