Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

iemanja

iemanja's Journal
iemanja's Journal
July 28, 2016

The A Team

Makes an assist



July 24, 2016

Donations for War on Iran, Tim Canova

"Progressives" are all aflutter over donating to Tim Canova, the challenger for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' House seat.

It's interesting to see how eager people are to contribute to someone who forcefully argues against the Iran Nuclear Deal and sides with Likud. He is so proud of his position that he posted an editorial celebrating it on his website:

Canova is a staunch opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which Wasserman Schultz supports. "Iran never destroys its centrifuges, and it gets a $100 billion windfall at once," he laments. "Iran gets it all, and within weeks, if not days, Iran is testing ballistic missiles," he says, shaking his head. "Iran is a regime that can't be trusted." Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, lost "a lot of credibility" among her constituents by voting for the agreement, Canova charges.


That peacenik Debbie. She just can't be trusted with all that peace-treaty approving she does.

Canova is very proud of his opposition to peace with Iran, as its prominence on his website reveals. That same editorial he posted distinguishes him from Sanders as someone who "knows what he's talking about."

For one, in contrast to Bernie Sanders, whose guiding ethos seems to be "Bash the Millionaires and Billionaires—Details TK," Canova actually knows what he's talking about. Although he's never held office, Canova is an expert on banking laws as a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale. He has been churning out scholarly works on interest rates, regulatory affairs, and loan practices for decades. (His fierce criticism of big banks is delivered with a scholarly mien quite unlike Sanders's street-corner shouting.) . . .

Canova also attributes Sanders's loss in the crucial New York primary to Israel. "He started off at [the New York debate] saying 'I'm 100 percent pro-Israel.' But that was the last thing he said that was pro-Israeli."

https://timcanova.com/news/insurgency-left

It's quite astounding that many of the same people who cannot forgive Clinton for her vote on Iraq are now eager to donate to a candidate who opposes peace with Iran. Of course, without that peace treaty, the only alternative is war, which is exactly what Likud wants.

Keep sending those checks to ensure we get war with Iran. We just can't have peacenicks like Debbie in Washington.




July 7, 2016

I think there are a few reasons

1) The primary got very negative, and they decided to believe too much of the rhetoric.

2) There have been hundreds of millions spent by the GOP to try to destroy Clinton. There is the obvious right-wing propaganda and the all too successful efforts by the right to spread anti-Clinton propaganda produced for leftist consumption, created and generated to appeal to Democrats/liberals/progressives.

3) The media furthers the negative narrative about her so-called "dishonesty" and lack of "authenticity." This despite the fact that an examination of actual issues by fact checkers showed she was the MOST honest candidate in this primary in either party.

4) She's a woman trying to break into a wholly male world. Social Science literature demonstrates that people view women as less honest than men, tend to believe them less. It isn't a conscious decision to engage in sexism but rather the result of socialization. They don't even think about it. It takes honest reflection to think about ways in which we, both men and women, tend to devalue or undermine women in society. In seeking to rise where no American woman has before, she faces more of that than most.

We saw plenty of what you refer to during the primary. Many truly believe what they say, but they seldom have evidence for it. They don't think they even need evidence. They simply assume it to be true. I saw a response of yours to a post removed (which I didn't see) about money. The entire responsibility for campaign finance has been placed on Clinton individually. Some don't believe she is interested in changing current finance law, despite her policy positions showing otherwise. They also don't realize that the Citizens United case was about an anti-Clinton video. The victory for Citizens United meant that organization could continue to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking her. Of course the implications go beyond that one example to private political expenditures more broadly, but the lack of understanding of it shows how successful right-wing propaganda against her has been among those on the left.

I didn't used to like Clinton. I never for a second considered supporting her in 2008. My stated reason was the Iraq War vote, yet I was ready to support Biden, who likewise voted for the war. I didn't even think about the double standard. Since 2008, I watched her as SoS and started to think more critically about the criticism of her. I looked into her voting record vs. that of other candidates. I informed myself more in this election than any other. I realized a lot of what is said about her is unfounded. You will note that most Democrats/progressives who continue to be very critical of Clinton know very little about her policy positions or even most of her voting record. They simply project ills onto her and will attribute policy positions that are completely opposite of where she stands. I saw over and over against that they weren't even interested in finding out what her positions actually were. The reasons for that, I believe, lie in numbers 1-4 above.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:49 PM
Number of posts: 52,983

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»iemanja's Journal