Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts

Monday, March 2, 2020

The Nation Endorses 'Democratic Socialist' Bernie Sanders for President

It's Katrina vanden Heuvel's publication --- it's her baby, and the editors are going all in for Bernie Sanders.

It's a lengthy editorial, so as they say, RTWT.

See, "‘The Nation’ Endorses Bernie Sanders and His Movement":



If Bernie Sanders had simply demonstrated that it is possible to wage a competitive campaign for the presidency without relying on wealthy donors, corporate funders, or secretive PAC money, he would have earned his place in history.

If all Sanders had to show for his two campaigns for the presidency was the greatest leftward shift in the political discourse since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s second term—putting not just Medicare for All but also the Green New Deal, free public higher education, fair taxation, cancellation of student debt, housing as a human right, universal free child care, and an unwavering critique of the billionaire class firmly onto the political agenda—we would owe him our gratitude.

If his contribution to the debate on foreign policy never went beyond refusing to endorse trade deals that harm workers, denouncing America’s endless wars, and reasserting Congress’s control over presidential adventurism—and had not also included defying AIPAC and the Israel lobby, reminding Americans that many of those crossing our borders are fleeing dictators sustained by Washington, and maintaining his long-standing rejection of authoritarianism at home or abroad—we would still recognize Sanders as a prophetic figure.

But he has accomplished much, much more. As of this morning, Bernie Sanders—a Jewish grandfather with an indelible Brooklyn accent—is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination. He got there by forging a movement campaign that expands our understanding of what can be achieved in the electoral arena and that invites us to imagine that government of, by, and for the people might actually be possible.

The movement Sanders has helped to build—a multiracial, multiethnic movement of working-class women and men, people of all ages, all faiths, gay, straight, and trans, veterans and pacifists, teachers, farmers, bus drivers, nurses, and postal workers coming together to demand justice and redeem the endlessly deferred promise of America—deserves our enthusiastic support. Most crucially at this point in the 2020 campaign, this movement and this candidate deserve our votes.

Bernie Sanders and the movements he supports (and that support him) have created a populist moment, a vibrant and growing alternative to the tired shibboleths of austerity and market fundamentalism. They are exposing and upending the white nationalist con that promises a blue-collar boom while cutting taxes for the rich and gutting health care, environmental protection and education for the rest of us.

Four years ago, when Sanders began his battle, we supported him, arguing that in his candidacy
movements for greater equality and justice have found an ally and a champion. In contrast to the right-wing demagogues who exploit [our national crisis] to foment division, the Vermont senator has reached into a proud democratic-socialist tradition to revive the simple but potent notion of solidarity. We must turn to each other, not on each other, Sanders says, and unite to change the corrupted politics that robs us all.
A great deal has changed since then. We now have a right-wing demagogue in the Oval Office, a man credibly accused of sexual assault on the Supreme Court, an administration staffed with sycophants and corporate lackeys. Meanwhile, we’ve watched with mounting dismay as congressional Democratic leaders have pursued a narrow—and futile—quest for impeachment while failing to prevent immigrant children from being torn from the arms of their parents and put in cages. We have witnessed the daily spectacle of an administration that fudges the facts and scorns science while the planet burns.

Yet when we look beyond the corridors of power, we cannot despair. Not while we’re also in the middle of a long season of revolt, from the millions of women (and allies) in their pink pussy hats protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration to successful teachers’ strikes in West Virginia, Los Angeles, and Chicago, to demonstrations culminating in the removal of Puerto Rico’s corrupt, sexist governor—and that’s just in the United States. From Beirut to Baghdad and from Haiti to Hong Kong, people are rising up together to demand an end to corruption and the politics of divide and rule.

Sanders has made this global outcry a part of his 2020 campaign. He has gathered his forces and moved against America’s oligarchy, and this time he’s had company—and competition. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy appealed to progressives who, though they shared many of the Sanders campaign’s goals, worried that his age, his fiery manner, or his avowal of democratic socialism would be handicaps in the battle to defeat Trump. She appealed, as well, to the millions of Americans who believe that it is long past the time when this country should elect a progressive woman as its president. Along with Sanders, Warren has widened the left lane of American politics. While Sanders has popularized the idea of a political revolution, Warren’s detailed plans have given depth and meaning to proposals for Medicare for All and a wealth tax. The pair have differed on details, but Warren and Sanders have been such a potent team—especially in last summer’s debates—that some here argued they ought to form a ticket.

That still seems like an idea worth considering...
As noted, don't miss the rest of this essay --- I have a feeling the editors are on to something: Don't blow off Bernie's chances. This "democratic socialist" could very well destroy the American republic.

Hat Tip: Memorandum.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Democrats Freak Out

At AoSHQ, "LOL: Democrats Panicking Over Prospect of Having to Run With Soviet-Loving Socialist Bernie Sanders at the Top of the Ticket."

Drawn-Out Fight Is More Likely Than Ever for Dems

It looks like it.

From Ronald Brownstein, at the Atlantic:

Senator Bernie Sanders’s unexpectedly narrow victory in New Hampshire underscored the splintering of the Democratic presidential field that was evident in last week’s murky Iowa caucus—and left two of his opponents facing grim questions about their future viability.

Just as in Iowa, the results illuminated the inability of any of the contenders to build a coalition broad enough to span the party or establish much separation from rival candidates. The roughly 26 percent share of the total vote that Sanders captured represents much less than half of his winning 60 percent just four years ago. And similar to former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s performance in Iowa, Sanders won the smallest share of voters ever garnered by a Democratic winner of the New Hampshire primary. (The previous low was nearly 29 percent, for Jimmy Carter in 1976.)

The New Hampshire results confirmed Sanders and Buttigieg as the field’s top-tier contenders and elevated Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who surged from a fifth-place finish in Iowa to a strong third here after a widely praised debate performance on Friday night. But the outcome may end up diminishing two of the field’s previous leaders more than it boosts the candidates who came out on top.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who were widely considered the race’s principal contenders for most of last year, were staggered by showings even weaker than anticipated. “I think everyone thought two weeks ago that Biden probably had the best chance of building the coalition that could pull everybody together,” Simon Rosenberg, the founder of the Democratic advocacy group NDN, told me. “And right now, assuming that Biden is weakened, it’s not clear that anyone is going to be strong enough” to amass a coalition that can produce a delegate majority for the convention this summer.

Biden’s campaign says it is ready to fight on in Nevada and especially South Carolina, with its large population of African American voters. But the extent of Biden’s collapse in New Hampshire, where he won less than 9 percent of the vote, has many Democratic strategists questioning whether he can forge a path back to relevance in the race. “I don’t see how he carries forward,” the veteran Democratic pollster Stanley B. Greenberg told me. “I think it’s too much of a repudiation.”

Biden’s precipitous decline will immediately shift more focus to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg among party centrists skeptical of Sanders. Yet the release yesterday of an audio tape capturing Bloomberg defending in stark language the controversial stop-and-frisk policing tactic he employed in New York City underscores the ideological and racial obstacles he may face as the media and other candidates zero in on his record.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the past four Democratic nominating contests, when the race effectively resolved to a two-person battle after Iowa and New Hampshire. This year, the party faces the prospect of sustained uncertainty not only after the first two states, but even after the Nevada and South Carolina competitions still to come in February—and maybe even after Super Tuesday on March 3, when 14 states will vote.

“We’ll head into Super Tuesday without a lot of clarity and with Bloomberg representing an entirely new dynamic in all of this,” the Democratic pollster Geoff Garin told me. “This race is very, very different, where these first four states are setting the table for Super Tuesday but they are not the main event.”

If anything, the New Hampshire results spotlighted the obstacles confronting each of the candidates...

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Why America Needs a Trump vs. Sanders Election

It's Roger Simon, via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Bernie Sanders Is a Hardline Communist

[Re-upping this piece from almost exactly four years ago, so hilarious.]

From Paul Sperry, at the New York Post, "Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist":

Bernie Sanders Communist photo 17ps-sanders-web1_zpskty0gwao.jpg
As polls tighten and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders looks more like a serious contender than a novelty candidate for president, the liberal media elite have suddenly stopped calling him socialist. He’s now cleaned-up as a “progressive” or “pragmatist.”

But he’s not even a socialist. He’s a communist.

Mainstreaming Sanders requires whitewashing his radical pro-Communist past. It won’t be easy to do.

If Sanders were vying for a Cabinet post, he’d never pass an FBI background check. There’d be too many subversive red flags popping up in his file. He was a Communist collaborator during the height of the Cold War.

Rewind to 1964.

While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

After graduating with a political-science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.”

****

Sanders still hangs a portrait of Debs on the wall in his Senate office.

In the early ’70s, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies.

After failed runs for Congress, Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts. Local small businesses distributed fliers complaining their new mayor “does not believe in free enterprise.”

His radical activities didn’t stop at the ­water’s edge.

Sanders took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a “heroic revolution.” Undermining anti-communist US policy, Sanders denounced the Reagan administration’s backing of the Contra rebels in a letter to the Sandinistas.

His betrayal did not end there. Sanders lobbied the White House to stop the proxy war and even tried to broker a peace deal. He adopted Managua as a sister city and invited Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to visit the US. He exalted Ortega as “an impressive guy,” while attacking President Reagan.

“The Sandinista government has more support among the Nicaraguan people — substantially more support — than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” Sanders told Vermont government-access TV in 1985.

Sanders also adopted a Soviet sister city outside Moscow and honeymooned with his second wife in the USSR. He put up a Soviet flag in his office, shocking even the Birkenstock-wearing local liberals. At the time, the Evil Empire was on the march around the world, and threatening the US with nuclear annihilation.

Then, in 1989, as the West was on the verge of winning the Cold War, Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council — a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to “the triumph of Soviet power in the US.”

Today, Sanders wants to bring what he admired in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua and other communist states to America.

For starters, he proposes completely nationalizing our health-care system and putting private health insurance and drug companies “out of business.” He also wants to break up “big banks” and control the energy industry, while providing “free” college tuition, a “living wage” and guaranteed homeownership and jobs through massive public works projects. Price tag: $18 trillion.

Who will pay for it all? You will. Sanders plans to not only soak the rich with a 90%-plus tax rate, while charging Wall Street a “speculation tax,” but hit every American with a “global-warming tax.”

Of course, even that wouldn’t cover the cost of his communist schemes; a President Sanders would eventually soak the middle class he claims to champion. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?
Still more.

Frankly, all of this is public information.

Folks should read the Bernie Sanders entry at Discover the Networks. Diehard Communist is right.

Elizabeth Warren Accused Bernie Sanders of Calling Her a 'Liar on National TV (VIDEO)

Most people are with Bernie on this, but it hasn't been disproved to me that Bernie's not a misogynist, as much as I like the guy.

The Bernie Bros mimic their model.

In any case, at LAT, "Can a woman win the presidency? Democratic debate delves into sexism in politics."

And the Other McCain, "Elizabeth Warren’s Media Helpers Try to Revive Her Campaign at Bernie’s Expense":

Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate was so white that Antifa would punch it in the face, and moderators for CNN made it clear who they favored among the six white Democrats assembled on the Des Moines stage. We haven’t seen the memo from CNN chief Jeff Zucker, but it was obvious that the assignment was to (a) attack Bernie Sanders and (b) boost Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps many Sanders supporters — who saw their candidate get cheated out of the 2016 nomination by DNC insiders working for Hillary Clinton — will now agree with President Trump’s assessment of the media as “the enemy of the people.”



Thursday, January 9, 2020

Bernie Sanders Scores the Coveted Emily Ratajkowski Covered Topless Endorsement (VIDEO)

Well, she's not covered topless in this video, but still.

How does make you feel to lust after the body of one of the world's most beautiful women when in the end she's really just down for the lumpenproletariat expropriated by the corporate hyenas of late-stage global capitalism?

Pfft.

I don't try to think about all the complicated stuff. Just fap off you losers, lol.


Wednesday, January 8, 2020

A Legitimate Contender, Establishment Democrats Afraid Bernie Sanders Could Win

Frankly, I hope he does win.

We'll have a very clear choice in November. And at least with Bernie, the rank-and-file won't be able to claim their party's "not socialist."

At the Associated Press:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party’s presidential nominee, establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier House, Senate and governors’ races.

The urgent warnings come as Sanders shows new signs of strength on the ground in the first two states on the presidential primary calendar, Iowa and New Hampshire, backed by a dominant fundraising operation. The Vermont senator has largely escaped close scrutiny over the last year as his rivals doubted the quirky 78-year-old’s ability to win the nomination. But less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, previously a senior aide to President Barack Obama, warned Democrats that Sanders’ status as a democratic socialist and his unwavering support for “Medicare for All” won’t play well among swing voters in the states that matter most in 2020.

“You need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters in battleground states,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.”

The increasingly vocal concerns are coming from a number of political veterans tied to the Obama administration and the 2020 field’s moderate wing, including those backing former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

In some ways, the criticism is not surprising.

Sanders has spent decades fighting to transform the nation’s political and economic systems, creating a long list of political adversaries along the way. Many people connected to Hillary Clinton, for example, still blame Sanders for not working hard enough to support her after their long and bitter presidential primary feud in 2016. Some Democrats still accuse him of not being enough of a team player.

Sanders’ chief strategist Jeff Weaver dismissed the growing criticism as a reflection of the strength of his candidacy.

He raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in the last quarter — virtually all of it from small-dollar donors — and he’s considered a legitimate contender to win Iowa and New Hampshire next month...

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Dana Perino on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' (VIDEO)

She's really smart, and this is a great discussion.

Obama disses Bernie and Joe.



Wednesday, August 21, 2019

What Happened to Bernie's Financial Backers?

Remember how in 2016 Bernie was touting his average $27.00 contribution as a key measure of the populist revolt against the Wall Street billionaires club?

Well, that was then.

Bernie's moment has passed. He's just one of a dozen or more socialists on the stage nowadays.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Bernie Sanders’ famed $27 donors are split in 2020’s sprawling Democratic field":

Small-dollar donors made Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid one of the most successful insurgent campaigns in Democratic Party history, allowing him to be competitive with establishment favorite Hillary Clinton.

But in the 2020 race, nearly 1.7 million, or more than 80%, of the donors who fueled his earlier run have stayed on the sidelines, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance disclosures through June 30.

The 2016 donors who are contributing this election cycle have given more than $32 million to the Democratic field. More than $16.2 million of that went to Sanders, making up about 45% of the money he has raised. But nearly as much went to his rivals, a sign of how split Democrats are as they try to figure out the best candidate to take on President Trump.

“Bernie’s washed up. I just think he’s too old,” Audrey Tieger, 68, said of the 77-year-old Sanders...
"Washed up."

Sounds like a boxer passed his prime: "I coulda been a contendah!"

Keep reading.

Monday, July 29, 2019

Bernie Slides in New L.A. Times Poll

He's sliding downhill, that is.

Of the top candidates, Bernie's fortunes have been hurt the most this last few months.

At LAT, "Democratic 2020 race up for grabs: Half of voters have changed their minds since spring, poll shows":

WASHINGTON  —  As Democratic presidential hopefuls prepare for their second round of debates this week, a new poll finds that half of likely primary voters have changed their minds since the spring, highlighting how unsettled the contest remains.
Former Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead in the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times nationwide poll, while three senators, Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, are essentially tied for second place. That marks an improvement for Harris and Warren and a decline for Sanders since April, when the poll last tested the Democratic race.

More notably, about half of the voters in the poll have changed their preferences since the April survey -- a reminder that at this point of the campaign, most voters don’t have firm commitments.

Voters at this stage of the campaign are “corks on the water floating around,” said Mike Murphy, the longtime Republican strategist who is co-director of USC Dornsife’s Center for the Political Future, one of the sponsors of the poll. That’s particularly true for voters nationwide, who have less exposure to the candidates than voters in states with early primaries.

The volatility has a limit, however. The vast majority of voters who switched since April moved among the top four candidates or between them and undecided status. The mass of candidates languishing at 1% or lower hasn’t benefited.

Biden continues to lead the poll, with 28%. Harris was at 10%, putting her in an effective tie with Warren, also at 10% and Sanders, at 11%. An additional 25% said they were undecided when presented with a list of 25 people who have declared they are running.

Beyond the top candidates, the poll found only Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas having more than 1% support. Buttigieg’s support has grown since April and now stands at 5%, while O’Rourke’s has shrunk to 3% -- all shifts within the poll’s margin of error.

“When your front-runner is at 28% and undecided is at 25%, it’s a pretty fluid race,” said Jill Darling, the poll director.

Unlike some other public opinion samples, the USC/L.A. Times poll surveys a panel of more than 7,000 members, tracking their views over time. Polls using the panel can look at how and when specific voters have changed their preferences.

In the primary contest so far, the first round of debates in June appears to have played a big role in changing minds. Harris, in particular, gained support among people who watched the debate, during which she forcefully challenged Biden over his nostalgia about working with segregationist senators early in his career. The exchange appears to have boosted Harris without doing long-term damage to Biden, who gained roughly as many supporters as he lost.

People who reported that they watched the debate -- about 3 in 10 of those who said they planned to vote in a Democratic primary -- were more likely to have switched than others. But even many voters who did not watch the debate changed their minds.

That churn has affected candidates in different ways. Biden and Sanders do best among voters who have backed the same candidate all along, while Harris and Warren, who each gained lots of new followers, do better among those who have changed their minds. About 7 in 10 of those backing Harris and 8 in 10 backing Warren were converts since April, the poll found.

Sanders sits at the opposite extreme -- about 8 in 10 of those backing him now also backed him in April. That’s both a strength for him and a weakness.

The Vermont senator has a solid core of supporters, many of whom grew attached to him in 2016 when he ran against Hillary Clinton. One indication of that: He did best among the roughly 1 in 4 voters who neither watched the June debate nor heard or read about it.

Outside of his core support, Sanders has been losing backers, and unlike other candidates, he has picked up relatively few new ones. Almost half the supporters he had in April have moved elsewhere.

About 1 in 10 former Sanders backers now say they’re undecided. Twice as many, however, now back Biden.

That’s a reminder of another important fact: Voters aren’t as ideological as analysts sometimes make them out to be.

Sanders has staked out the left-most position in the contest. Warren shares many of his policy views. Biden has defined himself as a centrist. But nearly three times as many former Sanders backers moved to Biden as moved to Warren.

Biden and Sanders both do better with non-college educated voters than with those who have graduated from college...

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Bernie Sanders Raised $18 Million in First 6 Weeks of His Campaign

At the Washington Examiner, at Memeorandum, "Let's face it: Bernie Sanders could be the next president."

I highly doubt it, but the dude is raising phenomenal amounts of cash.

At Politico, "Sanders raises $18 million in first quarter of presidential campaign":
The online fundraising powerhouse took in about 900,000 contributions from 525,000 individual donors, Sanders' campaign said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has raised more than $18 million since launching his second bid for the White House, his campaign announced Tuesday.

The fundraising haul, which surpasses the other two 2020 presidential candidates who have announced their cash totals so far, demonstrates how Sanders' enormous online following will power his campaign, while some of his rivals jockey for support from large donors who can give several thousand dollars at a time.

Aides said the Vermont senator’s average donation in February and March was $20, and 88 percent of the money raised came from people who gave $200 or less. Sanders’ team said he received almost 900,000 individual contributions after setting a goal of 1 million in the first quarter of the year.

The campaign has $28 million cash on hand after beginning with $14 million in the bank from Sanders' other federal campaign accounts, it said — another big advantage over Sanders' rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders has put about 100 people on his campaign staff so far, fueled by the high fundraising totals.

On Monday, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said she raised $12 million in her first quarter. Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., said he brought in more than $7 million. Buttigieg tweeted Monday that he raised 64 percent of his haul from people who gave less than $200, while Harris did not specify the share of her total that came from small-dollar donors, as Democrats hone in on grassroots fundraising as a key metric of support in the campaign.

No other presidential candidates have disclosed how much money they’ve amassed, including former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who proved to be a small-dollar fundraising sensation in his unsuccessful 2018 bid for Senate in Texas. On the first day of his presidential campaign, O'Rourke said he raised $6.1 million — slightly more than the $5.9 million reaped by Sanders in his first 24 hours.

Campaigns must file reports with the Federal Election Commission by April 15. In 2016, Sanders raised about $15 million in the first fundraising quarter of his campaign, while eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton raised $46 million in primary funds in her first quarter in the race.

Sanders' senior staffers argued that his skill for raising money through small-dollar donations — while not holding fundraising events — make him the best Democratic candidate to run against President Donald Trump.

Trump has "put the ultra-rich in charge of the government," said Faiz Shakir, Sanders' campaign manager. "How are you going to take that on? Are you going to say that we're 55 percent different than him? Are you going to say you're 100 percent different than him?"

Sanders' aides also said the money he raised will enable him to compete in all states in the primary.

"While we had to in 2016 make choices about where we could compete, I'm certain that in this race some of our opponents will also have to make similar difficult choices," said Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders. "This campaign will have the resources and the volunteer grassroots strength to compete in every single state in the primary."

The Sanders team revealed other statistics about their donors: They said a majority of his contributors are younger than 39 years old, and that 99.6 percent of the money collected in the first quarter was raised online...

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Democrats Opened Up Can of Sexual Assault Worms in #MeToo Era

You gotta love it!

At the Los Angeles Times, "Presidential hopefuls struggle to control damage from sexual misconduct cases in first race of #MeToo era":

As he lays ground to run for president, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock looks back with regret at his failure to recognize the gravity of a top aide’s sexual harassment of a colleague.

After he was fired, the advisor went to work for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and was soon accused of harassing two more women. Bullock now says he’s “deeply sorry” he never told de Blasio about his aide’s misbehavior.

“I was wrong and naïve to think I did enough,” Bullock, a Democrat, wrote Feb. 2 in a blog post.

Kamala Harris has similar regrets. So does Bernie Sanders. And so does Joe Biden.

The 2020 presidential race is the first to occur since the #MeToo movement changed the nation’s cultural and political climate. Democratic contenders are already struggling to control the damage from their own shortcomings in policing sexual harassment in the workplace.

“You can say you support #MeToo, and you can say you support women, but you have to be able to demonstrate that in your own organization and in your own behavior,” said Kelly Dittmar, a political scientist at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics.

“I don’t think we’re going to see all of a sudden a wholesale overturning of the allowances that we’ve given to folks for this type of behavior, or not acting significantly to stop this behavior in the past. But I do think the bar is higher.”

Cold political math is at least part of what’s drawing heightened attention to sexual misconduct: Women consistently turn out to vote in greater numbers than men. Women have also strongly preferred Democrats in recent elections, driving the party’s takeover of the House in the November midterm.

In the White House race, Democrats face pressure to nominate a candidate who can draw a strong contrast with President Trump. A Democrat who is perceived as not dealing with sexual harassment seriously could have a hard time attacking the president over allegations by multiple women that Trump sexually assaulted them.

The accusations, which Trump denies, have not caused die-hard supporters to desert him, but the president remains highly unpopular among women in general.

For Harris, the U.S. senator from California, the issue has become fraught since the Sacramento Bee revealed in December that the state paid $400,000 to settle a lawsuit over alleged sexual harassment by Larry Wallace, one of her closest aides for 14 years.

When Harris was state attorney general, she named Wallace as chief of the Division of Law Enforcement. He was in charge of her personal security detail, and he was a crucial figure in her political life: He led Harris’ successful drive to win endorsements from dozens of police groups that had once roundly opposed her.

In September 2016, Wallace and at least four others on her staff at the attorney general’s office were notified of the initial complaint filed by Danielle Hartley, Wallace’s executive assistant.

Three months later, Hartley sued the state, alleging Wallace had “harassed and demeaned” her in his Sacramento office. He kept a printer on the floor beneath his desk, she claimed, and ordered her every day to get on her knees to put paper in it or replace the ink, at times with him and male co-workers watching. Harris’ successor, Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, approved the settlement in May 2017.

Harris said she was not told about the case until the Bee asked about it two months ago. The inquiry led Wallace to resign as a senior advisor on her Senate staff in Sacramento.

“It was a very painful experience to know that something can happen in one’s office — of almost 5,000 people, granted, but I didn’t know about it,” Harris told CNN. “That being said, I take full responsibility for anything that has happened in my office.”

Critics have attacked the credibility of Harris, one of the Senate’s most pointed interrogators of Brett M. Kavanaugh when he faced sexual assault accusations at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. A Bee editorial called her denial of any knowledge of the Wallace settlement “far-fetched.” And if she’s to be believed, it said, she “isn’t a terribly good manager.”

Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State, said Harris was facing the conundrum of many politicians: How do they justify actions they took — or didn’t take — prior to the #MeToo movement shifting public attitudes?

“It’s very hard for those folks to go back and undo what they did at a time when it wasn’t viewed as terrible as it is now,” he said.
Keep reading.

Bernie's in hot water too, lol.

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Democrats Shift Even Farther Left Ahead of 2020

Actually, it's mostly that Democrats aren't secret about their far-left neo-communist agenda. Bernie Sanders is Marxist. He probably should've won the nomination, if it wasn't for the lies and machinations of Crooked Hillary and the DNC. But come 2020, it's no enemies on the left, and all out in the open. Maybe Bernie will run again. If not him, it'll be a bloody potpourri of radical left candidates.

At WaPo, "Shifting attitudes among Democrats have big implications for 2020":

Partisan divisions are not new news in American politics, nor is the assertion that one cause of the deepening polarization has been a demonstrable rightward shift among Republicans. But a more recent leftward movement in attitudes among Democrats also is notable and has obvious implications as the party looks toward 2020.

Here is some context. In 2008, not one of the major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination advocated legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2016, not one of those who sought the nomination opposed such unions, and not just because of the Supreme Court’s rulings. Changing attitudes among all voters, and especially Democratic voters, made support for same-sex marriage an article of faith for anyone seeking to lead the party.

Trade policy is another case study. Over many years, Democrats have been divided on the merits of multilateral free-trade agreements. In 1992, Bill Clinton strongly supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the face of stiff opposition from labor unions and others. He took his case into union halls, and while he didn’t convert his opponents, he prospered politically in the face of that opposition.

By 2016, with skepticism rising more generally about trade and globalization, Hillary Clinton was not willing to make a similar defense of the merits of free-trade agreements. With Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) bashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a presidential candidate, Clinton joined the chorus of opponents. She ended up on the opposite side of then-President Barack Obama, even though she had spoken warmly about the prospects of such a treaty as secretary of state.

Looking ahead to 2020, something similar is likely to take place on the issue of health care. Because of changing attitudes that already are underway within the party, it will be difficult for any Democrat seeking the nomination not to support some kind of single-payer health-care plan, even if big questions remain about how it could be accomplished.

Sanders used his 2016 presidential campaign to advocate a universal health-care plan that he dubbed “Medicare for All.” The more cautious Clinton, who saw flaws in what Sanders was advocating, argued instead for focusing on improvements to the Affordable Care Act.

Sanders has now introduced a “Medicare for All” measure in the Senate, and his co-sponsors include several other prospective candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Meanwhile, a majority of House Democrats have signed onto a single-payer plan sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) that goes much further. This has happened even though some of those who like Conyers’s idea in principle question whether it is ready for prime time, not only because of the potential cost and the absence of a mechanism to pay for it, but also because of other potential policy flaws as well.

The pressure to embrace single-payer plans grows out of shifts in attitudes among Democrats. The Pew Research Center found in June that 52 percent of self-identified Democrats now support a government-run health-care system. That is up nine points since the beginning of the year and 19 points since 2014. Among liberal Democrats, 64 percent support such a plan (up 13 points just this year) and among younger Democrats, 66 percent say they support it.

Health care isn’t the only area in which Democratic attitudes are shifting significantly. Others include such issues as the role of government and the social safety net; the role of race and racial discrimination in society; and immigration and the value of diversity.

A few days ago, the Pew Center released a comprehensive survey on the widening gap between Republicans and Democrats. The bottom line is summed up by one of the opening sentences in the report: “Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades.”

This poll is the latest in a series of surveys dating to 1994. Together they provide not just snapshots in time, but also an arc of the changes in public opinion. Republicans moved to the right harder and earlier than Democrats began moving left, and their base remains more uncompromising. But on a number or questions, the biggest recent movement has been among Democrats.

In its new survey, Pew found the widest partisan gap ever on the question of whether government should help those in need — primarily because of recent shifts among Democrats. From 2011 to today, the percentage of Democrats who say government should do more to help those in need has jumped from 54 percent to 71 percent.

Only a minority of Republicans (24 percent) say government should do more for the needy, and that figure has barely moved in the past six years. The Republicans shifted their views from 2007 through 2011, the early years of the Obama presidency, during which their support for a government role dropped by 20 percentage points.

Two related questions produce a similar pattern among Democrats. Three in 4 Democrats say that “poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently,” up a dozen points in the past few years.

Eight in 10 Democrats say the country needs to continue to make changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, up 18 points since 2014. And more than 6 in 10 say “racial discrimination is the main reason many black people can’t get ahead these days,” up from 4 in 10 three years ago.

Meanwhile, only a quarter of Republicans agree with the statement on government benefits, fewer than 4 in 10 say the country needs to continue to do things to provide equal rights for blacks, and just 14 percent cite racial discrimination as the main reason many blacks can’t get ahead...

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."


Also at Theo's, "Cartoon Roundup..."

Cartoon Credit: Ben Garrison.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Democrats See Growing Split Between Party and Base

With Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party basically coming out the winner in Britain's general election, we saw all kinds of quick hot takes about how Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders (at least on Twitter).

I also saw someone (I've forgotten who) arguing that the populist/nationalist wave has crested (at 538?). I guess that means hardcore socialists are about to come to power, right?

Actually, no. The fact is Corbyn's still the leader of the shadow cabinet. We'll see if we have another election in Britain this year, as some have argued, but in the U.S. it's well over a year until the congressional midterms. A lot can happen in the meanwhile. And for 2020? Won't Bernie be pushing 80 by then? The Democrats need to deepen the bench. Sheesh.

In any case, at the New York Times, "Democrats in Split-Screen: The Base Wants It All. The Party Wants to Win":

DUNWOODY, Ga. — Democrats are facing an open breach between the demands of their political base and the strict limits of their power, as liberal activists dream of transforming the health care system and impeaching President Trump, while candidates in hard-fought elections ask wary independent voters merely for a fresh chance at governing.

The growing tension between the party’s ascendant militant wing and Democrats in conservative-leaning terrain, where the party must compete to win power in Congress, was on vivid, split-screen display over the weekend: in Chicago, where Senator Bernie Sanders led a revival-style meeting of his progressive devotees, and in Atlanta, where Democrats are spending colossal sums of money in hopes of seizing a traditionally Republican congressional district.

It may be essential for Democrats to reconcile the party’s two clashing impulses if they are to retake the House of Representatives in 2018. In a promising political environment, a drawn-out struggle over Democratic strategy and ideology could spill into primary elections and disrupt the party’s path to a majority.

On the one hand, progressives are more emboldened than they have been in decades, galvanized by Mr. Sanders’s unexpected successes in 2016 and empowered by the surge of grass-roots energy dedicated to confronting an unpopular president and pushing the party leftward.

Mr. Sanders rallied his youthful, often-raucous coalition Saturday night at a gathering named the “People’s Summit,” where supporters hailed him in worshipful language. One Colorado couple hauled a small banner through the hangar-size McCormick Place, pleading with Mr. Sanders, a still-independent Vermont senator, to create a new “People’s Party.”

Mr. Sanders and many attendees enthused over the surprise showing of the British Labour Party, under the left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn, in last week’s election. Democrats can electrify voters, they warned, only by embracing the Sanders agenda of universal health care, free college tuition and full employment.

Speaking for just under an hour, Mr. Sanders — who was met with chants of “Bernie, Bernie” and pleas of “2020!” — crowed that while he may have lost the 2016 primary, “we have won the battle of ideas and we are continuing to win that battle.”

He assailed President Trump in blistering terms, but earned some of his loudest cheers for attacking the party whose nomination he sought last year. “The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure,” Mr. Sanders said to booming applause, arguing that Democrats need “fundamental change.”

“The Democratic Party must finally understand which side it is on,” he said.

Yet the party’s elected leaders, and many of its candidates, are far more dispassionate, sharing a cold-eyed recognition of the need to scrounge for votes in forbidding precincts...
Pfft.

It's all baloney.

It's going to take a massive wave election in 2018 to topple the Republican majority in Congress, especially in the House.

And it's about 18 months until the 2018 midterms. Dems should curb their enthusiasm a little, heh.

Still more.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Friday, September 16, 2016

The Twilight of American Jewry

From Caroline Glick:
This week marked the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. Most of us didn’t realize it at the time, but those attacks also marked the beginning of the end of the golden age of American Jewry – on both sides of the ideological divide.

Most American Jews make their home on the political Left, and together with black Americans they comprise the most loyal Democratic voting bloc. American Jews have clung to the Democratic Party despite the fact that over the past decade and a half, their position in the party has become increasingly precarious.

After the September 11 attacks, the American anti-war movement rose as a force in the party. The movement was quick to conflate its anti-Americanism with hostility for Israel. Jewish anti-war activists were forced to choose between Zionism and pacifism.

And the situation has only grown worse over time.

As Gary Gambill of the Middle East Forum wrote this week in The National Interest, since the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel was founded in 2005, its members have gone from one leftist group to another and demanded that their members embrace the cause of Israel’s destruction.

Group after group – from the feminists, to the gay rights activists, to Occupy Wall Street, to Black Lives Matter – bowed to the BDS demand. Members who refused to condemn Israel and join the call for its destruction have been booted out.

As Prof. Alan Dershowitz wrote last month, this state of affairs has brought about a situation where progressive American Jews who support Israel – that is, the majority of American Jews – are increasingly finding themselves isolated, rejected by their fellow leftists.

In his words, “Over the past several years, progressive Jews and supporters of Israel have had to come to terms with the reality that those who do not reject Israel and accept the… BDS movement’s unique brand of bigotry are no longer welcome in some progressive circles. And while both the Democratic and Republican parties have embraced the importance of the US alliance with Israel, that dynamic is under threat more so than at any point in my lifetime.”

The radicalization of the American Left has caused a radicalization of the Democratic Party. This was made clear throughout this year’s Democratic primary season and during the party’s national convention. Today, the anti-Israel Left makes up not just the Democratic grassroots but also the major donors to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The significance of this development for American Jews cannot be overstated. Even if Clinton herself doesn’t share the positions of the Bernie Sanders wing of her party, she cannot govern in defiance of its will.

And if she is elected in November, she won’t...
Keep reading.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Rania Khalek Interviews Seattle Socialist Kshama Sawant (VIDEO)

Lots of thoughts watching this interview.

For one thing, both of these women talk a freakin' mile a minute! It's kind of funny, especially since speaking that fast isn't necessary at all in a 15-minute interview for alternative media. Just slow down people, heh.

More substantially, though, would this lady Sawant, who's an out-and-out Marxist (I've blogged about her here), have supported Bernie Sanders as the Democrat Party nominee had he won the primaries? She's railing and railing against the two-party corporate hegemony of the Democrats and the Republicans, who represent the "ruling class," but had Sanders become the Democrat standard-bearer would that ideological principle have gone out the window at the moment of political opportunity? I mean, as it is Hillary's practically endorsing all the things Sawant's taking about --- single-payer health care, open-borders amnesty, anti-police "brutality" legislation, and what not. Never mind that Hillary's indeed beholden to Wall Street (corporate power is more and more leftist power these days, a sort of progressive corporatism). No, I expect it's not so much an "independent party" that Sawant all about. She wants a national political party to embrace the label of socialism unapologetically. The Democrats are almost there, actually. Their only roadblock to coming out full Marxist is the American people. Leftists still have to win elections. And when you start to over to flyover country the interests of the progressive urban elites are about as far away as you can get.

It's going to be interesting going forward, that's for sure. If Hillary wins Democrats will argue that Obama's election in '08 was the beginning of a long-term realignment founded on the coalition of transformation (minorities, younger people, and coastal elites). And she'll be emboldened to shed the mask of moderation and fully embrace the Alinskyite Marxism that's her true ideological pedigree.

More on this stuff throughout the campaign. As I always say, this elections about genuinely preserving the American republic. If the Democrats win, America's really going to see that fundamental transformation Obama promised. Hillary's going to be Obama's third term.

In any case, here's the interview: