It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naïve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
"... BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz then
Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming Trump does
in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes. ..."
"... It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton
somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than Condeleeza
"I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable. ..."
"... I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least
as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc, etc
there's been ALOT of mistakes there) ..."
"... As soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that
principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy horse
dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia, most choose
compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers stay sane and maintain
their identity in the ever more grueling workplace. ..."
"... Hmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not metaphoricallly,
but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about elites ("know your enemy").
..."
"... Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat and puts
on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts on the Campaign
hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep her mind and heart that compartmentalized,
no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude toward public service," as we put it, that's what
we'd have to believe. I don't believe it. ..."
"... So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which is
it to be? ..."
"... If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part of
what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
..."
"... According to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya while
Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration she was the
advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier. ..."
"... So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in Afghanistan
while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports the confrontation
with Russia. ..."
"... Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the neocons. It was a very different situation. ..."
"... Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary
when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree with her–particularly
the Democrats' wealthy backers. ..."
Cruz–Trump's mini-me–has apparently also been claiming lately that Hillary was a foreign policy
disaster who killed thousands. This is what Sanders hasn't been saying forever. Libertarian
Raimondo gives his take on the debate and says Rand Paul had a big night.
BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz
then Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming
Trump does in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes.
cwaltz
Sanders doesn't mention Hillary by name (probably because she isn't the primary problem. It
wasn't like Condeleeza Rice was a stellar Secretary of State or there weren't indictments under
the Reagan Secretary of State.) However, he has been saying that our foreign policy is part of
the problem which is the REAL problem. Clinton is just a symptom.
Steven D.
I thought you were going pin the blame on Barry O since he was Hillary's boss. The system doesn't
cut it as a target. It excuses the actors. Nobody has agency? Clinton had and has a lot of power.
She has had options. She has chosen her path.
cwaltz
Clinton's behavior was similar to her predecessors which was similar to her predecessors and
so on and so on.
It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton
somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than
Condeleeza "I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable.
I'm all for Hillary being held accountable.
I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least
as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc,
etc there's been ALOT of mistakes there)
Steven D.
Who makes foreign policy? People do. There are institutional prerogatives but she didn't have
to be so damned good at being so bad.
hunkerdown
As soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that
principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy
horse dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia,
most choose compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers
stay sane and maintain their identity in the ever more grueling workplace.
Hmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not
metaphoricallly, but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about
elites ("know your enemy").
I said something similar - OK, "interesting" could mean confirming my priors -
here:
Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat
and puts on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts
on the Campaign hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep
her mind and heart that compartmentalized, no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude
toward public service," as we put it, that's what we'd have to believe. I don't believe it.
So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which
is it to be?
Nose- or rather brain-bleeds at the commanding heights….
different clue
Sociocorruptopath.
hunkerdown
Split attribution enables screwed-up principal-agent relationships. Think sex workers,
used-car salesmen, fresh-out-of-Harvard Democratic strategists, other agents who loyally if resignedly
carry out what the mainstream deems inhospitable and/or dirty work to the benefit of their principals,
yet share no interest apart from the engaged work.
Cultivating a straw self-identity or group-identity, or maybe role, for the purpose of attribution
is an effective though problematic way to keep the evil from sticking to one's self-definition.
If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part
of what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
Carolinian
According to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya
while Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration
she was the advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier.
So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in
Afghanistan while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports
the confrontation with Russia.
In Honduras she covertly supported the coup government at the urging of her crony Lanny Davis
and the Honduran children who are fleeing to the United States can be chalked up as another of
HIllary's little missteps. Whether or not she was the worst Sec State ever she's up there.
Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld and the neocons. It was a very different situation.
Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary
when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree
with her–particularly the Democrats' wealthy backers.
Clinton really believes that stuff. She's not pandering. Well, I mean, she's pandering too,
of course, but from a base of conviction, not political posturing.
Steven D.
You give her too much credit. Like Lyndon Johnson, she's afraid of the Republicans getting
too much to her right on foreign policy. It's purely reactive. If she believes anything, it's
probably that Democrats need to be hawkish to avoid being portrayed as pansies. A fruit of her
McGovern experience in 1972.
different clue
Then she may be misreading that experience. My brain keeps circling back to Hunter S. Thompson's
argument that McGovern didn't start falling badly until he was seen visibly seeking to appease
the Establishment Democrats that his campaign had just beaten. If Thompson't analysis is correct,
McGovern betrayed his own campaign and everyone who worked in it.
But of course the Clintons just saw "evil workers supporting Nixon against our beloved McGovern".
I still wonder how much of Clinton's support for NAFTA was driven by a desire for revenge against
the working class which voted against his beloved McGovern? Revenge being a dish best served cold,
and so forth.
Carolinian
You are probably right, which just makes it worse. No dissuading a fanatic.Hillary doesn't
seem like the type who is inclined to admit to mistakes.
Ted Rall says that for once Trump's "s-bombs" are justified.
"... The obvious candidate for this dark force [correlation between (rising) inequality and (low) growth] is crony capitalism. When a country succumbs to cronyism, friends of the rulers are able to appropriate large amounts of wealth for themselves -- for example, by being awarded government-protected monopolies over certain markets, as in Russia after the fall of communism. That will obviously lead to inequality of income and wealth. It will also make the economy inefficient, since money is flowing to unproductive cronies. Cronyism may also reduce growth by allowing the wealthy to exert greater influence on political policy, creating inefficient subsidies for themselves and unfair penalties for their rivals. ..."
"... The real problem is that money does not go to where it should go, as we see for example in the United States. The money does not flow into the real economy, because the transmission mechanism is broken. That is why we have a bubble in the financial system. The answer is not to tighten monetary policy, but to reform monetary policy so as to ensure that the money gets to the right place... ..."
"... As Stiglitz notes, the transmission mechanisms are broken. Economists trickle down monetary policy might work in theory, but not in practice, as we have seen for the last seven years, when low rates dont trickle down and were wasted instead on asset speculation by the 1%. ..."
"... Reform of the Fed, and the end of cronyism are essential to making sure that the stimulus of low rates gets to Main Street, to ordinary people, and not primarily to asset speculators. ..."
"... The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort - not to fight phantom inflation. ..."
"... And in one sentence Summers illustrates exactly why we dodged a bullet in not appointing Summers to be Fed Chair. Preserving the power of the Fed is not the most important policy. Changing the Fed composition so that it is more consumer friendly and not dominated by Wall Street interests is the most important policy change needed. ..."
"... the Balkanized character of US banking regulation is indefensible and would be ended. The worst regulatory idea of the 20th century-the dual banking system-persists into the 21st. The idea is that we have two systems one regulated by the States and the Fed and the other regulated by the OCC so banks have choice. With ambitious regulators eager to expand their reach, the inevitable result is a race to the bottom. ..."
"... Summers is also calling for higher capital requirements. Excellent stuff! ..."
This is the beginning of a long response from Larry Summers to an op-ed by Bernie Sanders:
The Fed and Financial Reform
– Reflections on Sen. Sanders op-Ed
: Bernie Sanders had an
op Ed in the New York Times
on Fed reform last week that provides an opportunity to reflect
on the Fed and financial reform more generally. I think that Sanders is right in his central
point that financial policy is overly influenced by financial interests to its detriment and
that it is essential that this be repaired.
At the same time, reform requires careful reflection if it is not to be counterproductive.
And it is important in approaching issues of reform not to give ammunition to right wing critics
of the Fed who would deny it the capacity to engage in the kind of crisis responses that have
judged in their totality been successful in responding to the financial crisis.
The most important policy priority with respect to the Fed is protecting it from stone age
monetary ideas like a return to the gold standard, or turning policymaking over to a formula,
or removing the dual mandate commanding the Fed to worry about unemployment as well as inflation.
...
JohnH said...
Disagree!!! There is more to this than just interest rates. There is the matter of how the policy
gets implemented--who gets low rates. Currently the low rates serve mostly the 1%, who profit
enormously from them. Case in point: Mort Zuckerberg's 1% mortgage!
"The obvious candidate for
this dark force [correlation between (rising) inequality and (low) growth] is crony capitalism.
When a country succumbs to cronyism, friends of the rulers are able to appropriate large amounts
of wealth for themselves -- for example, by being awarded government-protected monopolies over
certain markets, as in Russia after the fall of communism. That will obviously lead to inequality
of income and wealth. It will also make the economy inefficient, since money is flowing to unproductive
cronies. Cronyism may also reduce growth by allowing the wealthy to exert greater influence on
political policy, creating inefficient subsidies for themselves and unfair penalties for their
rivals."
As we know (although most here steadfastly ignore it) the Fed is rife with crony capitalism.
As Bernie pointed out, 4 of the regional governors are from Goldman Sachs. Other examples are
abundant. Quite simply, the system is rigged to benefit the few, minimizing any potential trickle
down.
If a broad economic recovery is the goal, ending cronyism at the Fed is likely to be far more
effective that low interest rates channeled only to the 1%.
JohnH said in reply to JohnH...
Stiglitz:
The real problem is that money does not go to where it should go, as we see for example
in the United States. The money does not flow into the real economy, because the transmission
mechanism is broken. That is why we have a bubble in the financial system. The answer is not to
tighten monetary policy, but to reform monetary policy so as to ensure that the money gets to
the right place...
Small and medium enterprises cannot borrow money at zero interest rates -
not even a private person, I wish I could do that (laughs). I'm more worried about the loan interest
rates, which are still too high. Access for small and medium enterprises to credit is too expensive.
That's why it is so important that the transmission mechanism work..."
http://www.cash.ch/news/alle/stiglitz-billiggeld-lost-kein-problem-3393853-448
And let's not forget consumer credit rates, which barely dropped during the Great Recession
and are still well above 10%. Even mortgage lending, which primarily benefits the affluent, have
been stagnant for years despite historically low rates.
As Stiglitz notes, the transmission mechanisms are broken. Economists' trickle down monetary
policy might work in theory, but not in practice, as we have seen for the last seven years, when
low rates don't trickle down and were wasted instead on asset speculation by the 1%.
Reform of the Fed, and the end of cronyism are essential to making sure that the stimulus of
low rates gets to Main Street, to ordinary people, and not primarily to asset speculators.
Peter K. said in reply to JohnH...
Bernie Sanders:
"The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged
economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years
that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising
interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers
and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest
rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last
resort - not to fight phantom inflation.
"
The financial system reform legislation in 2017 will also need to include these matters:
1.
Licensure fees and higher and more differential income taxation rates based on the type of financial
trading ratios the entities have (in order to direct more emphasis to real-economy lending and
away from speculative and leveraged positions used in the financial asset trading marketplaces,
so hedge funds probably would face the highest rates in income taxation). For a certain period
after enactment these added taxes would be payable by the banks using their excess reserves, which
will simply be eliminated until the reserve accounts return to the historically normal period
when excess reserves were very small (there would no longer be a need for IOER, as the excess
would be eliminated by operation of the taxation statutes). Attaching added ways & means statutes
to all the financial service entities also serves to 'cover' some more of huge financial risk
held by society and produced by them while the success of this huge sector actually contributes
to the financing of self-government - which is also an indirect way to attach high Net Worth being
used).
2. New statutory provisions need to reach any and all entities in the financial community regardless
of definitions based on the functions they serve or provide (or the way they are named - so yes,
the prior separation for deposit-management banking from investing activities can still happen,
but this only helps to define which of the differential provisions apply, not help the entity
escape them). Perhaps as a result Bank Holding Companies and other large entities won't use a
complex network of hundreds of subsidiaries as these would not then serve as a way to avoid taxation,
regulatory standards on what are prudent expectations, or supervision; or be used simply to obfuscate
-- so investors and regulators can't see the truth of matters.
3. The newly named central bank needs to hold the discretion to buy Treasury bonds directly
from the Treasury. This would discipline these fundamental asset-trading marketplaces and the
huge primary dealer group of entities, and weaken the fox-and-hen-house influence on public finance.
4. New accounting approaches for the central bank would clarify what happens should the Congress
direct redemption amounts or asset sales for the public's purposes. A good portion of the current
FRB's book of owned assets can be redeemed or sold without affecting the 'power' of the central
bank, and the proceeds used then, for example, to lower payroll taxes via a direct transfer to
the social security trust fund's set of accounts).
Senator Sanders, good stuff. Bring out the vote, let us get others in Congress with whom you
can work.
BillB said...
Summers: "The most important policy priority with respect to the Fed is protecting it from stone
age monetary ideas like a return to the gold standard, or turning policymaking over to a formula,
or removing the dual mandate commanding the Fed to worry about unemployment as well as inflation."
And in one sentence Summers illustrates exactly why we dodged a bullet in not appointing Summers
to be Fed Chair. Preserving the power of the Fed is not the most important policy. Changing the
Fed composition so that it is more consumer friendly and not dominated by Wall Street interests
is the most important policy change needed.
Summers argument is the same we always hear from so-called "centrists." "You hippies should
shut up because you are helping the opposition."
You hear the same sort of argument with respect to Black Lives Matter.
pgl said in reply to pgl...
On financial regulation - Summers is spot on here:
"the Balkanized character of US banking regulation is indefensible and would be ended. The
worst regulatory idea of the 20th century-the dual banking system-persists into the 21st. The
idea is that we have two systems one regulated by the States and the Fed and the other regulated
by the OCC so banks have choice. With ambitious regulators eager to expand their reach, the
inevitable result is a race to the bottom."
It is called regulatory capture.
Summers is also calling for higher capital requirements. Excellent stuff!
...The Donald is running to the left of Hillary on
economic policy, fiscal policy and foreign policy. She ran to the right so fast she may have tripped
over herself to get there.
Notable quotes:
"... I love ya Bernie, but if you think Clinton wants to defeat right-wing extremism in this country - rather than use it as an excuse why during her term she couldn't get all those progressive things she said she favored in order to win the primary while further lining the pockets of her benefactors - we disagree about the nature of the threat. ..."
"... "But at the end of the day, the DNC, Hillary Clinton and myself - we want to defeat right-wing extremism in this country." ..."
"... I was hoping against hope that this dude might even be a slight approximation of the real McCoy – but this comment is the tell. Bernie is a clown. ..."
"... "That would be almost 19 percent of our pretax income." ..."
"... Another Atlantic article, the Great Republican Revolt, which analyzes the failure of the republican elites to present an acceptable presidential candidate to their base. For the most part, I think the author is accurate in his analysis of the factors in play. I would love to see this same sort of article on the Democratic party elites. I believe they are just as clueless and just as vulnerable to a Trump like candidate. ..."
"... Otherwise, why in the world would we be constantly force fed Mrs. Clinton over just about anybody else, by not only the MSM, which barely covers the Democratic contest anyway, being too busy with the Klown Kar, but the so-called "bloggerverse" which also seems totally in the bag for Clinton? ..."
"... This tendency many have to transform all apparent kicking down into an allegedly real desire to kick up, strikes me as wishful thinking at best. When I think back on the kiss up, kick down people I've encountered in my own life and times–and one in particular stands out here– they most certainly were not kicking me because what they really wanted to do was kick the person above them in the hierarchy. Oh, no. ..."
The more likely scenario might be the reverse since I doubt Bernie will be around after March
1st. As abhorrent as his immigration policies are, The Donald is running to the left of Hillary on
economic policy, fiscal policy and foreign policy. She ran to the right so fast she may have tripped
over herself to get there.
craazyman
A /bernie_sanders.Trump ticket could win with 70% of the vote.
They have more in common than they realize. Or maybe Trump's Performance Art wouldn't let him
be a VP. But this could be real! It doesn't have to be just in his imagination.
He could play VP and be VP. He could even criticize Sanders and get away with it. Oscar criticized
Felix and they still shared an apartment. They even stayed roommates after Felix took Oscar to
small claims court. That was the famous "When you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"
episode.
This is a critical moment and they can both see common ground and take a step toward the change
we need. Not the change we believed in but never got. One small step for two men, a giant leap
for mankind.
Brindle
I occasionally check in on Trump's twitter–often entertaining. Here's one from a few hours
ago where he hits at the bi-partisan economy:
-"Many of the great jobs that the people of our country want are long gone, shipped to other
countries. We now are part time, sad! I WILL FIX!"-
I hope Trump is the GOP nominee, could not stay awake if it is the somnabulant Jeb Bush
MyLessThanPrimeBeef
My guess is he is going after all the different single-issue voters who can block out whatever
they don't like about Trump, because, for each, he has that one single issue they care about.
Nigelk
"We have had our differences of opinions with the DNC," he said. "But at the end of the day,
the DNC, Hillary Clinton and myself - we want to defeat right-wing extremism in this country."
I love ya Bernie, but if you think Clinton wants to defeat right-wing extremism in this country
- rather than use it as an excuse why during her term she couldn't get all those progressive things
she said she favored in order to win the primary while further lining the pockets of her benefactors
- we disagree about the nature of the threat.
3.14e-9
It seems like that, doesn't it? Many of us want him to hit back harder. But I'm wondering whether
the lawsuit got them thinking real hard about their split voter base. How likely is it that either
of them will win the general election without a substantial number of the other's supporters?
Sure, Bernie said he would support Hillary if he lost the primary, but many of his followers are
making it clear they won't vote for her under any circumstances.
There's already talk of organizing a campaign to write him in, which could be disastrous for
her. If he wins, he may or may not be able to defeat the Republican candidate without a good number
of Hillary's base, so he can't risk p-ssing them off by beating up on her. I'm starting to think
that the limited number of debates might not be such a disadvantage for him after all.
tongorad
"But at the end of the day, the DNC, Hillary Clinton and myself - we want to defeat right-wing
extremism in this country."
I was hoping against hope that this dude might even be a slight approximation of the real McCoy
– but this comment is the tell. Bernie is a clown.
Carolinian
But according to Dem shills like Krugman Obiecare is going to "nudge" us along towards a better
system. Just be patient. Or don't read Krugman.
Katniss Everdeen
Forgot to note that the "healthcare" insurance company "Oscar," mentioned in the article, was
started by Joshua Kushner, Ivanka Trump's brother-in-law.
I don't know what that means, but it sounds like it might be important.
Donald Trump "used" to be a single payer supporter.
Synoia
"That would be almost 19 percent of our pretax income."
That is certainly proportional to the Medical Industry's share of GDP. Seems fair to me /s.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef
That's just the premium portion.
To receive actual health care and obtain prescription drugs, they will have to fork over more
of their pretax income.
Synoia
True. But Profit!!!
Jagger
Another Atlantic article, the Great Republican Revolt, which analyzes the failure of the republican
elites to present an acceptable presidential candidate to their base. For the most part, I think
the author is accurate in his analysis of the factors in play. I would love to see this same sort
of article on the Democratic party elites. I believe they are just as clueless and just as vulnerable
to a Trump like candidate.
Very good read. Thanks for the link. GOP pundits express bewilderment about Trump's appeal
to the base. Said pundits should read this article.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef
Base to pundits: Come check out the base(ment) of the Metropolis Hotel.
PQS
"I believe they are just as clueless and just as vulnerable to a Trump like candidate."
This.
Otherwise, why in the world would we be constantly force fed Mrs. Clinton over just about anybody
else, by not only the MSM, which barely covers the Democratic contest anyway, being too busy with
the Klown Kar, but the so-called "bloggerverse" which also seems totally in the bag for Clinton?
JTFaraday
re: Pitch: "If you really want to tick off the elites, elect a Socialist!"
This tendency many have to transform all apparent kicking down into an allegedly real desire
to kick up, strikes me as wishful thinking at best. When I think back on the kiss up, kick down
people I've encountered in my own life and times–and one in particular stands out here– they most
certainly were not kicking me because what they really wanted to do was kick the person above
them in the hierarchy. Oh, no.
They're kicking exactly who they want to kick. I'm waiting for someone to ask if Trump is really
going to be their willing tool. That was the real question.
Synoia
Trump is really going to be their willing tool
Not a chance. For his friends, yes. However, I'm willing to bet Trump has a private enemies
list, and I'd not want to feature upon that list.
hunkerdown
That's only because they're not used to being kicked back from below. Every manager knows that's
just a training problem.
Synoia
CITE: The $1 billion city that nobody calls home CNN.
Ah a perfect model of a mid 1950s American city, with 35,000 residents. What a predictor of
the future.
No high rises, completely walk able, no pesky historic homes, and a WalMart.
Wow, that's so forward looking.
Now what else could we do with $1 Billion? Take a bite out of homelessness?
(All GOP prez wannabees have tax plans featuring drastically lower top-tier rates (except for
Rubio), much lower corporate rates, and some appealing breaks for the middle class.
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John Kasich vowed Thursday to balance
the federal budget within eight years as part of a domestic agenda led by broad tax cuts and a
yearslong freeze on all spending except the military.
The Ohio governor's budget framework would focus tax cuts on businesses and the wealthy - though
at least one provision is aimed at lower-income people - and dramatically scale back the federal
government's role in administering education and transportation funding. It's an agenda for the
first 100 days that is not as aggressive of some of his more conservative rivals, but one he predicts
will prompt criticism from opponents in both parties.
"I will immediately put us on a path to a balanced budget and I will get it done within eight
years," Kasich said Thursday at Nashua Community College. "It starts by setting your priorities
and then having the courage to make choices that might be unpopular."
The policy rollout comes as Kasich fights to stand out in a packed 2016 GOP field. In an election
season celebrating political outsiders, the 63-year-old Republican has an insider resume that
includes 18 years in Congress and two terms as governor in one of the nation's key swing states.
Yet his blunt style resonates with some voters, particularly in New Hampshire, the unofficial
staging ground for his campaign.
Kasich called for broad tax cuts that would grow the budget deficit in the first few years,
according to projections his campaign shared with The Associated Press. His advisers predict that
economic growth sparked by the tax cuts, backed by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and an eight-year
freeze on all non-defense discretionary spending, would eventually offset lost tax revenue to
balance the federal budget for the first time since Bill Clinton was president.
Kasich's tax plan would lower the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 28 percent,
reduce long-term capital gains tax rates to 15 percent and eliminate the estate tax, lower the
top business tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent and double the research and development tax
credit for small businesses.
"This looks like a pretty big tax cut for the top end and a little bit at the bottom," said
Robertson Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "There's not much
going to the middle class."
While most of the cuts benefit the wealthy, Kasich would increases by 10 percent the earned
income tax credit, a measure designed to help lower-income taxpayers.
"If you are a person that thinks you ought to pound the rich into submission, I guess you won't
like the plan," Kasich said in an AP interview before the speech. ...
Christie as governor of NJ has a fiscal track record. A really bad one. He claims he has balanced
the budget but the Volcker report says NJ's fiscal situation is worse than ever. And this is mainly
because he rewards his rich buddies as he screws the compensation packages of public employees.
He has underfunded the department of transportation so NJ's roads and bridges are crumbling even
as he steals money from the Port Authority.
But hey Christie yells a lot so he must be a great
guy.
A Trillion Here or There: The Details Aren't What
Matter in Trump's Tax Plan http://nyti.ms/1ObzPAo
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Josh Barro- Dec 23
On Tuesday, another think tank issued another analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan, which calls
for a very large tax cut that mostly benefits the wealthiest Americans. The new report, from the
Tax Policy Center, found the plan would lose $9.5 trillion in revenue over a decade.
That's $2.5 trillion less than two other think tanks estimated in the fall. In some sense,
$2.5 trillion is a lot of money. But in this case, the difference between $9.5 trillion and $12
trillion doesn't really matter - and the reason it doesn't matter has implications for how we
think about candidates' "tax plans," especially when they come from a candidate who invents Civil
War battles and whose own book promotes the virtue of "truthful hyperbole," a practice known to
normal people as "exaggerating."
Mr. Trump's plan is purely theoretical. Even if he is elected president, the plan will never
become law in its current form, whatever that current form is. Estimates of the plan's effects
are therefore useful only as broad statements of his intentions about taxes - and a proposal for
a $9.5 trillion tax cut makes essentially the same broad statement as a proposal for a $12 trillion
tax cut. ...
Analysis of Donald Trump Tax Plan Sees
a Boon for Wealthy and Trillions in Debt http://nyti.ms/1OlD4at
via @NYTPolitics
NYT - Alan Rappeport - Dec 22
"... Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost" the
Journal comes up with-$15 trillion-would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. ..."
"... The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie's agenda-tuition-free
education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund
to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next
ten years. ..."
"... Many of these other "costs would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families – for example,
in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country
as a whole, and may well save us money. ..."
"... Finally, Bernie's proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren't really "spending"
at all, but investments in the nation's future productivity. If we don't make them, we're all poorer.
... ..."
One suspects that the GOPsters are astonished by what they hear from Bernie Sanders & to a
slightly lesser extent Hillary, and are assuming that this presents great opportunities for a
GOP victory in 2016.
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Price tag of Bernie Sanders's proposals: $18 trillion
http://on.wsj.com/1UQtsaK
via @WSJ - Sept. 14, 2015
WASHINGTON-Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose liberal call to action has propelled his long-shot presidential
campaign, is proposing an array of new programs that would amount to the largest peacetime expansion
of government in modern American history.
In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally
by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause.
Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain
on the middle class.
His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that
covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and
make tuition free at public colleges.
To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has
so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according
to his staff. ...
Bernie Sanders just slammed a report that claimed his proposals would cost a monstrous $18
trillion http://read.bi/1JazBlK via @Business
Insider
"In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally
by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause."
Fred is repeating the Republican-Hillary lie. Maybe if we hear it enough we'll think it's true.
Bernie Sanders and the Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion
by Dean Baker
Published: 16 September 2015
The Wall Street Journal decided to take Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign seriously
enough to calculate the cost of the programs that he proposed. Their price tag was $18 trillion
over the next decade. This is presumably supposed to scare people because, let's face it $18 trillion
is a really big number.
Much of the fright factor disappears when we realize that $15 trillion of this $18 trillion
comes from the WSJ's estimate of the cost of Sanders' universal Medicare program. That is a considerable
chunk of change, but as Kevin Drum and others have pointed out this will not be new money out
of people's pockets. For the most part this is money that employers are now paying for their workers'
health care insurance. Instead, under a universal Medicare system the government would get this
money in tax revenue. Since Canada and the other wealthy countries with universal Medicare-type
systems all have much lower per capita health care costs than the United States (the average is
less than half the cost), in all probability we would be paying less for our health care under
the Sanders' system than we do now.
This still leaves $3 trillion for us to get frightened over, and this still looks like a really
big number. As a point of reference, GDP over the next decade is projected at roughly $240 trillion.
This makes the cost of the rest of Sanders' plans equal to less than 1.3 percent of GDP.
Should we worry about that? The increase in annual military spending from 2000 to the peaks
of Iraq/Afghanistan wars was roughly 1.8 percent of GDP. This was also the size of military buildup
that took place under President Reagan. Jeb Bush is proposing to cut taxes by roughly this amount
if he gets elected.
In short, the additional spending that Senator Sanders has proposed is not trivial, but we
have seen comparable increases in the past for other purposes. We can clearly afford the tab,
the question is whether free college, rebuilding the infrastructure, early childhood education
and the other items on the list are worth the price.
... The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread
the truth:
1. Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost"
the Journal comes up with-$15 trillion-would pay for opening Medicare to everyone.
This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers
that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries,
and high pharmaceutical prices.
Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal
relies on for some of its data, actually estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save
all of us $10 trillion over 10 years.
2. The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie's
agenda-tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved
infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to
cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
3. Many of these other "costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families
– for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added
costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
4. Finally, Bernie's proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren't really "spending"
at all, but investments in the nation's future productivity. If we don't make them, we're all
poorer. ...
"... Anyway, as I've said, the prediction markets basically distill conventional wisdom; and what
they're now saying must be striking terror into the hearts of the orthodox conservative movement. ...
..."
"... Ted Cruz Agrees With Donald Trump: It's Turning Into a Two-Man Race ..."
"... Noting Mr. Trump's comments on Sunday, when he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Republican
primary contest "looks like a two-person race because everyone else is way behind," Mr. Cruz did not
hesitate to endorse the idea. ..."
"... "I did think it was interesting Donald said a couple of days ago that he thought that the Republican
race could come down to just him and me," Mr. Cruz told reporters after a rally here. "And I think he
may well be right." ... ..."
"... Theres definitely an element of Trumpenfreude here, but mostly I just think itll happen. He
defies the playbook. ..."
You know what I'm talking about, of course - that feeling of glee mixed with fear as one watches
the cynical race-baiting of the Republican establishment finally come home to roost, confirming
that you were right to be shrill (and the centrists were naive), but with the slight admixture
of panic because one of these guys might actually become president.
Anyway, as I've said, the prediction markets basically distill conventional wisdom; and
what they're now saying must be striking terror into the hearts of the orthodox conservative movement.
...
Who will win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination?
https://shar.es/1GB3CB (December 27)
(Cruz, 33%; Rubio 32%; Trump 28%; Others, 8% or less. Rubio trending down slightly.)
---
Ted Cruz Agrees With Donald Trump: It's Turning Into a Two-Man Race
http://nyti.ms/1OmjNWh via @NYTPolitics
NYT - Matt Flegenheimer - Dec 22
NASHVILLE - Senator Ted Cruz said Tuesday that Donald J. Trump "may well be right that this
is turning more and more into a two-man race" - delivering an unsubtle elbow to Senator Marco
Rubio, trails the two men in most polls, without naming him.
Noting Mr. Trump's comments on Sunday, when he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the
Republican primary contest "looks like a two-person race because everyone else is way behind,"
Mr. Cruz did not hesitate to endorse the idea.
"I did think it was interesting Donald said a couple of days ago that he thought that the
Republican race could come down to just him and me," Mr. Cruz told reporters after a rally here.
"And I think he may well be right." ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Matt Taibbi... (Tweet - Aug 10)
There's definitely an element of Trumpenfreude here, but
mostly I just think it'll happen. He defies the playbook.
An interesting and plausible hypothesis: Trump as a candidate who answers voters frustration with
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The data suggest theres some kind of connection. According to polls, whites with a high school
degree or less disproportionately favor Trump. These are the same people who have seen their economic
opportunities decline the most in recent years. This group also disproportionately favors tough restrictions
on immigration. ..."
"... A new study released this week showed that in Germany, the economic frustrations of trade nudged
many people into becoming right-wing extremists over the past two decades - throwing their support behind
the country's neo-Nazi parties. ..."
"... Still, these far-right parties have consistently earned a percentage point or two of the German
national vote. And the economists found that they have been particularly popular with people who have
been negatively impacted by trade. ..."
"... using German data on elections, employment, and commerce, they showed that places where trade
caused the most pain also had the largest increases in support for far-right parties. Over the past
20 years, Germanys exports and imports have both skyrocketed, first thanks to the fall of the Iron Curtain,
then due to Chinas rise as a major manufacturer. ..."
"... Workers whose industries were hurt by trade were were more likely to say they would start voting
for one of the extreme right parties. Even workers whose own industries were unaffected by trade were
more likely to support a neo-Nazi political party if they lived in a region hurt by trade. ..."
"... Christian Dippel, one of the authors of the study, says it's also important to look at the
context in each country. The neo-Nazi parties happen to be the voice of anti-globalization in Germany.
But in Spain, for instance, these views are the trademark of Podemos, a far-left party "known for its
rants against globalization and the tyranny of markets," according to Foreign Affairs. ..."
"... The larger lesson, Dippel says, is that globalization creates a class of angry voters who will
reward whoever can tap into their frustrations. These are usually extremist parties, because the mainstream
tends to recognize the overall benefits of trade. "When the mainstream parties are all, in a loose sense,
pro-globalization, there's room for fringe groups to latch onto this anti-globalization sentiment and
profit from it," he says. ..."
"... Author has shown that in America, recent trends in trade have hurt low-wage workers the most.
With his co-authors David Dorn, Gordon Hanson and Jae Song, he published a widely-cited 2014 paper measuring
the negative impacts of manufacturing imports from China, America's largest trading partner. Most of
those ill-effects - like unemployment and lower earnings - were borne by the workers with the lowest
wages. ..."
"... "Immigration always seems to be the most tangible evidence of the impingement of others on
your economic turf," Author adds. ..."
"... "In Germany, these three things get bundled up in these far-right platforms in a way that's
very difficult to unpack," he says. "It could be that you're bundling these ideas together for a reason.
It could be that you're bundling together what's really happening with an idea that's more tangible,
that you could sell more easily to angry voters." ..."
A popular theory for Donald Trump's success emphasizes the economic anxiety of less-educated whites,
who have struggled badly over the past few decades.
Hit hard by factory closings and jobs moving abroad to China and other places, the story goes,
blue-collar voters are channeling their anger at immigrants, who have out-competed them for what
jobs remain. Trump, with his remarks about Mexicans being rapists, has ridden this discontent to
the top of the polls.
The data suggest there's some kind of connection. According to polls, whites with a high school
degree or less disproportionately favor Trump. These are the same people who have seen their economic
opportunities decline the most in recent years. This group also disproportionately favors tough restrictions
on immigration.
But just because there appears to be a connection doesn't mean there is one. Has globalization
pushed working-class voters to the right? Nobody has proven that globalization has in fact pushed
working-class voters to the right or made them more extreme, at least not in the United States, where
the right kind of data aren't being collected. But unique records from Germany have allowed economists
to show how free trade trade changes people's political opinions.
A new study released this week showed that in Germany, the economic frustrations of trade
nudged many people into becoming right-wing extremists over the past two decades - throwing their
support behind the country's neo-Nazi parties. Written by economists Christian Dippel, of University
of California, Los Angeles, Stephan Heblich, of the University of Bristol, and Robert Gold of the
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the paper was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Germany's far-right politicians, it should be noted, are not garden-variety nationalists. German
intelligence keeps tabs on these people, who frequently use racist and anti-Semitic language. They
say things like: "Europe is the continent of white people and it should remain that way." Many believe
in a global Jewish conspiracy. They are much more radical than, say, Marine Le Pen's National Front
party in France.
Still, these far-right parties have consistently earned a percentage point or two of the German
national vote. And the economists found that they have been particularly popular with people who
have been negatively impacted by trade.
How they measured the radicalizing power of trade
The economists took two different approaches to measure the connection between globalization and
right-wing extremism.
First, using German data on elections, employment, and commerce, they showed that places where
trade caused the most pain also had the largest increases in support for far-right parties. Over
the past 20 years, Germany's exports and imports have both skyrocketed, first thanks to the fall
of the Iron Curtain, then due to China's rise as a major manufacturer.
The researchers looked individually at Germany's 408 local districts, which are roughly equivalent
to counties in the United States. Each of these places was affected by increasing trade in different
ways. Areas that specialized in high-end cars, for instance, saw a happy boost from expanded exports.
Areas that specialized in, say, textiles, were stomped on by cheap Chinese and Eastern European imports.
This map shows changes in imports (bad!) compared to exports (good!). The dark blue regions are
places where imports increased a lot more than exports. These are the places where trade made things
worse, where people lost jobs and factories were shuttered.
These also happen to be the places where far-right parties made the most gains, on average. This
is true after controlling for demographics in each county, the size of the manufacturing sector,
and what part of the country the county was in.
The researchers argue that this relationship is more than just a correlation. To prove that trade
caused far-right radicalization, they only look at changes to the German economy inflicted by external
forces - say, a sudden increase in Chinese manufacturing capacity.
(Also, to get around the problem of German reunification, which happened in 1990, the researchers
split up the analysis into two time periods. From 1987 to 1998, they only looked at West Germany.
From 1998 to 2009, they looked at both regions.)
This evidence from patterns of trade and voting records is convincing, but there is one major
hole. The turmoil from trade caused certain counties to become friendlier to extremist parties -
but was it because the people living there became radicalized? Or did all the moderate voters flee
those places, leaving behind only the crusty xenophobes?
So, to follow up, the researchers used a special German survey that has been interviewing some
of the same people every year since the 1980s. This is a massively expensive project - the U.S. doesn't
have anything quite like it - and it allowed the researchers to actually observe people changing
their minds.
Workers whose industries were hurt by trade were were more likely to say they would start
voting for one of the extreme right parties. Even workers whose own industries were unaffected by
trade were more likely to support a neo-Nazi political party if they lived in a region hurt by trade.
In part this is because trade affects more than just the people who lose their jobs when the shoe
factory closes. Those assembly line workers need to find new jobs, and they put pressure on people
in similar occupations, say, at the garment factory or the tweezer factory.
What this means for the U.S.
All in all, the power of trade to radicalize people was rather small, measured in changes of a
fraction of a percent. This makes makes sense, because, again, Germany's far-right parties are way
out there. It takes a lot of economic suffering to cause someone to start voting with these neo-Nazis.
Christian Dippel, one of the authors of the study, says it's also important to look at the
context in each country. The neo-Nazi parties happen to be the voice of anti-globalization in Germany.
But in Spain, for instance, these views are the trademark of Podemos, a far-left party "known for
its rants against globalization and the tyranny of markets," according to Foreign Affairs.
The larger lesson, Dippel says, is that globalization creates a class of angry voters who
will reward whoever can tap into their frustrations. These are usually extremist parties, because
the mainstream tends to recognize the overall benefits of trade. "When the mainstream parties are
all, in a loose sense, pro-globalization, there's room for fringe groups to latch onto this anti-globalization
sentiment and profit from it," he says.
But is there an analogy between the far-right radicals in Germany and the wider group of disaffected
working class Americans who, say, support Donald Trump or the tea party? Certainly leaders on the
left also capitalize on anti-trade sentiment, but they usually use less harsh rhetoric or seldom
attack immigration.
David Autor, a labor economist at MIT, has been working to address the question of whether the
same dynamics are at play in the U.S. But it's a tough one, he says.
"What [Dippel and his colleagues] are doing is totally sensible, and I think the results are plausible
as well - that these trade shocks lead to activity on the extreme right, that they bring about ultranationalism,"
Autor says.
"We actually started on this hypothesis years ago for the U.S. to see if it could help to explain
the rise of angry white non-college males," he said. "But so far, we just don't have the right kind
of data."
Author has shown that in America, recent trends in trade have hurt low-wage workers the most.
With his co-authors David Dorn, Gordon Hanson and Jae Song, he published a widely-cited 2014 paper
measuring the negative impacts of manufacturing imports from China, America's largest trading partner.
Most of those ill-effects - like unemployment and lower earnings - were borne by the workers with
the lowest wages.
The higher-paid (and probably higher-skilled workers) were able to find new jobs when their companies
went bust. Often, they found jobs outside of the manufacturing industry. (An accountant, for instance,
can work anywhere.) But the lower-paid workers were trapped, doomed to fight over the ever-dwindling
supply of stateside manufacturing jobs.
China, of course, has been in Trump's crosshairs. He accuses the country of being a "currency
manipulator," which may have once been true, but not any more. He has threatened to impose a 25 percent
tax on Chinese imports to punish China.
But Trump has attracted the most attention for his disparaging remarks about immigrants - which
is something of puzzle. While it's true that non-college workers are increasingly competing with
immigrants for the same construction or manufacturing jobs, Author points out that there's little
evidence that immigrants are responsible for the woes of the working class.
"There's an amazing discrepancy between the data and the perception that I still find very hard
to reconcile," he says. "The data do not strongly support the view that immigration has had big effects
[on non-college workers], but I don't think that's how people perceive it."
"Immigration always seems to be the most tangible evidence of the impingement of others on
your economic turf," Author adds.
Dippel says that conflating these ideas could be a political strategy. He makes a distinction
between three different kinds of globalization - there's the worldwide movement of capital, goods,
and people.
"In Germany, these three things get bundled up in these far-right platforms in a way that's
very difficult to unpack," he says. "It could be that you're bundling these ideas together for a
reason. It could be that you're bundling together what's really happening with an idea that's more
tangible, that you could sell more easily to angry voters."
Jeff Guo is a reporter covering economics, domestic policy, and everything empirical. He's
from Maryland, but outside the Beltway. Follow him on Twitter: @_jeffguo.
Trump is currently the overwhelming favorite in national polls for the Republican nomination and
leading in the key early states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Then the Democrats had an adult debate. Not something
you'd see from those Republican clowns.
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
Why no one talks regime change in Egypt?
Silary went all GW lies for selling regime change in
Syria. Her foreign policy advisors are all PNAC, Cheney,
Wolfowitz....
Wants to work with Sunnis, she thinks like W that Iran
and Shi'a are the axis of evil.
She blames Maliki for Sunni treason and defecting en
masse to ISIS in Iraq and sees Iran as the enemy. Must
have had a crush on the Shah.
No fly zones so Assad cannot drop fearsome drums of
napalm!! Drone strike and all indeed! And with Russia
deploying a theater air defense it is up to Putin!
Then Hizbolah are THE big terrorists, only to her AIPAC
sponsors.
While she knows how many Syrians are dead in the civil
war she ignores 2000 Gaza Arabs killed by IDF in 10 days.
Bernie: US is not policeman.
Martin: Gotta go away from cold war.
Both said you 'gotta look at what you have after you
break Syria like Libya'!
She had nothing to say about what Syria would look like
when she gave to to the less extremist Sunnis terrorists
and how many Shi'a and other non Sunnis would be
slaughtered.
Feel the Bern!
ilsm said in reply to ilsm...
Silary laid out the entire thuggee regimen for the middle
east without drooling over carpet bombing or screeching she
would be tougher than Obomber.
... It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the
historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly
praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a
neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic
tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but
also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group
during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department. ...
... For months, Trump has embraced Putin as a world leader
he would "get along very well with," a relationship that
would be rooted in the two men's similar outlook, personas
and, in some cases, overlapping policy goals. It's an
international bromance that's driving GOP establishment
figures to call out Trump's ideological incompatibility with
the Republican Party in yet another arena.
After Putin praised Trump on Thursday as "bright and
talented" and "the absolute leader of the presidential race,"
the billionaire trumpeted Putin's praise as a "great honor"
and even shrugged off widespread allegations that the Russian
president has ordered the killing of journalists and
political dissidents.
"He's running his country and at least he's a leader,
unlike what we have in this country," Trump said Friday
morning on MSNBC. "I think our country does plenty of killing
also." ...
John Kasich's campaign went so far as to release a mock
press release Saturday announcing that Trump named Putin as
his running mate, dubbing the two a "dictatorial duo." ...
...According to an Interfax report of his annual year-end news conference, Putin
called the Republican presidential candidate "a very bright and talented man," as
well as an "absolute leader" in the race for the presidency. (Another account,
from Reuters, translated Putin as saying Trump is "a very flamboyant man.")
"He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level
of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it,"
Putin said, according to Reuters' report.
The Russian president also said that it is none of his business "to assess
tricks Donald Trump [is] using to boost his popularity," according to Interfax.
Trump has repeatedly praised the Russian leader's toughness and said he would
be able to cut deals with him.
"He does not like Obama at all. He doesn't respect Obama at all. And I'm sure that Obama
doesn't like him very much," Trump said of Putin in October. "But I think that I would probably
get along with him very well. And I don't think you'd be having the kind of problems that you're
having right now."
Trump has also backed Russia's intervention in Syria, which Putin has said is aimed at
eradicating the Islamic State. "And as far as him attacking ISIS, I'm all for it," he told CBS
News' John Dickerson. "If he wants to be bombing the hell out of ISIS, which he's starting to do,
if he wants to be bombing ISIS, let him bomb them, John. Let him bomb them. I think we probably
work together much more so than right now."
Descriptions of Donald J. Trump tend to emphasize his unpredictability-he's an impetuous rogue,
an unguided missile, and so on. But careful students of Trump often discover that he is noticeably
deliberate in his choices. He calibrates his actions with a subtle sense of the consequences. Years
ago, explaining his decorating aesthetic to my colleague Mark Singer, Trump noted that residential
buildings call for a specific level of pomp: "I sometimes use flash, which is a level below glitz."
As a man of idiosyncratic discipline, Trump is consistent enough in his tweets and his comments to
allow us to identify the first five rules of Trump communication.
Trump Rule No. 1:
Manage expectations. Casino owners know the importance of loss aversion: we value our losses more
heavily, psychologically, than we value our gains. For Trump, that means it's vital to prevent people
from pricing a gain into his image, in case he fails to achieve it. In the days before Time revealed
its Person of the Year, Trump was telling crowds, "Even if I deserve it, they can't do it." (They
did not do it.)
Hours before the fourth Republican debate, he tweeted:
'I wonder if @megynkelly and her flunkies have written their scripts yet about my debate performance
tonight. No matter how well I do – bad!' ...
Evan Osnos joined The New Yorker as a staff writer in 2008, and covers
politics and foreign affairs.
"... But after much discussion, the Bush team has decided, at least for now, that the most effective way to convince voters of Mr. Bush's seriousness is to highlight his barrage against Mr. Trump, a billionaire real estate magnate, whom he repeatedly assailed during the debate in Las Vegas. ..."
"... My impression is that Trump might well be a less dangerous choice than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy. Hillary is more or less a clone of Bush II when it comes to foreign policy. In other words she was and is a neocon. Did not she compare Putin to Hitler. Thats the level of the art of diplomacy few diplomats ever achieve. ..."
Jeb Bush, Sensing Momentum After Debate, Zeroes
In on Donald Trump
http://nyti.ms/1PbPuAr
NYT - ASHLEY PARKER - DEC. 17, 2015
Buoyed by an aggressive performance in Tuesday's Republican
debate, Jeb Bush is intensifying his strategy of attacking Donald
J. Trump's fitness for the presidency, which his aides believe
is setting him apart from the sprawling field just as voters
begin to make up their minds in early voting states.
This plan has significant risks given how low Mr. Bush, a
former Florida governor, has fallen in polls and the fact that
several other rivals, especially Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, are running ahead of him
in early states. Some analysts believe he would be better served
trying to dispatch them.
But after much discussion, the Bush team has decided, at least
for now, that the most effective way to convince voters of Mr.
Bush's seriousness is to highlight his barrage against Mr. Trump,
a billionaire real estate magnate, whom he repeatedly assailed
during the debate in Las Vegas.
More viscerally, they believe it will show a quality not always
associated with the somewhat patrician Bush family: guts.
"Going after Trump is tactically brilliant for Jeb," said
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and CNN commentator who
supports Mr. Bush. "There are others on that stage who don't
agree with what Trump says or how he says it, but don't have
the guts to lay a glove on the guy for fear of antagonizing his
supporters and incurring his wrath. Jeb has the lane all to himself."
...
Mr. Bush plans to make New Hampshire, the first primary state,
his second home as the holidays approach, and to spend more than
half his time there in the seven weeks before the Feb. 9 primary.
... his aides believe he must place in the top three in New Hampshire
to convince his donors and supporters that his campaign is still
viable. That means finishing ahead of, or at least tied with,
Mr. Christie, Mr. Rubio and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. ...
im1dc said...
The Donald is a clone of George W. Bush who looked into Putin's
eyes and saw his soul
2016 US elections - 1h ago
"Donald Trump on Russia's Putin comments: 'Great honor to
be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within
his own country and beyond... I have always felt that Russia
and the United States should be able to work well with each other
towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to
mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual
respect' - @stevebruskCNN"
likbez said in reply to im1dc...
"The Donald is a clone of George W. Bush who looked into Putin's
eyes and saw his soul"
I am no so sure. My impression is that
Trump might well be a less dangerous choice than Hillary when
it comes to foreign policy. Hillary is more or less a clone of
Bush II when it comes to foreign policy. In other words she was
and is a neocon. Did not she compare Putin to Hitler. That's
the level of the art of diplomacy few diplomats ever achieve.
And her protégé Victoria Nuland came directly from Cheney
inner circle.
"... The Rubes are mad at the state of the economy and blame Obama first but also believe that the GOP establishment has sold them down river. The squishy economy has caused the GOP elites to lose out to Trump and his antiestablishment we are not winning pitchfork toting mob. ..."
Could have been worse. Could have been shutdown or new round
of austerity. GOP intransigence is coming back to bite them.
The Rubes are mad at the state of the economy and blame Obama
first but also believe that the GOP establishment has sold
them down river. The squishy economy has caused the GOP
elites to lose out to Trump and his antiestablishment "we are
not winning" pitchfork toting mob.
The Dems need to get in
front of this parade before the General.
Billy Joe said...
I am hearing, adding on to Bakho's point above, this
was a 2 way deal. The Fed begins its modest tightening
schedule with Congress beginning a modest fiscal
loosening.
This is not a accident. It comes from a second hand source
related to a Republican Congressmen. Basically, Yellen
told Congress, if they loosen fiscal policy, they will
raise rates. That is what happened.......on a small scale.
"... Their collisions on defense, immigration and other issues formed one of the main story lines at Tuesday's Republican debate. The two have emerged as perhaps the leading alternatives to Donald J. Trump. ... ..."
"... The most interesting fight brewing in the Republican primary isn't between Donald J. Trump and the rest of the world, but between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, wunderkind vs. wunderkind. One is ruthless in his appeals to the Republican base, poised to ride its anger to victory, as Tea Party candidates did before him; the other is attractive to the establishment wing of the party, with the potential to draw in moderate voters, but who is sputtering in early primary states. ..."
WASHINGTON - It seemed they were the best of friends. Ted Cruz stood on the floor of the Senate
and effusively praised his Republican colleague Marco Rubio.
"Senator Rubio is inspiring. Senator Marco Rubio is a critical national leader," Cruz said,
filling time during a 20-hour filibuster in which he also praised Rubio's life story and his political
acumen.
"I don't know if there is anyone more effective, more articulate, or a more persuasive voice for
conservative principles than my friend Marco Rubio."
But that was two years ago. Now, a rivalry in the Republican presidential primary contest that
had been simmering for weeks has burst into public view. Each is competing to take on the role
of the best alternative to the front-runner, business and entertainment mogul Donald Trump, and
whatever camaraderie they once enjoyed has evaporated.
Cruz and Rubio, who share a Cuban-American heritage, engaged in some of the most heated exchanges
of Tuesday night's GOP debate, a battle that brimmed with intensity and displayed flashes of venom
like a sibling rivalry gone sour.
The brawl, which continued into Wednesday, was a preview of what is likely to be a drawnout
competition over the next seven weeks, leading up to the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary,
as the two freshman senators try to prove their conservative credentials. ...
----
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz Diverge in Approach to Their Hispanic Identity
http://nyti.ms/1T22jwz NYT - LIZETTE ALVAREZ and MANNY FERNANDEZ - DEC. 16
MIAMI - One candidate, Marco Rubio, nurtured by the sprawling Cuban-American community here,
bounces effortlessly between two cultures - fritas and hamburgers, Spanish and English - in a
city so comfortably bilingual that news conferences pivot between the languages.
The other, Ted Cruz, is partial to cowboy boots, oversize belt buckles, hard-right politics
and the fire-and-brimstone style of the Baptist church. Mr. Cruz, a rare Cuban-American outlier
in a state where Hispanic usually means Mexican-American, attended overwhelmingly white Christian
schools in Houston and prefers Spanglish to Spanish.
Together, Senators Rubio and Cruz, of Florida and Texas, represent a watershed moment in American
politics: two Hispanics running as top-tier candidates for president, and increasingly gunning
for each other, in what one Latino conservative has dubbed "the yuca primary," referring to the
popular Cuban staple and an acronym for young urban Cuban-American. Their collisions on defense,
immigration and other issues formed one of the main story lines at Tuesday's Republican debate.
The two have emerged as perhaps the leading alternatives to Donald J. Trump. ...
----
Is It Ted Cruz's Party - Or Marco Rubio's? http://nyti.ms/1Z9G3V3 NYT - Emma Roller - DEC. 15
The most interesting fight brewing in the Republican primary isn't between Donald J. Trump
and the rest of the world, but between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, wunderkind vs. wunderkind. One
is ruthless in his appeals to the Republican base, poised to ride its anger to victory, as Tea
Party candidates did before him; the other is attractive to the establishment wing of the party,
with the potential to draw in moderate voters, but who is sputtering in early primary states.
...
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Rubio and Cruz make Hillary look like the guardian of "sensitive" insecurity data.
Christine Todd Whitman fear mongering serves one purpose -- to support establishment
candidates. I do not remember her condemning Bush go killing million of Iraqis. She was
actually a part of this clique. So she should shut up and sit quietly (as any person belong to
criminal Bush II administration should)
The parallels are chilling. In pre-WWII Germany, the economy was in ruins, people were scared,
and they wanted someone to blame. Today we find ourselves with a nation of people who feel under
attack both physically and economically and are fearful. The middle class has never fully
recovered economically from the Great Recession. Income disparity is growing
...Language shapes behavior. Hateful language gives susceptible people permission to act on
their fears. Preying on the marginalized who are scared of the future is the time-honored tactic
of bullies and dictators. When times are difficult, people always look for someone to blame: It
is easy to pick out a target
Christine Todd Whitman is a former governor of New Jersey and former head of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
"I
don't see much difference between Bernie and Hillary," a friend said this morning over breakfast.
"Wrong," said my other friend, also at breakfast. She then went through the list:
"Bernie wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Hillary wants to raise it to $12 an hour.
Bernie wants a single-payer health insurance system. Hillary wants to strengthen Obamacare.
Bernie wants all public higher education to be tuition free. Hillary wants community colleges
to be tuition free.
Bernie wants to bust up the biggest banks. Hillary wants to make it more expensive for banks to
be very big.
Bernie wants to resurrect the Glass-Staegall Act that separated commercial from investment banking
before Bill Clinton joined Republicans in repealing it. Hillary doesn't think it's necessary to go
that far.
Bernie wants to tax speculative trading on Wall Street. Hillary doesn't think that's necessary,
either.
Bernie wants to expand Social Security by raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security
payroll tax. Hillary wants to protect Social Security as is.
Bernie wants to allow states to legalize marijuana. Hillary wants to put marijuana on a lower
drug enforcement classification but doesn't want it legalized.
Bernie isn't taking money from corporate PACs or Super PACs. Hillary is."
"See?" she said. "The difference is huge. Bernie is leading a movement for fundamental change.
That's why he's generating so much enthusiasm, and why he'll win the primaries."
"Wrong" he said. "Bernie's too radical. He doesn't stand a chance."
"... The argument began with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, alone among the candidates a consistent voice against American intervention in the Mideast, who said the "majority" of his competitors for the nomination "want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will then be in charge." ..."
"... Mr. Cruz made the case for keeping dictators like Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt close. "Qaddafi was a bad man," he said., "Mubarak had a terrible human rights record. But they were assisting us" in the cause of "fighting radical Islamic terrorists." He argued that this was far better than "being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter." ..."
"... Mr. Cruz's argument was meant to differentiate him from Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who had supported the ouster of Mr. Qaddafi and Mr. Mubarak, and whose campaign has attracted some veterans of the George W. Bush White House. But along the way it exposed a significant rift in Republican thinking, and puts him in a much different place than where his party was a decade ago. ..."
"... Hizbolah is only a terrorist to IDF when they enter Lebanon, the Israelis cannot do in South Lebanon what they get way with in Gaza and the West Bank. Too many GOP playing for AIPAC. ..."
"... If you dont like Assad why do you like al Sisi? Aside from the Egyptian military dictator has promised not to use the $3B annual bribe from the US to attack Israel...... ..."
"... While Rubio wants to arm al Qaeda so they can run Syria to do more 9/11s. ..."
"... Trump is right the media lies all the time and his thuggee opponents take them up on their lies. ..."
The candidates took strong positions on the
need to use force, but at times seemed uncertain about America's past military and diplomatic
interventions in the region.
At Republican Debate, Straying Into Mideast,
and Getting Lost http://nyti.ms/1m7DUuE
NYT - DAVID E. SANGER - DEC. 16
WASHINGTON - In a surprisingly substantive debate on foreign policy Tuesday night, the upheaval
in the Middle East gave Republican presidential candidates a chance to show off alternatives to
what they portrayed as President Obama's failed approach, but at many moments, the politics and
history of the region eluded them as they tried to demonstrate their skills at analysis and leadership.
At times during the two-hour debate, several of the candidates seemed uncertain about America's
past military and diplomatic interventions in the region, and did not acknowledge Mr. Obama's
continuing attempts to negotiate a cease-fire in Syria. And for most of them – Jeb Bush seemed
an exception – the strategy to defeat the Islamic State largely seemed to boil down to this: Drop
your bombs first and figure out the diplomacy later, if at all.
In their efforts to show that they were skilled at realpolitik, putting national interests
ahead of ideals, almost all of them dismissed the stated goal of Mr. Bush's brother, the last
Republican president. It was George W. Bush who declared in his second inaugural address that
"the calling of our time" was to support "the growth of democratic movements and institutions
in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
But to some in this generation of Republicans, democracy building is out; supporting dictators,
perhaps including Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who are willing to fight the Islamic State, is in.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the debate was long on the need to use military force, and short
on the question of how one gets at the roots of radical Muslim jihadism – or engages the Muslim
community in the United States and abroad in that effort. That discussion began with Senator Ted
Cruz of Texas defending, and expanding on, his recent vow to carpet-bomb the Islamic State, wherever
it may be.
"What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS," said
Mr. Cruz, using an acronym for the Islamic State. He argued that in "the first Persian Gulf War,
we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet-bombed them for 36 days, saturation bombing,"
and then sent in troops to mop up "what was left of the Iraqi army."
In fact, the Persian Gulf war was the first big testing ground for precision-guided munitions.
The last big "carpet bombing" was in the Vietnam War; military officials, including Britain's
defense minister, have noted recently that any such technique used in Syria would kill thousands
of innocent civilians living in places like Raqqa, the Islamic State's de facto capital.
But Mr. Cruz pressed on when challenged by Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the moderator. "The object
isn't to level a city," he said. "The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists." He never said how
that is possible without tremendous civilian casualties, which is why carpet bombing is often
considered a war crime.
In some ways the debate was remarkable for the fact that it delved into the politics of the
Middle East at all; many of the candidates on the stage Tuesday night in Las Vegas did not appear
interested in that discussion even a few months ago. But the terrorist attacks in Paris and San
Bernardino left them no choice: They had to pass the commander-in-chief test, and the first step
in that process is to be able piece together something that sounds like a strategy.
The result was that a few of them were testing out their thinking about longtime questions
like regime-change – and whether it is better to press for democracy, even if it creates chaos
and openings for terrorist groups, or to back reliable dictators.
Syria poses the most urgent test, and there was disagreement over whether Mr. Assad had to
go first, or whether the United States and its partners should focus first on defeating the Islamic
State, even if that means leaving in power a dictator under whom upward of a quarter-of-a-million
of his own people have been killed.
The argument began with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, alone among the candidates a consistent
voice against American intervention in the Mideast, who said the "majority" of his competitors
for the nomination "want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will
then be in charge."
Though administration officials will not say so in public, they largely agree – which is why
getting rid of Mr. Assad has been pushed down the road, though Secretary of State John Kerry says
Mr. Assad's removal must be the eventual outcome if Sunni rebel groups are going to be enticed
into fighting the Islamic State.
Mr. Cruz made the case for keeping dictators like Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Hosni Mubarak
of Egypt close. "Qaddafi was a bad man," he said., "Mubarak had a terrible human rights record.
But they were assisting us" in the cause of "fighting radical Islamic terrorists." He argued that
this was far better than "being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter."
Mr. Cruz's argument was meant to differentiate him from Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who
had supported the ouster of Mr. Qaddafi and Mr. Mubarak, and whose campaign has attracted some
veterans of the George W. Bush White House. But along the way it exposed a significant rift in
Republican thinking, and puts him in a much different place than where his party was a decade
ago. ...
ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Thuggee debates:
If your bombing (questionable whether it worked in WW II, utter failure against
VC/NVA) is failing eliminating "rules of engagement" and increasing civilian casualties is not
going to change the outcome. If the Germans had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged,
and for Japan Le May would have been beheaded.
Hizbolah is only a "terrorist" to IDF when they enter Lebanon, the Israelis cannot do in South
Lebanon what they get way with in Gaza and the West Bank. Too many GOP playing for AIPAC.
Replacing a brutal dictator with a bunch of terrorists is insanity, the GOP has no other answer.
The mess in Lebanon and Iraq was caused by Reagan and worsened by GW.
If you don't like Assad why do you like al Sisi? Aside from the Egyptian military dictator
has promised not to use the $3B annual bribe from the US to attack Israel......
While Rubio wants to arm al Qaeda so they can run Syria to do more 9/11's.
Trump is right the media lies all the time and his thuggee opponents take them up on their
lies.
"... Bernie says his campaign has received 2,003,243 individual contributions as of 8:38 pm Dec. 16, 2015. For reference, President Obama's historic campaign in 2008 only reached one million contributions on the day of the Iowa caucuses. ..."
Bernie says his campaign has received 2,003,243 individual contributions as of 8:38 pm
Dec. 16, 2015. For reference, President Obama's historic campaign in 2008 only reached one million
contributions on the day of the Iowa caucuses.
anne said in reply to RGC...
Bernie says his campaign has received 2,003,243 individual contributions as of 8:38 pm Dec.
16, 2015.
[ Wonderful and remarkable considering the stark and dismaying absence of network news coverage
of the Sanders campaign. ]
ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted 81 Minutes To Trump, One Minute To Sanders
By ERIC BOEHLERT
Does that ratio seem out of whack? That's the ratio of TV airtime that ABC World News Tonight
has devoted to Donald Trump's campaign (81 minutes) versus the amount of TV time World News Tonight
has devoted to Bernie Sanders' campaign this year. And even that one minute for Sanders is misleading
because the actual number is closer to 20 seconds.
For the entire year.
That's the rather stunning revelation from the Tyndall Report, which tracks the various flagship
nightly news programs on NBC, CBS and ABC. The Report's campaign findings cover the network evening
newscasts from January 1 through the end of November....
"... the majority of Republican voters actually support Trump's policy positions. After all, he's just saying outright what mainstream candidates have implied through innuendo; how are voters supposed to know that this isn't what you do? ..."
"... at this point Trump has been the front-runner for long enough that it's very hard to imagine his supporters suddenly losing faith, because it would be too embarrassing. ..."
"... Bear in mind that embarrassment, and the desire to avoid it, are enormously important sources of motivation... ..."
"... On CNN this AM, I am on the road and seeing TV, a talking head said US governments prime role is empire, protected by dumping Assad and installing the 9/11 terrorists!. A few minutes later Trump on the stump said the media always lies . Trump is right and the talking heads on CNN prove him as much as the blitherers on Faux News. Trump is only divisive to the PNAC, neocon, and sympathetic dems. ..."
"... Tax cuts for everyone and large defense budgets - the pathway to a banana republic indeed. ..."
"... It is not inequality that drives innovation and economic growth -- it is the attempt to escape the leveling forces of capitalism.... ..."
"...One answer - probably the most important - is what Greg Sargent * has been emphasizing:
the
majority of Republican voters actually support Trump's policy positions. After all, he's just
saying outright what mainstream candidates have implied through innuendo; how are voters supposed
to know that this isn't what you do?
I would, however, add a casual observation: at this point Trump has been the front-runner for
long enough that it's very hard to imagine his supporters suddenly losing faith, because it would
be too embarrassing.
Bear in mind that embarrassment, and the desire to avoid it, are enormously important sources
of motivation..."
[Divisiveness is what politicians do. So, Trump is nothing new except that he threw away the dog
whistle and whistled out loud and called to them by name. If we are not divided then we would
have political solidarity. There is no profit for elites in that.
Martin Luther King in his final year or so wanted to end divisiveness and unite the wage class.
Given the facts one cannot say that is what got him killed, but it still is not off the table
either as increased fear of broad desegregation or as an incentive for security to break down.
The two party system as it has always existed in the US lives and breathes by divisiveness. The
problem now is that one party holds Congress and the other party has no idea what to do about
it.]
ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
On CNN this AM, I am on the road and seeing TV, a talking head said US government's prime role
is empire, protected by dumping Assad and installing the 9/11 terrorists!. A few minutes later
Trump on the stump said the "media always lies". Trump is right and the talking heads on CNN prove him as much as the blitherers on Faux News. Trump is only divisive to the PNAC, neocon, and sympathetic dems.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Sandwichman...
"Trump is... a stalking horse for Cruz..."
"...Why would the Donald want to be second banana?"
[Yup. That kind of rhymes with Donald Trump is not a serious candidate. OTOH, Trump has been
a serious stealth bomber. The bar has been lowered for enough for Ted Cruz to cross.
My only question was whether this was the Donald's plan all along or was it just a game for
him and this is how it turned out?]
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
OK, stealth was a poor choice of words when it comes to Trump. What is the opposite of stealth
and how would that make any sense as an adjective to modify bomber? Mad bomber maybe?
Tax cuts for everyone and large defense budgets - the pathway to a banana republic indeed.
ilsm -> pgl...
GOP thuggee murder cult and Rubio wants to arm the progeny of 9/11 terrorists to make Syria a
training base! Which Bush did in Anbar to keep them quiet while the US withdrew and all went over
to ISIS.
anne said...
It is not inequality that drives innovation and economic growth -- it is the attempt to escape the
leveling forces of capitalism....
"... Personally, I don't think Rubio is even capable of all that much independent thought in the first place, but even if he was, the guy will do anything for campaign money. If you tried to create the perfect puppet in a test-tube, what would likely emerge is something very close to Marco Rubio. ..."
"... A man who consistently talks about small government and free markets, but who will fight to protect cronyism and oligarchy whenever somebody hangs a fresh dollar bill in front of his face. And all the smartest GOP billionaires know it. ..."
"... Israeli-Neocons are the existential danger to America. ..."
"... Bill Kristol is a most amazing beast. He has managed to make a living for decades as a supposed pundit without ever having been right about anything ever. ..."
"... Guys, please stop the anti-Jewish shit, OK? You see, if you are serious, this kind of stuff turns off the arguments you make among rational and intelligent people, almost all of whom have Jewish friends who are not the evil people you think you know? ..."
"... Here's the good part. At least half the sheeple seemed to think he was articulate, capable, a real young gun, new blood , yada yada yada, (I admit, he was articulate, .... and his hair was nicely cut and parted). ..."
"... Never mind that he had offered no way of paying for the (among other things) trillion dollar NEW subsidy he proposed going to families, or the increased Military spending. Because, after all, it's for the children, families, keeping everyone safe by ensuring that the u.s. spends more on it's military than the next 10 other countries COMBINED ..."
"... Real logic or practicality need not apply here I guess. Note he did not advocate cutting from anywhere to cover this new expenditure. No cutting CIA/NSA, or cutting S.S./Medicare nor anything/anywhere really. NOPE, just good 'ol NEW DEBT (to be paid for -- plus the bankster usury of course -- by future generations, the vaunted children that he apparently thinks so highly of). ..."
"... Mike Krieger must really be in love with Hillary Clinton. She's the most corrupt, the sleaziest, the most bribed and the most evil politician in the United States, if not the entire world. ..."
"... Get the irony here? The companies seek to evade paying prevailing wages to workers, while they themselves use every trick in the book to evade U.S. taxation on their earnings. It's the very height of hypocrisy. And Rubio is their spokesman. Yes Marco Rubio, articulate, nicely parted hair, pro family Rubio. ..."
...A man so incapable of free-thought, he becomes the ideal target for billionaires looking
to craft the perfect puppet. Forget Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio is now the establishment GOP's pick, and
they will do everything in their power to get him the nomination.
There are three billionaire oligarchs in particular who seem to really love Rubio. They are Sheldon
Adelson, Paul Singer and Ken Griffin. Let's look at the evidence so far.
Although Adelson hasn't officially endorsed Rubio, it's likely just a matter of time. See the
following excerpt from yesterday's
Miami Herald:
As GOP presidential candidates take the debate stage Tuesday at an extravagant Las Vegas
hotel, they will once again compete for voters in an increasingly unpredictable race. But they
are also vying for the attention of the man who owns the building - and no candidate has worked
harder than Florida's Marco Rubio.
The U.S. senator has avidly courted casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, sitting down with him
privately numerous times, including a dinner in Washington weeks before launching his campaign
in April, and checking in regularly by phone to talk about Israel and the campaign.
All told, Adelson and his Israeli-born wife spent $93 million that cycle [2008], the No.
1 individual donors, by far.
This time, Adelson, whose worth is valued at somewhere between $20 billion and $30 billion,
reportedly wants to throw his weight behind a more electable candidate and he's prepared to spend
even more. "I don't cry when I lose," he told the Wall Street Journal in 2012. "There's always
a new hand coming up."
Rubio has benefited from an outside group that has run TV ads featuring his hawkish foreign
policy views, including a vow to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, which Adelson loathes. Rubio is
also backing legislation Adelson is pushing to crush an expansion of online gambling, which threatens
his global casino empire.
Much of Rubio's supposed favor has been conveyed by people who are close to Adelson, not
Adelson himself, who rarely talks to the media.
Adelson is a critic of unions but moderate on social issues and supports stem-cell research
and immigration reform.
Adelson does have business interests, and earlier this year Rubio attracted attention when
he signed onto a bill that Adelson is trying to get through Congress that aims to curtail online
gambling in states, a threat to his casino empire.
Though Rubio has talked about states' rights and avoiding picking "winners and losers,"
he has attributed his support for the bill to a feeling that the Internet has fewer safeguards
to protect people from fraud and addiction.
"Rubio calls and says, 'Hey, did you see this speech? Did you see my floor statement on
Iran? What do you think I should do about this issue?' " a September New York magazine story quoted
an unnamed Adelson friend as saying. "It's impressive. Rubio is persistent."
Moving along, Rubio already has the official support of hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.
CNBC reports:
Marco Rubio got some great news on with backing from influential hedge fund billionaire
Paul Singer, who was heavily courted by multiple GOP presidential candidates, including former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
But Singer's backing - while a huge positive for Rubio in the money race - does not come
without some risks for the Florida senator. Singer is distrusted in the conservative base of the
GOP both for his support of same-sex marriage and his support of Rubio's immigration reform efforts
in the Senate. According to a person close to Singer, the hedge fund billionaire gave $100,000
to support immigration reform, which the right widely regards as "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants.
Singer's backing encapsulates a major potential problem for the Rubio candidacy. The senator
wants and needs the vast piles of money the GOP's Wall Street establishment is capable of pushing
his way. Nobody organizes and directs that money better than Singer.
But there's far more to Singer's support than ideology. From
the
Huffington Post:
All that is music to Singer's ears, but Rubio's "work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee"
is about something else altogether: his political support for Singer's efforts to drain more than
$1.5 billion dollars from Argentina in payments on old bonds that lost most of their value after
the country defaulted in 2001.
Singer's Elliott Management bought that debt several years ago for less than $50 million,
and then successfully sued in U.S. court to demand full recovery of the face amount - in the face
of opposition from the Obama administration, most other bondholders, and, above all, Argentina's
government, led by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
Last year, another member of Congress got in on the act: Senator Marco Rubio. While grilling
President Obama's nominee as U.S. ambassador to Argentina, Rubio
complained that Buenos Aires "doesn't pay bondholders, doesn't work with our security operations…
These aren't the actions of an ally."
This May, Rubio introduced a resolution in the Senate suggesting that Kirchner conspiried
to "cover up Iranian involvement in the 1994 terrorist bombing." Rubio declared that the issues
in the case "extend well beyond Argentina and involve the international community, and more importantly,
U.S. national security."
As Eli Clifton
noted, "It turns out that Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management, was Rubio's second largest
source of campaign contributions between 2009 and 2014, providing the presidential hopeful with
$122,620, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
Next up, we have the billionaire CEO of hedge fund Citadel, Ken Griffin, also thought to be the
richest man in Illinois. He recently endorsed Rubio. From
CNBC:
Ken Griffin, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who has become a major Republican Party
donor in recent years, is throwing his support behind Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for president.
"I'm really excited to be supporting Marco Rubio," Griffin, who is the founder and chief
executive of the Chicago firm Citadel, said in an exclusive interview with CNBC. "He will be the
next president of the United States."
With a net worth estimated by Forbes to be $7 billion, Griffin is thought to be the richest
person in Illinois, so depending on the level of financial support he provides, he could be crucial
to a Rubio candidacy. In 2014, for instance, Griffin helped secure a gubernatorial victory for
private-equity executive Bruce Rauner in Illinois by contributing $5.5 million and reportedly
offering the use of his private plane.
In the telephone interview Thursday, Griffin said he would play an active role in raising
money for Rubio from his own network of associates. He also said he would contribute "several
million dollars" to Rubio's PAC starting "imminently."
Which brings us to Rubio's latest squirmy tactic, in which he sacrifices individual choice in
favor of protecting mega corporations. From
the
Intercept:
Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign,
fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states
to block municipal broadband services.
The letter was the latest salvo in a long-running effort by the major telecom companies
to outlaw municipal broadband programs that have taken off in cities such as Lafayette, Louisiana,
and Chattanooga, Tennessee, because they pose a threat to a business model that calls for
slow, expensive internet access without competition.
In Chattanooga, for instance, city officials set up a service known as "The
Gig," a municipal broadband network that provides data transfers at one gigabit per second
for less than $70 a month - a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers
have available through private broadband networks.
AT&T, Cox Communications, Comcast, and other broadband providers, fearing competition, have
used their
influence in state government to make an end-run around local municipalities. Through surrogates
like the American Legislative Exchange Council, the industry gets states to pass laws that ban
municipal broadband networks, despite the obvious benefits to both the municipalities and their
residents.
That's why the FCC has
become involved. The agency stepped in to prevent states from crushing municipal broadband
and released a rule this year that allows local cities to make the decision on their own.
As a result, telecom companies are furiously lobbying the FCC, litigating the rule in court,
and leaning on GOP lawmakers to pressure the agency to back down.
Naturally, Marco Rubio is leading the charge.
Personally, I don't think Rubio is even capable of all that much independent thought in the first
place, but even if he was, the guy will do anything for campaign money. If you tried to create the
perfect puppet in a test-tube, what would likely emerge is something very close to Marco Rubio.
A
man who consistently talks about small government and free markets, but who will fight to protect
cronyism and oligarchy whenever somebody hangs a fresh dollar bill in front of his face. And all
the smartest GOP billionaires know it.
Demdere
Yes, dynamic game theory, play after play, generation after generation. You have to have
that perspective, or they trap you with mindgames. Lots of conspiracies, lots of mindgames,
and we fall into 2 choices, every time. Everyone plays their role, the biggest players are the
ones with the most money, and they collude, and trade, and are so rarely sentimental in any
way. Colde-blooeded "How to get MY way?" thinking. Seeing which way the wind blows, the
various dependencies follow along in the general direction, most of the time.
"We ain't in it".
This whole thing has to be building up to war, because what else can the Israeli-Neocons
threaten us with? The next False Flag has to be big and bad to justify what they wnat, a state
authoritarian enough to keep our current propaganda ministers in control, lest we decide to
hang them. But our current propaganda outlets are failing, have you noticed? And the country
is near maximum power, because it won't be able to borrow money and nobody will loan a broke
country anything, as the USSR of late fame last discovered about the world of finance.
So they are losing control of the agenda and losing here in realty, poor people rarely view
their rulers with much favor, the economy is failing. Maximum danger, they can't lose, they
hang.
What do you predict happens next?
Israeli-Neocons are the existential danger to America.
Larry Dallas
Rubio is broke. Will be pro-Israel on anything to get Sheldon's money. Can you imagine the
optics for Jews of Rubio going to a Las Vegas Casino to ask for money?
Never trust anyone who is broke. They can never be trusted to do what they say they are going
to do.
Exhibit 1: Hillary.
Usurious
he was prolly washing down bill kristol's semen.........
Bill Kristol is a most amazing beast. He has managed to make a living for decades as a
supposed pundit without ever having been right about anything ever.
Demdere
Guys, please stop the anti-Jewish shit, OK? You see, if you are serious, this kind of
stuff turns off the arguments you make among rational and intelligent people, almost all of
whom have Jewish friends who are not the evil people you think you know?
And of course, the other motivation for you doing that would be to tar your arguments with
that bad one? so discrediting both argument and you, depending on whether people were already
fans or foes? There cna't be any win in that for a real position, associating it with racism,
and most people are fully-able to tell it apart.
False flags happen in the world of ideas, noticed?
So rational minds, given certain fantasy-ideologies would better leave them unsaid other
than to communicate past the next-possible tier of minds. Going past that generates
opposition, and successful perversions of governments take many years, if your name might be
dung to very many rational people at all, keeping quite is the best thing to do. No
seriously-deviant population ahs ever achieved power by being loudmouths, as I recall.
So, you see, either you are dumb as dug or you are hasbara of some variety.
But my argument gets better with repetition, while you don't appear to grow smarter at all.
must be a handicap, having to conform to even so hazy a reality as drive-by snide of endless
variety.
The rest of you consider what kind of person votes this down? hasbara-intent if not hasbara.
Who cares?
will ling
pedal to the metal trump.
Miss Expectations
REVEALED: Marco Rubio's brother-in-law was the 'front man for an international
drug-smuggling ring led by leopard-loving "cocaine cowboy" kingpin whose mansion was filled
with big cats and a giraffe'
The New Mafia, the same as the Old Mafia. Who could've predicted?
where_is the_nuke
I personally think Rubio is the second dumbest republican runner after Carson. A perfect
puppet material.
essence
Last GOP debate I had enough Internet bandwidth to watch ( a rarity for me)
After the debate the network went to an ancillary offering, a focus group in New Hampshire.
Maybe 12-15 people, mostly white (can't recall exactly ...but then, it's NH, what would one
expect).
Most were 50+, all were overweight, Hey, not attempting to overtly characterize, nevertheless,
the observation did not elude me. And yeah, that included the network guy conducting the
interview.
Rubio got some favorable reviews. From 50-60 % of the group. (Cruz too, but more to Rubio).
Here's the "good" part. At least half the sheeple seemed to think he was articulate,
capable, a real "young gun,"new blood", yada yada yada, (I admit, he was articulate, .... and
his hair was nicely cut and parted).
Never mind that he had offered no way of paying for the (among other things) trillion
dollar NEW subsidy he proposed going to families, or the increased Military spending. Because,
after all, it's for the children, families, keeping everyone safe by ensuring that the u.s.
spends more on it's military than the next 10 other countries COMBINED
Real logic or practicality need not apply here I guess. Note he did not advocate
cutting from anywhere to cover this new expenditure. No cutting CIA/NSA, or cutting
S.S./Medicare nor anything/anywhere really. NOPE, just good 'ol NEW DEBT (to be paid for --
plus the bankster usury of course -- by future generations, the vaunted "children" that he
apparently thinks so highly of).
gregga777
Mike Krieger must really be in love with Hillary Clinton. She's the most corrupt, the
sleaziest, the most bribed and the most evil politician in the United States, if not the
entire world. She was responsible for the murder of Kibya's Muamar Qadafi and our
ambassador to Libya in Benghazi. She's also responsible for the Middle Eastern refugee crisis
sweeping through Europe because Qadafi had an agreement with the European Union to block
refugee transit through Libya. But, curiously Mr. Krieger can only find fault with Marco Rubio
and Donald Trump. Mike Krieger must really be in love with Hillary Clinton.
-----
Rubio is supported by a few billionaires. Jewish (oops, that observation apparently is not
in vogue these days. Well Fuck you, if you wish to wear blinders then go ahead, I don't wish
to so handicap myself). Rubio has supported the HB-1 visas (that's where U.S. corporations
fig-leaf offshore themselves to avoid taxation) .... press for non-U.S. citizens be given
working visa's to their remaining U.S. located operations.
Not talking farm workers here, this is corporations hiring & importing Indians (or
whomever) expressly for lower wages than U.S. citizens current prevailing wages.
Get the irony here? The companies seek to evade paying prevailing wages to workers,
while they themselves use every trick in the book to evade U.S. taxation on their earnings.
It's the very height of hypocrisy. And Rubio is their spokesman. Yes Marco Rubio, articulate,
nicely parted hair, "pro family" Rubio.
"... Since Reagan and Thatcher, it is very hard for elites anywhere to think of "the national interest" as anything more than the bottom lines of the larger banks, brokerage houses, and corporations based in their respective countries. Where the statement made in 1959 that what was good for General Motors is good for America was met with disdain or distrust, today it is an unshakeable article of faith for almost all national politicians in the major Western countries (substituting Mitsui, or Deutsche Bank, or AXA, or Royal Dutch Shell for GM). The axiom is if you take care of the corporations, they will take care of the economy, and that it turn will take care of the people. ..."
"... Thus we have the corporate neoliberal state. The fact that millions are unsure of that formula, or simply dismiss it out of hand as self-serving on the part of both the corporations and the politicians who suck at their teats, is dismissed as naïve or irrational by the elites and their intellectual shills (virtually everyone being educated at elite institutions). ..."
"... By the way, one of the first rules of diplomacy (and any interactions really, even with animals) is don't force anyone into a corner; it doesn't end well. That's basically what the EU did to the European populations by not ever letting them say no to expansions. (As an addendum, one could easily draw parallels here with Trump.) ..."
"... And that's before you get to the fact that the European elites have so deeply drunken the neoliberal Kool Aid that it doubtful they'd be willing to take aggressive enough action even if they weren't hemmed in by Germany and Brussels. As one wag put it, "They have changed their minds, but they have not changed their hearts." ..."
Many people are cheering now that yesterday Marine Le Pen and her Front National (FN) party
didn't get to take over government in any regions in the France regional elections. They should
think again. FN did get a lot more votes than the last time around, and, though she will be a
little disappointed after last weekend's results, it's exactly as Le Pen herself said: "Nothing
can stop us".
And instead of bemoaning this, or even not believing it, it might be much better to try and
understand why she's right. And that has little to do with any comparisons to Donald Trump. Or
perhaps it does, in that in the same way that Trump profits from -people's perception of- the
systemic failures of Washington, Le Pen is being helped into the saddle by Brussels.
The only -remaining- politicians in Europe who are critical of the EU are on the -extreme- right
wing. The entire spectrum of politics other than them don't even question Brussels anymore. Which
is at least a little strange, because support for the EU on the street is not nearly as strong as
among politicians, as referendum after referendum keeps on showing.
James Levy, December 15, 2015 at 8:25 am
Since Reagan and Thatcher, it is very hard for elites anywhere to think of "the
national interest" as anything more than the bottom lines of the larger banks, brokerage
houses, and corporations based in their respective countries. Where the statement made in 1959
that what was good for General Motors is good for America was met with disdain or distrust,
today it is an unshakeable article of faith for almost all national politicians in the major
Western countries (substituting Mitsui, or Deutsche Bank, or AXA, or Royal Dutch Shell for
GM). The axiom is if you take care of the corporations, they will take care of the economy,
and that it turn will take care of the people.
Thus we have the corporate neoliberal state. The fact that millions are unsure of that
formula, or simply dismiss it out of hand as self-serving on the part of both the corporations
and the politicians who suck at their teats, is dismissed as naïve or irrational by the elites
and their intellectual shills (virtually everyone being educated at elite institutions).
This leads to the societal disconnect you so ably set before us in your post. I see no way
the two sides can stop talking past one another and wallowing in their mutual contempt. In the
end, one side will win and one will lose, or the system will collapse and both will be thrown
into the darkness. My money is on the last of those options.
lylo, December 15, 2015 at 9:27 am
I agree about the pull rightward being basically the fault of the europhiles filling every
other party. The really sad part is how many of them are ostensibly more nationalist while
campaigning. No one is ever put in office promising to put Brussels first, yet they all seem
to once elected. As put so succinctly, what choice is left?
By the way, one of the first rules of diplomacy (and any interactions really, even with
animals) is don't force anyone into a corner; it doesn't end well. That's basically what the
EU did to the European populations by not ever letting them say no to expansions. (As an
addendum, one could easily draw parallels here with Trump.)
But I do have to mention, as it often comes up in these discussions, my issue with the
article's take on the Euro. I agree completely, by the way, and think most here would say it
goes without even saying. Right?
Now, what about the poor Southern US? Isn't it actually all so-and-so's fault or if only
they weren't so dumb or had instituted such-and-such policy or whatever the complaint is
today?
It couldn't possibly be that it's a huge geographic area with different industries and
culture than the Northern US and always ends up with the short side of the currency stick as
the decision makers are all decidedly northern…
Taken in this context, doesn't that reasoning sound an awful lot like the crazies in
Germany sipping champagne complaining about the lazy Mediterraneans, and how it's all their
fault?
Yeah–that is what it actually sounds like to southerners, fyi. Please remember that next
time you hear an anti-Southern diatribe. (Also, bear in mind the first point about forcing
people to pick crazy and how it may relate.)
samhill, December 15, 2015 at 9:41 am
And that's before you get to the fact that the European elites have so deeply
drunken the neoliberal Kool Aid that it doubtful they'd be willing to take aggressive
enough action even if they weren't hemmed in by Germany and Brussels. As one wag put it,
"They have changed their minds, but they have not changed their hearts."
We should be so lucky if it was simply a Germany plus heart vs mind battle, which would
offer some chance for some switch in consciousness of leaders. Unfortunately the politicians
in charge across the EU are lightweight halfwits. The real power elites that run them don't
want statesmen of whatever ilk, no more Churhills, de Gaulles, Adenauers, etc, even mafiosi
like Andreotti, people you can suggest to but can't simply command. Saddest truth possible is
that people like Cameron, Holland, Renzi etc are put there exclusively to not cause any
trouble, right or left, and any expectations of any sort are a delusion like expecting a chimp
to start driving a car. There is no heart/mind struggle, there just a low IQ resonate drone
like a bad fluorescent light in the room.
The only -remaining- politicians in Europe who are critical of the EU are on the
-extreme- right wing.
Not true, to Italy's surprising credit and to Beppe Grillo's foresight (since 2009) M5S has
managed to channel a good part of the dissatisfaction in Italy to the left denying the right a
monopoly on the discourse like in more virtuously democratic France. So far M5S has managed to
keep an open, honest, intelligent anti-EU discourse going, about all that can be asked for
given the relentless and monolithic media mud machine they face, not to mention the envious,
bristling hatred of the traditional tribal left, and they have pretty much managed to keep a
solid hold on ~20% of the vote. They are completely nonexistent in the anglophone press and
commentariat (Grillo's a clown in as much as Lenny Bruce or George Carlin were) but they are
the are the only significant leftist block outside the mainstream left in a significant
country giving voice to the no global, occupy, mmt movement in the EU.
"... There's little doubt that what has happened to America's middle class has helped to create the climate that has fueled Trump's sudden rise. ..."
"... Those living in middle-class households no longer make up a majority of the population. ..."
"... The report is not entirely gloomy. Every category gained in income between 1970 and 2014. Those in the top strata saw incomes rise by 47 percent. Middle-income Americans saw theirs rise by 34 percent. Those at the bottom saw the most modest increases, at 28 percent. ..."
"... But the share of income accounted for by the middle class has plummeted over the past 4 1 / 2 decades. In 1970, middle-class households accounted for 62 percent of income; by 2014, it was just 43 percent. Meanwhile, the share held by those in upper-income households rose from 29 percent to 49 percent, eclipsing the middle class's share. ..."
"... For most families, the two recessions have wiped out previous gains and widened the wealth and income gap between the wealthiest and all others. "The losses were so large that only upper-income families realized notable gains in wealth over the span of 30 years from 1983 to 2013," according to the Pew study. ..."
"... Until the recession of 2007-2009, middle-income earners saw a significant rise in their overall wealth, but the economic calamity mostly wiped away those gains. Today, the median net worth of families in the middle (in 2014 dollars) is barely higher than it was in 1983. Those at the top have weathered the recession far better and, despite losses, have seen a doubling of their net worth over that same period. ..."
"... Politicians in both parties have sought for some time to appeal to middle-class voters who are economically stressed. President Obama made his 2012 reelection campaign about appealing to the middle class and casting Republican nominee Mitt Romney as out of touch and insensitive to their concerns. ..."
"... Trump, however, has tapped a vein of frustration and resentment among those who have suffered most from the economic maladies of the past decade and a half, and he has ridden it to the top of the GOP polls. He has done it by eschewing political correctness. ..."
"... Trump draws strong support from the kinds of voters who see illegal immigration as eroding the values of the country and who might worry that their jobs are threatened by the influx. About half of those Republicans who favor deporting immigrants who are here illegally back Trump for the party's nomination. ..."
"... Trump's campaign slogan is not just "Make America Great" but "Make America Great Again." He summons a time when the middle class was prosperous and incomes were rising. This was a time when the lack of a college degree was not the impediment to a more economically secure life that it has become - and a time when white people made up a higher share of the population. ..."
"... Whatever happens to Trump's candidacy over the coming months, the conditions that have helped make him the front-runner for the GOP nomination will still exist, a focal point in a divisive debate about the future of the country. ..."
"... He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you whos to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections ..."
"... Their replies were striking. Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. They are far more likely to raise money for politicians and to have access to them; nearly half had personally contacted one of Illinois's two United States senators. ..."
"... Probably the biggest single area of disconnect has to do with social welfare programs," said Benjamin I. Page, a political scientist at Northwestern University and a co-author of the study. "The other big area has to do with paying for those programs, particularly taxes on high-income and wealthy people. ..."
"... Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum wage, the one percent are broadly opposed. ..."
"... Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. ..."
"... That would explain the survey results discussed yesterday showing Clinton to be the preferred candidate among millionaires -- a category almost as factually broad and ambiguous as the middle class . The merely affluent -- AKA the liberal elite -- would be the Clinton supporters, whereas the ultrawealthy would support Rubio (or whatever other candidate they were sponsoring). ..."
"... it is not necessarily an endorsement of Trump but a relative statement - that he resonates with people more than the other contenders. This kind of thing (people rallying around alpha-type strongmen with supremacist narratives) has reliably happened anywhere and anytime there was a bad economy and serious lack of positive outlook. ..."
"... Trump 24%, Cruz 16% in South Carolina Poll ..."
"... Five Reasons Congress Hates Ted Cruz http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/09/30/Five-Reasons-Congre ..."
Charting Trump's rise through the decline of the middle class
By Dan Balz December 12 at 10:59 AM
For anyone trying to understand the emergence of Donald Trump as a force in this pre-election
year, the Pew Research Center this past week provided some valuable insight. There's little
doubt that what has happened to America's middle class has helped to create the climate that has
fueled Trump's sudden rise.
The Pew study charts the steady decline of the middle class over the past four decades. It
is a phenomenon often discussed and analyzed, but the new findings highlight a tipping point:
Those living in middle-class households no longer make up a majority of the population.
There has been a "hollowing out" of the middle class, as the study puts it. In 1971, the middle
class accounted for 61 percent of the nation's population. Today, there are slightly more people
in the upper and lower economic tiers combined than in the middle class.
The report is not entirely gloomy. Every category gained in income between 1970 and 2014. Those
in the top strata saw incomes rise by 47 percent. Middle-income Americans saw theirs rise by 34
percent. Those at the bottom saw the most modest increases, at 28 percent.
But the share of income accounted for by the middle class has plummeted over the past 4 1 /
2 decades. In 1970, middle-class households accounted for 62 percent of income; by 2014, it was
just 43 percent. Meanwhile, the share held by those in upper-income households rose from 29 percent
to 49 percent, eclipsing the middle class's share.
The past 15 years have been particularly hard on wealth and income because of the recession
of 2001 and the Great Recession of 2007-2009. For all groups, incomes rose from 1970 to 2000.
In the next decade, incomes for all groups declined. During the past four years, incomes rose
3 percent for the wealthiest, 1 percent for middle-income Americans, and not at all for those
with the lowest incomes. For those in the middle, the median income in 2014 was 4 percent lower
than in 2000, according to the study.
For most families, the two recessions have wiped out previous gains and widened the wealth
and income gap between the wealthiest and all others. "The losses were so large that only upper-income
families realized notable gains in wealth over the span of 30 years from 1983 to 2013," according
to the Pew study.
Until the recession of 2007-2009, middle-income earners saw a significant rise in their
overall wealth, but the economic calamity mostly wiped away those gains. Today, the median net
worth of families in the middle (in 2014 dollars) is barely higher than it was in 1983. Those
at the top have weathered the recession far better and, despite losses, have seen a doubling of
their net worth over that same period.
Within the overall trends of the middle class, there are winners and losers, according to the
Pew study. Winners included people older than 65, whose overall economic standing has increased
sharply over the past four decades. In 1971, more than half of all Americans ages 65 and older
were in the lowest income tier. Today, nearly half qualify as middle-income.
Those with college degrees have remained fairly stable in terms of their percentages in the
lower-, middle- and upper-income tiers. Then comes this telling finding from the Pew study: "Those
without a bachelor's degree tumbled down the income tiers, however. Among the various demographic
groups examined, adults with no more than a high school diploma lost the most ground economically."
This is where the report connects directly to what's happened politically this year. Pair those
last findings from the Pew study with what recent polling shows about who supports Trump.
A recent Washington Post-ABC News survey found Trump leading his rivals overall, with 32 percent
support among registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Among white people with
college degrees, he was at 23 percent and led his nearest rival by only four percentage points.
Among white people without a college degree, however, his support ballooned to 41 percent - double
that of Ben Carson, who was second at 20 percent, and five times the support of Sens. Marco Rubio
(Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.), who were tied for third.
Those without college educations have regressed economically. The Pew study shows that many
who have either a high school degree or at most two years of college have fallen out of the middle
class over the past four decades. Among those with high school degrees, the percentage in the
lowest-income tier has risen from 17 percent in 1971 to 36 percent in 2015. A similar pattern
exists for those with some college education but not a four-year degree.
Politicians in both parties have sought for some time to appeal to middle-class voters
who are economically stressed. President Obama made his 2012 reelection campaign about appealing
to the middle class and casting Republican nominee Mitt Romney as out of touch and insensitive
to their concerns.
In the absence of progress during Obama's presidency, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner,
and her principal challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), have made issues of inequality and wage
stagnation central to their appeals. Clinton's team long has believed that the election will turn
on issues of middle-class economics.
Trump, however, has tapped a vein of frustration and resentment among those who have suffered
most from the economic maladies of the past decade and a half, and he has ridden it to the top
of the GOP polls. He has done it by eschewing political correctness.
Trump draws strong support from the kinds of voters who see illegal immigration as eroding
the values of the country and who might worry that their jobs are threatened by the influx. About
half of those Republicans who favor deporting immigrants who are here illegally back Trump for
the party's nomination. These are also the kinds of voters who agree most with Trump's call
to ban the entry of Muslims into the United States until security concerns are laid to rest.
Trump's campaign slogan is not just "Make America Great" but "Make America Great Again."
He summons a time when the middle class was prosperous and incomes were rising. This was a time
when the lack of a college degree was not the impediment to a more economically secure life that
it has become - and a time when white people made up a higher share of the population.
Whatever happens to Trump's candidacy over the coming months, the conditions that have
helped make him the front-runner for the GOP nomination will still exist, a focal point in a divisive
debate about the future of the country.
EMichael said in reply to Peter K....
Baker was too kind to Balz.
Amazing that appeals to racist imbeciles are considered to be appeals
to middle class America. Over two decades ago, Trump's platform(if you can call it that) was accurately
described in The American President:
"I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the
reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't
get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that
he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.
And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested
in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of
it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Peter K. said in reply to EMichael...
Also the corporate media refuses to focus on the one percent.
"The rich families remaking Illinois are among a small group around the country who have
channeled their extraordinary wealth into political power, taking advantage of regulatory,
legal and cultural shifts that have carved new paths for infusing money into campaigns. Economic
winners in an age of rising inequality, operating largely out of public view, they are reshaping
government with fortunes so large as to defy the ordinary financial scale of politics. In the
2016 presidential race, a New York Times analysis found last month, just 158 families had provided
nearly half of the early campaign money.
...
Around the same time that Mr. Rauner began running for governor, a group of researchers
based at Northwestern University published findings from the country's first-ever representative
survey of the richest one percent of Americans. The study, known as the Survey of Economically
Successful Americans and the Common Good, canvassed a sample of the wealthy from the Chicago
area. Those canvassed were granted anonymity to discuss their views candidly.
Their replies were striking. Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify
as Democrats than as Republicans, the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. They are far
more likely to raise money for politicians and to have access to them; nearly half had personally
contacted one of Illinois's two United States senators.
Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum wage, the one percent are
broadly opposed. A majority of Americans supported expanding safety-net and retirement programs,
while most of the very wealthy opposed them. And while Americans are not enthusiastic about
higher taxes generally, they feel strongly that the rich should pay more than they do, and
more than everyone else pays.
"Probably the biggest single area of disconnect has to do with social welfare programs,"
said Benjamin I. Page, a political scientist at Northwestern University and a co-author
of the study. "The other big area has to do with paying for those programs, particularly
taxes on high-income and wealthy people.""
EMichael said in reply to Peter K....
"Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum wage, the one percent
are broadly opposed."
Yep
So what they do is to distract people from the need to increase wages by altering the minimum
wage and make low wages the responsibility of illegal immigrants.
Plausible(if not true) story made believable if you are a racist.
"Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans,
the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right."
That would explain the survey results discussed yesterday showing Clinton to be the preferred
candidate among "millionaires" -- a category almost as factually broad and ambiguous as "the middle
class". The merely affluent -- AKA the "liberal elite" -- would be the Clinton supporters, whereas
the ultrawealthy would support Rubio (or whatever other candidate they were sponsoring).
cm said in reply to EMichael...
"Amazing that appeals to racist imbeciles are considered to be appeals to middle class America."
etc.
Are you suggesting the survey percentages are not accurate? One can suspect a significant sampling
error, but if the numbers were off let's say 5-10 percentage points, would it really make much
of a difference in quality?
Also it is not necessarily an endorsement of Trump but a relative statement - that he resonates
with people more than the other contenders. This kind of thing (people rallying around alpha-type
strongmen with supremacist narratives) has reliably happened anywhere and anytime there was a
bad economy and serious lack of positive outlook.
The competition between GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz heated up Sunday,
with Trump calling Cruz "a bit of a maniac."
Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Trump said the Texas senator was not qualified to be president
because he doesn't have the right temperament and judgement to get things done.
"Look at the way he's dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there like a - you know, frankly
like a little bit of a maniac," Trump said. "You can't walk into the Senate, and scream, and call
people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people." ...
Previously: Ted Cruz Questions Donald Trump's 'Judgment' to
Be President http://nyti.ms/1XZ3RxD via @NYTPolitics
- Dec 10
"... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record? ..."
"... The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry. ..."
"... Great to see Bakers acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wings plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types dont think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much. ..."
"... Yes thats a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. ..."
"... Slippery slope. Ya gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business. ..."
"... Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clintons plan? Ive heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/ ..."
"... Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Streets excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief. ..."
"... There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So theyll let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like Barry caved once in power ..."
"... Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we know its no monolithic: there are serious differences ..."
"... This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire. Not Iowa ..."
"... I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam. Like Bill and Obomber. ..."
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility
from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider Yesterday 3:11 pm
Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended
to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York
who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince
wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics,
myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a
clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out
of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary
Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful
institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players
that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and
donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize
capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers
and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton
in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal
banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate
directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling
old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees"
against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial
sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the
real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created
the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that
drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign
and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to
do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions
like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts
to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion
bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and
had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences
of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would
remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks
would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers.
If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall
principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should
be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain). That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White
House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than
that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their
money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who
introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political
savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed
was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was
chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single,
all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically,
but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment
banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's
not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental
business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution
would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote
in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies
that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining
so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller,
specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers
who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed
by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways
that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique
the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire
finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent,
which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional
bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They
are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short
termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate
reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall
and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable.
No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if
it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think
they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians.
They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff
for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows,
maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to
hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as
President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?
Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and
seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern
Lefty club. Still, critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.
sanjait said in reply to Peter K....
"Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton
performed..."
That, right there, is what's wrong with Bernie and his fans.
They measure everything by whether it is "pro- or anti- Wall Street".
Glass Steagall is anti-Wall Street. A financial transactions tax is anti-Wall Street.
But neither has any hope of controlling systemic financial risk in this country. None.
You guys want to punish Wall Street but not even bother trying to think of how to achieve useful
policy goals. Some people, like Paine here, are actually open about this vacuity, as if the only
thing that were important were winning a power struggle.
Hillary's plan is flat out better. It's more comprehensive and more effective at reining in the
financial system to limit systemic risk. Period.
You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the
result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it.
likbez said in reply to sanjait...
"You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I
fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get
to enact it."
You are misrepresenting the positions. It's actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs
anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a
character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as
her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests.
The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question "What is a realistic
alternative?" That's where differences and policy debate starts.
RGC said in reply to EMichael...
"Her argument amounts to facile evasion"
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to RGC...
'The majority favors policies
to the left of Hillary.'
... The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake
noisiness for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold
nowhere near the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican
Party. And while they may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge. ...
Paine said in reply to RGC...
What's not confronted ? Suggest what a System like the pre repeal system would have done in
the 00's. My guess we'd have ended in a crisis anyway. Yes we can segregate the depository
system. But credit is elastic enough to build bubbles without the depository system
involved
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Cracking Down on Wall Street
by Dean Baker
Published: 12 December 2015
The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment
firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective
in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding
of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry. The
piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks
and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the
most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry.
The piece assures us that too big to fail banks are no longer a problem, noting their drop
in profitability from bubble peaks and telling readers:
"not only are Sanders's bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less
powerful and less problematic by the year."
This argument is strange for a couple of reasons. First, the peak of the subprime bubble frenzy
is hardly a good base of comparison. The real question is should we anticipate declining profits
going forward. That hardly seems clear. For example, Citigroup recently reported surging profits,
while Wells Fargo's third quarter profits were up 8 percent from 2014 levels.
If Sernovitz is predicting that the big banks are about to shrivel up to nothingness, the market
does not agree with him. Citigroup has a market capitalization of $152 billion, JPMorgan has a
market cap of $236 billion, and Bank of America has a market cap of $174 billion. Clearly investors
agree with Sanders in thinking that these huge banks will have sizable profits for some time to
come.
The real question on too big to fail is whether the government would sit by and let a Goldman
Sachs or Citigroup go bankrupt. Perhaps some people think that it is now the case, but I've never
met anyone in that group.
Sernovitz is also dismissive on Sanders call for bringing back the Glass-Steagall separation
between commercial banking and investment banking. He makes the comparison to the battle over
the Keystone XL pipeline, which is actually quite appropriate. The Keystone battle did take on
exaggerated importance in the climate debate. There was never a zero/one proposition in which
no tar sands oil would be pumped without the pipeline, while all of it would be pumped if the
pipeline was constructed. Nonetheless, if the Obama administration was committed to restricting
greenhouse gas emissions, it is difficult to see why it would support the building of a pipeline
that would facilitate bringing some of the world's dirtiest oil to market.
In the same vein, Sernovitz is right that it is difficult to see how anything about the growth
of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse would have been very different if Glass-Steagall
were still in place. And, it is possible in principle to regulate bank's risky practices without
Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing. However, enforcement tends to weaken over time under
industry pressure, which is a reason why the clear lines of Glass-Steagall can be beneficial.
Furthermore, as with Keystone, if we want to restrict banks' power, what is the advantage of letting
them get bigger and more complex?
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sold in large part by boasting of the potential synergies
from combining investment and commercial banking under one roof. But if the operations are kept
completely separate, as is supposed to be the case, where are the synergies?
But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions
tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste
and exorbitant salaries in the industry.
Most research shows that trading volume is very responsive to the cost of trading, with most
estimates putting the elasticity close to one. This means that if trading costs rise by 50 percent,
then trading volume declines by 50 percent. (In its recent analysis of FTTs, the Tax Policy Center
assumed that the elasticity was 1.5, meaning that trading volume decline by 150 percent of the
increase in trading costs.) The implication of this finding is that the financial industry would
pay the full cost of a financial transactions tax in the form of reduced trading revenue.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes
on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading
revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with
a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the
financial industry.
It is incredible that Sernovitz would ignore a policy with such enormous consequences for the
financial sector in his assessment of which candidate would be tougher on Wall Street. Sanders
FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street then everything that Clinton
has proposed taken together by a rather large margin. It's sort of like evaluating the New England
Patriots' Super Bowl prospects without discussing their quarterback.
Syaloch said in reply to Peter K....
Great to see Baker's acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component
of the progressive wing's plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall
Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they
expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much.
Peter K. said in reply to Syaloch...
Yes that's a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign
cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. If they want it done, it's probably not
a good idea.
EMichael said in reply to Syaloch...
Slippery slope. Ya' gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation
on their business.
Syaloch said in reply to EMichael...
Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation.
The question is, what do they think of Clinton's plan? I've heard surprisingly little about that,
and what I have heard is along these lines:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/
"Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday.
The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief."
pgl said in reply to Syaloch...
Two excellent points!!!
sanjait said in reply to Syaloch...
"Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful
effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too
much."
It has an effect of shrinking the size of a few firms, and that has a detrimental effect on
the top managers of those firms, who get paid more money if they have larger firms to manage. But it has little to no meaningful effect on systemic risk.
So if your main policy goal is to shrink the compensation for a small number of powerful Wall
Street managers, G-S is great. But if you actually want to accomplish something useful to the American people, like limiting
systemic risk in the financial sector, then a plan like Hillary's is much much better. She explained
this fairly well in her recent NYT piece.
Paine said in reply to Peter K....
There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So they'll
let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like
Barry caved once in power
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
Bernie has been anti Wall Street his whole career . He's on a crusade. Hillary is pulling a sham
bola
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we
know it's no monolithic: there are serious differences
When the street is riding high especially. Right now the street is probably not united but
too cautious to display profound differences in public. They're sitting on their hands waiting
to see how high the anti Wall Street tide runs this election cycle. Trump gives them cover and
I really fear secretly Hillary gives them comfort
This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire.
Not Iowa
EMichael said in reply to Paine ...
If Bernie surges and wins the nomination, we will all get to watch the death of the Progressive
movement for a decade or two. Congress will become more GOP dominated, and we will have a President
in office who will make Hoover look like a Socialist.
You should like the moderate Democrats after George McGovern ran in 1972. I'm hoping we have another
1964 with Bernie leading a united Democratic Congress.
EMichael said in reply to pgl...
Not a chance in the world. And I like Sanders much more than anyone else. It just simply cannot,
and will not, happen. He is a communist. Not to me, not to you, but to the vast majority
of American voters.
pgl said in reply to EMichael...
He is not a communist. But I agree - Hillary is winning the Democratic nomination. I have only
one vote and in New York, I'm badly outnumbered.
ilsm said in reply to Paine ...
I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam.
Like Bill and Obomber.
pgl said in reply to ilsm...
By 1968, LBJ finally realized it was time to end that stupid war. But it seems certain members
in the State Department undermined his efforts in a cynical ploy to get Nixon to be President.
The Republican Party has had more slime than substance of most of my life time.
pgl said in reply to Peter K....
Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners? Why are we listening
to this guy too. It's like letting the fox guard the hen house.
"... If memory serves me correctly the last time CNBC did a millionaires poll Hillary won. She is not a populist, barely a liberal. Two political parties, zero candidates I can vote for. Yuck. ..."
"... Rubinite neo liberal. She is also popular with PNAC and the Kagan's neocon favorite she would hire Wolfowitz ... Management in big war profiteer firms is not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald. ..."
"... Rubinite neoliberal is a very good definition of what Hillary actually represent politically. Third Way is another term close in meaning to your Rubinite neoliberal term. ..."
"... But unlike the Third Way term your term captures an additional important quality of Hillary as a politician: On foreign policy issues she is a typical neocon and would feel pretty comfortable with most of Republican candidates foreign policy platforms. Her protégé in the Department of State Victoria Nuland was a close associate of Dick Cheney. ..."
"... Very true. Brad has been moving left for a couple years or more. It's now obvious. He lets krugman lead the way but he follows. Notice Summers too has moved left . Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ? ..."
"... One thing is certain: the old Rubinite toxic line is no longer dominant in the. big D party top circles. We can call that progress if we need to ..."
"... Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ? Even if it's the second, it legitimates Bernie's views and critique. Also DeLong here is criticizing Brookings and other centrist organizations specifically for working with AEI. ..."
"... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record? ..."
"... I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing. ..."
If memory serves me correctly the last time CNBC did a "millionaires poll" Hillary won.
She is not a populist, barely a liberal. Two political parties, zero candidates I can vote
for. Yuck.
(Rubio was the top GOP choice, but Clinton still beat Rubio by a 21% margin.)
Syaloch -> EMichael...
Well, here are the issues millionaires indicated as being most important to them, and
presumably candidates of choice are based on their positions on these issues. Make of it what
you will.
Since she intends to be the Dem nominee, progressives expect she must be one of them. Only
when necessary. As someone has said, 'Run from
the left, rule from the center.' Always, always, run from the left.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Rubinite neo liberal.
She is also popular with PNAC and "the Kagan's" neocon favorite she would hire Wolfowitz and
spend more trillions protecting the Saudis from their rising victims.
Clinton has said: Iran is the enemy.
She will keep fighting Iran while Sunni terrorists fund ISIS!
Trump is merely less nuanced in insanity.
Management in big war profiteer firms is not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald.
likbez -> ilsm...
"Rubinite neo liberal. She is also popular with PNAC
and "the Kagan's" neocon favorite she would hire
Wolfowitz ... Management in big war profiteer firms is
not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald."
Exactly --
"Rubinite neoliberal" is a very good definition of
what Hillary actually represent politically. Third Way
is another term close in meaning to your "Rubinite
neoliberal" term.
But unlike the "Third Way" term your term captures
an additional important quality of Hillary as a
politician: On foreign policy issues she is a typical
neocon and would feel pretty comfortable with most of
Republican candidates foreign policy platforms. Her
protégé in the Department of State Victoria Nuland was
a close associate of Dick Cheney.
She is probably more warmongering candidate then
Jeb! and a couple of other republican candidates.
But at the same time she does not look like
completely out of place as an establishment candidate
from Dems, which are actually are "Democrats only by
name" -- a typical "Third Way" party. From Wikipedia
=== quote ===
In politics, the Third Way is a position akin to
centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and
left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of
right-wing economic and left-wing social
policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious
re-evaluation of political policies within various
centre-left progressive movements in response to
international doubt regarding the economic viability of
the state; economic interventionist policies that had
previously been popularized by Keynesianism and
contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity
for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third
Way is promoted by some social democratic and social
liberal movements.[4]
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony
Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was
different from traditional conceptions of socialism.
Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values
based around notions of social justice ... Socialism as
a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and
rightly".[5] Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that
involves politics that recognized individuals as
socially interdependent, and advocated social justice,
social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal
opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist
Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the
traditional conception of socialism, and instead
accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by
Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views
social democratic governments as having achieved a
viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust
elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and
other policies, and that contemporary socialism has
outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the
abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly
declared support for a "new capitalism".[8]
It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in
society through action to increase the distribution of
skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while
rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve
this.[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets,
providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis
on personal responsibility, decentralization of
government power to the lowest level possible,
encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving
labour supply, investment in human development,
protection of social capital, and protection of the
environment.[10] === end of quote ===
ilsm -> likbez...
H. Clinton is as likely to keep US out of the wrong quagmire as LBJ in 1964. Except, LBJ
may have actually changed his mind after he was elected.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
(Yes, There Will Be Triangulating. This is not a great example of it.)
Hillary Is Already Triangulating Against Liberals
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_triangulates_against_bernie_sanders.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
via @slate - Nov 18
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has begun using an odd new line of attack against
upstart Democratic primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders: He's too liberal on taxes and universal
health insurance. Why is she doing this? After returning to the position in which she entered
the race-as the near-certain nominee-she seems to be setting herself up for the general
election. But it's strange to see her now, after the previously shaky ship has been steadied,
attacking a candidate whose supporters she'll need in any general election campaign over an
issue that his supporters care about very deeply.
Triangulating against Sanders (and, by proxy, the left wing of the Democratic Party) with
conservative attacks does make some sense. For one, she is a Clinton, and this is what they
do.
At issue is Sanders' support for a single-payer universal health care system, which he and
others brand as "Medicare for all." A single-payer bill he introduced in 2013 would have
levied a 2.2 percent tax on individuals making up to $200,000 or couples making up to
$250,000, and progressively increased that rate to 5.2 percent for income beyond $600,000. It
also would have tacked an extra 6.7 percent payroll tax on the employer side, at least some of
which employers would likely pass on to workers.
The Clinton campaign is suddenly quite upset about that proposal and wants everyone to know.
She has committed to the same (policy-constricting) pledge that President Obama took in 2008
and 2012, ruling out tax increases on individuals making less than $200,000 per year or joint
filers making less than $250,000. This neatly positions her camp to say, by contrast, that the
bug-eyed socialist Bernie Sanders wants to take all of your money. ...
(Where HRC will get a lot of votes & contributions will be among those in the $250K & below
set, so no need to antagonize THEM. Not when she can
practically smell the nomination.)
Paine -> Peter K....
Very true. Brad has been moving left for a couple years or more. It's now obvious. He
lets krugman lead the way but he follows. Notice Summers too has moved left . Is this for real
or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ?
One thing is certain: the old
Rubinite toxic line is no longer dominant in the. big D party top circles. We can call
that progress if we need to
Peter K. -> Paine ...
"Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ?" Even if it's the
second, it legitimates Bernie's views and critique. Also DeLong here is criticizing Brookings
and other "centrist" organizations specifically for working with AEI.
Syaloch -> Paine ...
Just as the revolution within the Republican party was the result of the undue influence of
an out-of-touch elite, the Democratic coalition has been threatened by the influence of the
Brookings-Third Way wing which seems, for example, to imagine that they can sell to the base
cuts to Social Security, an elite priority that has nothing to do with the reasons
working-class people vote Democrat.
"We supported and helped pass into law the Simpson-Bowles commission that came close to
securing the bipartisan grand bargain budget agreement for which we fought. We proposed our
own Social Security fix plan that combined tax increases on upper income earners with
benefit cuts on well-to-do seniors and benefit increases to poor seniors. We first proposed
then brought Democrats and Republicans together on a Social Security Commission plan that
remains the only bipartisan legislation to fix Social Security. We became the lead
center-left organization to promote chain weighted CPI and eventually counted President
Obama as one of our supporters."
"Yielding to pressure from congressional Democrats, President Obama is abandoning a
proposed cut to Social Security benefits in his election-year budget...
"Democrats on Capitol Hill had pleaded with Obama to reverse course on the chained consumer
price index (CPI), fearing it could become a liability for the party in the upcoming
midterm elections, which typically bring high turnout among older voters.
"More than 100 House Democrats wrote to Obama on Wednesday urging him to drop the chained
CPI proposal, following a similar letter from 16 Senate Democrats that was led by Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)."
RGC said...
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but
she's deflecting responsibility from old friends and
donors in the industry.
By William Greider
Yesterday 3:11 pm
Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times,
"How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended to reassure
nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those
mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy.
Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might
convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the
complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself
included, see a disturbing message in her argument that
ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the
financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite
of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently
leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president
who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown.
Hillary Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem
deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful
institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and
instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In
roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is
assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector
that, if she becomes president, she will not come after
them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the
repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which
had separated banking into different realms: investment
banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking
ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as
borrowers and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory
for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999,
assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's
armies of lobbyists. The "universal banking model" was
saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional
banks to participate directly and indirectly in
long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and
credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers
to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The
banks invented "guarantees" against loss and sold them to
both companies and market players. The fast-expanding
financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the
economy (and still does) at the expense of the real
economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness
across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When
illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the
dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately,
the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and
domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that
repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She
claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the
reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or
insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her
argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the
interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180
billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman
Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and had
allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation
(and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do
not matter are enormous. The federal government and
Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing
losers in a future crisis. The largest and most
adventurous banks would remain free to experiment,
inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager
suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are
pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall
principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured
place to store their money. "Banking should be boring,"
Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John
McCain).
That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's
bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous
manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is
more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable
banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep
their money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats
who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator
Warren's argument are the two bankers who introduced this
adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They
used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce
Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed
was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since
apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the
board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the
possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house,
freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won
politically, but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should
probably do is go and split up investment banking from
banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk
the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to
fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their
modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business
reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of
finance into one institution would drive costs down-and
the larger institution the more efficient it would be,"
Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said,
"We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies
that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may
be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a
single bank makes services more expensive than if they
were instead offered by smaller, specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix
the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers who are
pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain
the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking
system. This disorder speaks to the current political
crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to
confront. It would require the politicians to critique the
bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by
itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire finance industry
more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking
attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different
from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and
trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts,
sociable people who are focused on longer term
relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk
averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more
short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even
seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years
since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its
repeal suggest that the universal banking model is
inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of
restructuring, management change or regulation is ever
likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic
Party might do better in politics if it told more of the
truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed,
and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People
already know they haven't gotten a straight story from
politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little
more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans
have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so
relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful
rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might
lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want
to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they
stand it?
"She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the
reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or
insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks."
Of course this claim is absolutely true. Just like GS
would not have affected the other investment banks,
whatever their name was. And just like we would have had
to bail out those other banks whatever their name was.
Peter K. -> EMichael...
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street
"reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as President
including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator?
Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of
Greenspan's record?
Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her
husband specifically about his record and seems to want to
have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans,
pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty club. Still,
critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in
Wall Street besides some window dressing.
"... Sanders says he is for "having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country." But what that misses is the extent to which that has always been the case, and not by happenstance. ..."
"... Mortified by the threat to their wealth and power, the elite sought to reconfigure the government more to their liking, and to ensure that such an outburst of popular sentiment couldn't happen again. ..."
"... The main purpose of the new Constitution, then, was to preserve inequalities among individuals and the inequalities in the distribution of property among them. "Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society," Madison observes. Ever had it been, and ever under the Constitution would it be. The division of wealth and political power, between the haves and the have-nots, between (as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has put it) the makers and the takers, was to be carefully maintained. For Madison, in Federalist No. 10, the question was how to do so while at least nominally "preserv[ing] the spirit and the form of popular government." ... ..."
Conventional political wisdom says that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, however popular in certain
corners, can't possibly win election to the White House. Too radical, goes the thinking. Inspiring,
common-sense ideas, perhaps, but come Election Day, a majority of American voters won't back the
redistribution of wealth implicit in his proposals. Why is that?
Believe it or not, one place to look for an answer is the Constitution, crafted by the richest
and most powerful Americans of their day to perpetuate their own control over the government and
economy.
Sanders says he is for "having a government which represents all people, rather than just the
wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country." But what that misses
is the extent to which that has always been the case, and not by happenstance.
In late 1786, a farmer and veteran of the Revolution named Daniel Shays led an armed insurrection
of debtors and veterans in the hills of Western Massachusetts. Objecting to an onerous regime of
taxes and confiscations the state imposed to pay its creditors, the rebels marched through the countryside,
threatening the new federal arsenal at Springfield and shutting down courthouses to stop foreclosure
proceedings. Bankers and merchants in Boston - the same parties who owned the state's debt - lent
Massachusetts more money to put the insurrection down.
In October of that year, General Henry Knox, secretary of war, summarized the rebels' philosophy:
"Their creed is 'That the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscations
of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be the common property of all. And
he that attempts opposition to this creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept
off the face of the earth.' "
Mortified by the threat to their wealth and power, the elite sought to reconfigure the government
more to their liking, and to ensure that such an outburst of popular sentiment couldn't happen again.
As schoolchildren learn - and adults often forget - the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was
only tasked with amending the Articles of Confederation, the document that had governed the breakaway
Colonies since 1781. The convention wasn't supposed to rewrite them entirely. The progressive historian
Charles Beard, whose influential "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" was the first work
to reveal the class-based nature of our founding charter, stated the matter plainly when he called
it a coup d'etat.
Contrary to what many assume, the Constitution was never subjected to a popular referendum, but
to the votes of state ratifying conventions that were themselves largely elected by only white propertied
males; indeed, only about 150,000 Americans elected delegates, out of a population of some 4 million.
With the goal of persuading New Yorkers to elect pro-Constitution delegates to the state's convention,
James Madison, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote a series of 85 essays under the pseudonym
Publius that were published in local papers between November 1787 and August 1788 under the title,
The Federalist. Madison's most famous contribution, Federalist No. 10, is widely acclaimed for its
idea that factions of citizens with disparate interests should be balanced against one another in
order to create a republic that would neither succumb to what John Adams called "tyranny of the majority"
nor lose its responsiveness to the people as it grew larger in stature and scale.
Yet despite the attention Federalist No. 10 has received from political scientists, it ought to
be much better known among all who favor a more equal distribution of wealth, because it explains
how our political system, often described as rigged, has in fact been rigged from the start.
"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens," Madison writes
near the beginning of the essay, gesturing, as he does throughout The Federalist, to the fallout
from Shays' Rebellion, "that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded
in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the
rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and
overbearing majority."
That majority, it slowly becomes clear, are the debtors and small landowners, those more recently
designated the 99 percent. "The diversity in the faculties of men," Madison explains, leads to different
"rights of property," and this difference represents "an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of
interests" in the political community. "The protection of these faculties is the first object of
government," he adds.
The main purpose of the new Constitution, then, was to preserve inequalities among individuals
and the inequalities in the distribution of property among them. "Those who hold and those who are
without property have ever formed distinct interests in society," Madison observes. Ever had it been,
and ever under the Constitution would it be. The division of wealth and political power, between
the haves and the have-nots, between (as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan
has put it) the makers and the takers, was to be carefully maintained. For Madison, in Federalist
No. 10, the question was how to do so while at least nominally "preserv[ing] the spirit and the form
of popular government." ...
(Richard Kreitner is the archivist of the The Nation magazine.)
Some Republicans
are now worrying that Donald Trump could cost them the Senate
-- or even put their seemingly solid House majority in
danger.
Republicans have long known they were vulnerable in the
Senate in 2016. They currently hold a 54-46 majority, but far
more Republican seats are up in this cycle than Democratic
seats, and several of those are in tough states for
Republicans to hold (such as Wisconsin and Illinois). In the
House, Democrats stand to gain here and there because
Republicans won so many competitive seats in 2014, but few
analysts have considered the GOP's majority at risk.
If Trump actually wins the Republican nomination, the
question would be the scale of the disaster for the party.
The best-case possibility is that Trump tones things down
enough to be able to run as a mainstream conservative
Republican and the party can unite behind him. If that's the
case, the party would still likely do unusually badly with
the groups Trump has insulted so far, but the losses might be
contained. Trump might have little chance to win but he
wouldn't excessively drag down Republicans in races down the
ballot. Democrats would likely make modest gains in the House
and Senate.
Let's suppose, however, that Trump wins the nomination
while still proving unacceptable to many Republican elected
officials and other party actors. Then, yes, huge GOP losses
in Congress, state legislatures and other races are quite
plausible. If high-visibility Republicans denounce their own
nominee, plenty of GOP voters will wind up staying home in
November. Some might even cross party lines at the top of the
ballot and vote for Hillary Clinton, and won't cross back to
vote Republican for other contests. Republican candidates
will face a choice of pledging loyalty to a damaging nominee
or risk adding to the chaos in their party. ...
One potentially significant indirect effect, however, is
possible. Important decisions in House elections are being
made right now. Suppose disgust with the party or fear that
2016 will be a Republican debacle pushes some House
Republicans into retirement or hurts Republican recruitment
for quality candidates for seats that are open or currently
held by weak Democrats. The Trump factor could also be
affecting Democratic decisions today as well, possibly
encouraging better candidates to jump into congressional
races.
The upshot of all this is that Republican politicians and
all those who care about continuing Republican control of
Congress have strong incentives to ramp up their efforts to
defeat Trump. ...
'If high-visibility Republicans denounce their own
nominee, plenty of GOP voters will wind up staying home in
November.'
One way of downplaying Trump's persistent dominance in the polls is to suggest his 20-30
percent is a ceiling, not a floor. Nate Silver, for instance, wrote that Trump "has 25 to 30
percent of the vote in polls among the roughly 25 percent of Americans who identify as
Republican. (That's something like 6 to 8 percent of the electorate overall, or about the same
share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.)"
The idea here is that Trump's lead represents a fractured field: As weaker candidates drop out
and the establishment consolidates around a single anti-Trump, that candidate will pass Trump in
support even if Trump holds his current numbers.
But in a head-to-head matchup among Republican voters, Trump beats Rubio 57-43. That suggests
that Trump's ceiling, at least among Republicans, is far above his current 25 to 30 percent, and
he may well benefit as weaker candidates drop out.
One response to this might be that voters will, in the coming months, learn something about
Trump that will change their minds and vault Rubio ahead in this competition - that has happened,
after all, to many other frontrunners. But while that's clearly possible, it's also getting
harder and harder to imagine what it is voters could learn about Trump at this point that would
shock them.
Meanwhile, there are things Republican voters might learn about Rubio - like his immigration
record or his reliance on dark money - that could undermine support for him, too.
So why would he hand Hillary the job as prez by going
independent?
Faced with the rising clown shows of Donald Trump and
Ben Carson, the implosion of Jeb! Bush, and the fact that
everyone except his immediate family fates Ted Cruz, the
GOP establishment and the media tried very hard to give
Rubio a boost. The calculus makes sense: Rubio against
iether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would make a nice
"young vs. old" storyline for the 2016 election while
giving the Republicans a chance to dump the image of the
party of old, racist white fogies, This despite glaring
evidence that Rubio's policy positions are so far to the
right, they might make Barry Goldwater nervous.
"... life simply because she was married to a President like he would like us to believe. If that was the case there would've been more first ladies running for office. She was a political animal from the start and was involved in every political decision her husband made and shaped his policies dating back to Arkansas. She came in as first lady and immediately announced she was not going to be like other first ladies. I think Hitchens is sort of being lazy with his analysis on how the Clintons attain power and how they've cultivated the path to their success in the political arena ..."
"... I'm sure Hitch would have some very colourful remarks to make about Mrs. Clinton's e-mail shenanigans were he still with us. ..."
"... The woman is remarkably despicable and I hate to have such a jaded view of the average American voter but I'm afraid she is going to get the Presidency based in large part because of the potential for the first female President. ..."
What he failed to realize is how is she reaching these platforms to try and reach the
highest office in the land. Did she get where she is in life simply because she was
married to a President like he would like us to believe. If that was the case there would've
been more first ladies running for office. She was a political animal from the start and was
involved in every political decision her husband made and shaped his policies dating back to
Arkansas. She came in as first lady and immediately announced she was not going to be like
other first ladies. I think Hitchens is sort of being lazy with his analysis on how the
Clintons attain power and how they've cultivated the path to their success in the political
arena
juicer67 2 months ago
I'm sure Hitch would have some very colourful remarks to make about Mrs. Clinton's
e-mail shenanigans were he still with us. He was irreplaceable.
michael davis 1 month ago
+juicer67 And a lot more to say about Benghazi as well. The woman is remarkably
despicable and I hate to have such a jaded view of the average American voter but I'm afraid
she is going to get the Presidency based in large part because of the potential for the first
female President. From my experience with chatting with people before the 2008 election,
many were voting for Obama in large part because he had a chance to be the first black
President - people were excited about that regardless of his stances. I'm afraid the same will
happen with Clinton and she likely knows it too. Its sad that people vote in that way.
"... But never mind us - how does she manage? When you and your husband have banked $125 million in speaking fees from the odious malefactors of wealth, and you insist that you feel the pain of the middle class. How do you maintain the deadpan after you've cashed $300,000 for a half-hour speech at a state university - which fee comes from student dues - and then declaim against crippling student loans? ..."
"... Small lies are often more revealing, especially when there was no need for them. Claiming, say, that you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary when you were born six years before he became a household name; or that you sought to enlist in the US Marines after years of protesting against the Vietnam War, graduating from Yale Law School and working on the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern; or that you dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia, when TV footage shows you strolling across it, smiling. ..."
"... There's the Iraq War vote flip-flop; the gay marriage flip-flop; the Keystone Pipeline flip-flop; the legalising marijuana flip-flop; and most recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership flip-flop. ..."
"... 'The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.' Christopher, thou shouldst be living at this hour. ..."
"... She is a self-obsessed, me me me first totally political greaseball. ..."
The presidential campaign here in the land hymned by one of its earliest immigrants as a
shining 'city on a hill' looks more and more likely to boil down to electing Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton.
It is of course possible that the party of Lincoln and Reagan will not go completely off its meds
and nominate Mr Trump. It's possible, too, that the wretched FBI agents tasked with reading Mrs
Clinton's 55,000 private emails will experience a Howard Carter/King Tut's tomb moment and find
one instructing Sidney Blumenthal to offer Putin another 20 per cent of US uranium production in
return for another $2.5 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, plus another $500,000 speech
in Moscow. Absent such, Mrs Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. As we say here: deal with it.
Only last summer, her goose seemed all but cooked. Every day she offered another Hillary-ous
explanation for why as Secretary of State she required two Blackberries linked to unclassified
servers. Eventually this babbling brook of prevarication became so tedious that even her Marxist
challenger, Comrade Bernie Sanders of the Vermont Soviet, was moved to thump the debate podium
and proclaim: 'I'm sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!' (He has since backtracked,
declaring himself now deeply interested in her damn emails.)
... ... ...
But never mind us - how does she manage? When you and your husband have banked $125
million in speaking fees from the odious malefactors of wealth, and you insist that you feel the
pain of the middle class. How do you maintain the deadpan after you've cashed $300,000 for a
half-hour speech at a state university - which fee comes from student dues - and then declaim
against crippling student loans?
Small lies are often more revealing, especially when there was no need for them. Claiming,
say, that you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary when you were born six years before he became a
household name; or that you sought to enlist in the US Marines after years of protesting against
the Vietnam War, graduating from Yale Law School and working on the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy
and George McGovern; or that you dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia, when TV footage
shows you strolling across it, smiling.
... ... ...
Changing one's position on an issue isn't the same as lying, but along with the 'Which lie did
I tell?' thought bubble permanently hovering over Mrs Clinton's head, one sees too the licked
finger held aloft. The American lingo for this is 'flip-flop,' as in the rubber sandal thingies
you wear on the beach before going inside to give a $200,000 speech to Goldman Sachs.
Mrs Clinton's flip-flop closet has reached Imelda Marcos levels. There's the Iraq War vote
flip-flop; the gay marriage flip-flop; the Keystone Pipeline flip-flop; the legalising marijuana
flip-flop; and most recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership flip-flop.
And yet, as you work your way down this bill of attainder you feel like an old village scold.
Another member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. A tiresome ancient mariner, banging on at the
wedding.
There's nothing new there. It's all been gone into, again and again. This election isn't about
the past. It's about the future.
And before you know it, you too, like Comrade Bernie - the prior version, anyway - are sick and
tired of hearing yourself whinge. Because it has all been gone into before. It's all 'damn' stuff
now. Mrs and Mr Clinton have been with us since 1992, our political lares et penates - and after
all this time, less than half the electorate think she's honest.
During one of the 2008 Democratic debates, the moderator asked her about the, er, 'likeability
factor'. It was a cringey moment. One's heart (I say this sincerely) went out to the lady. The
shellac deadpan mask melted. She smiled bravely, tears forming, and answered demurely with a
hurt, girlish smile and said: 'Well, that hurts my feelings.'
Whereupon candidate Obama interjected, with the hauteur and sneer of cold command that we've come
to know so well: 'You're likable enough, Hillary.'
The nervous laughter in the auditorium quickly curdled into chill disdain. How could he! But,
lest we slip into sentimentality, let me quote Christopher Hitchens on this anniversary of his
death, who in 2008 wrote: 'The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut.
Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more
media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for
us, she may cry.' Christopher, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
When the latest version of Hillary was rolled out like a new product by her campaign apparatus,
she was rebranded as a doting granny. What's more 'likeable' than a granny? Unfortunately for
her, the meme didn't stick. But then it's hard to look like a cooing old sweetie when you're
swatting away snarling congressmen on Benghazi and explaining that you're suddenly against a
trade treaty you promoted for years. None of this does much for the likeability or honesty
factor.
Mrs Clinton has her champions to be sure, but it's been a long slog for them, too, with an awful
lot of heavy lifting. When her choir cranks up to sing her praise, one detects the note of
obbligato, not genuine ardour.
If it does come down next November to Trump vs Clinton we will - all of us - be presented with a
choice even the great Hobson could not have imagined. And those of us who would sooner leap into
an active, bubbling volcano than vote for Mr Trump will have to try to convince ourselves that
really, she's not that bad. Is she?
... ... ...
Christopher Buckley is an American novelist, essayist and critic, and a former speechwriter
to George H.W. Bush.
Jack Rocks • 19 minutes ago
What a coincidence. I was just watching Christopher Hitchens talk about Hilary Clinton
(no, he's not been resurrected, these are clips from a while ago).
sidor
Someone once placed Cherie Blair in between lady Macbeth and madam Clinton. I wonder if in
this linearly ordered sequence Cherie was meant to be a nicer person than Hillary?
George > Toy Pupanbai
Considering Trump is the only candidate who has signaled any sort of desire to depart from
the accelerating march toward globalist corporate totalitarianism, the vote is between Trump
and Everyone Else.
Terry Field
She is a self-obsessed, me me me first totally political greaseball. Trump is
uncouth, loud, but lacks smoothness as he TELLS IT AS IT BLUDDEE WELL IS. There IS a massive
local Muslim worry and that is evidenced by the gore that ran through the transport system of
London courtesy of home grown muslim (NOT islamist) killlers.
He SHOULD get the GOP nomination, since the rest are gutless and dissembling.
He could well win against that dreadful woman. Clinton supported Morsi in Egypt. Blood on
her hands.
James Morgan
Ah yes. Christopher Hitchens. I do miss that man.
Randal > James Morgan
Yes, because yet another ageing neocon warmonger and "former communist" idiot is just what
we are missing around here these days.
freddiethegreat
Just as Goofy would have been better than Obama, even Lady Macbeth would be better than
Hilary
"... Clinton is also increasingly seen as the least honest in the field, with 46% of likely Democratic primary voters now saying she is least honest out of the three remaining candidates. ..."
Clinton is also increasingly seen as the least honest in the
field, with 46% of likely Democratic primary voters now
saying she is least honest out of the three remaining candidates.
That's up from 33% in September and 28% back in June.
"... Democratic Socialism. I sometimes wish that Bernie Sanders would have said I am an FDR Democrat , it would have been easier. ..."
"... There is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to be legislators for a nation. Their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted at the very source. They begin life trampling on all their younger brothers and sisters, and relations of every kind, and are taught and educated so to do. With what ideas of justice or honor can that man enter a house of legislation, who absorbs in his own person the inheritance of a whole family of children, or metes out some pitiful portion with the insolence of a gift? ..."
"... Great point. I am not big believer in two party system as an example of democracy as typically the party oligarchy gets the candidate they want, but still in case when society goes downhill such outsiders as Sanders (like previously FDR) might have a chance. ..."
"... Thats actually would make Hillary camp (the party establishment) attacks on him slightly more difficult as implicitly they would be attacking FDR position on particular subject. Just repeating one of famous FDR speeches would have in the current economic conditions a great mobilizing effect on the electorate. ..."
Democratic Socialism. I sometimes wish that Bernie Sanders would have said "I am an FDR Democrat"
, it would have been easier.
There is not one thing in Bernie's programs that are not an honest,
intelligent expression of his life researching and quantifying the path of freedom in America.
Mr. Bill said...
Thomas Paine said:
"There is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to be legislators for a nation. Their ideas
of distributive justice are corrupted at the very source. They begin life trampling on all their
younger brothers and sisters, and relations of every kind, and are taught and educated so to do.
With what ideas of justice or honor can that man enter a house of legislation, who absorbs in
his own person the inheritance of a whole family of children, or metes out some pitiful portion
with the insolence of a gift?
likbez said...
"I sometimes wish that Bernie Sanders would have said "I am an FDR Democrat" , it would
have been easier."
Great point. I am not big believer in two party system as an example of democracy as typically
the party oligarchy gets the candidate they want, but still in case when society goes downhill
such outsiders as Sanders (like previously FDR) might have a chance.
That's actually would make Hillary camp (the party establishment) attacks on him slightly more
difficult as implicitly they would be attacking FDR position on particular subject. Just repeating
one of famous FDR speeches would have in the current economic conditions a great mobilizing effect
on the electorate.
"... Cruz doesn't have two faces ... he has infinity. Because Cruz is a pathological liar, with no real belief system at all. ..."
"... Cruz doesn't have this problem. He can say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He doesn't believe anything he says. His whole persona is an act. He wears the same smirk on his face that Glenn Beck wears, because he has the same business model as Beck: pretending to be an ideologue to try to maximize his appeal to the rubes. ..."
"... Nonethless his question to Yellen was correct. The Fed passively tightened during the financial panic over fears of inflation. ..."
"... For weeks, polls have shown Mr. Cruz climbing both nationally and, more decisively, in Iowa, where a Monmouth University survey on Monday placed him first, with 24 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers. Donald J. Trump was second at 19 percent. (Another poll, by CNN, gave Mr. Trump a solid lead, despite gains by Mr. Cruz.) ..."
"... "He is a product of this paradigm shift," said Steve Deace, an influential Iowa radio host who supports Mr. Cruz. "He recognizes the direction the party is going in because if it wasn't moving in that direction, he wouldn't be one of 100 senators in the country at this moment." ..."
"... what mattered was not the current growth of the economy but cumulative growth or, more to the point, the depth of the cumulative recession. One year of contraction was not enough to significantly boost extremism, in other words, but a depression that persisted for years was. ..."
"... This column suggests that the danger of political polarisation and extremism is greatest in countries with relatively recent histories of democracy, with existing right-wing extremist parties, and with electoral systems that create low hurdles to parliamentary representation of new parties. But above all, it is greatest where depressed economic conditions are allowed to persist. ..."
Calling Cruz two-faced or a gold bug is a discredit to Cruz.
Cruz doesn't have two faces ... he has infinity. Because Cruz is a pathological liar, with
no real belief system at all.
A lot of people become ideologues because they strongly desire ideological consistency. Most
of these people come to believe the things they say, because even though they know they lie
sometimes, it's too hard for them to exist in the world perceiving themselves to be liars.
Cruz doesn't have this problem. He can say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He doesn't
believe anything he says. His whole persona is an act. He wears the same smirk on his face
that Glenn Beck wears, because he has the same business model as Beck: pretending to be an
ideologue to try to maximize his appeal to the rubes.
Maybe somewhere deep inside Cruz believes something. Maybe he even believes in the gold
standard. But just because he's talked about that issue at length in the past, I don't think
it's safe to assume he has any sincere belief thereof. He's not the kind of guy who actually
believes in things.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to sanjait...
The short hand for saying all that is that Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck are pathological liars.
DrDick said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Actually, with these two, I am not sure how much is lying and how much is totally
delusional. They both really seem to believe a lot of this BS. It doese not make them any less
dangerous (it possibly makes them more so), but it does matter.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DrDick...
I just do not know enough about Ted Cruz to say. Glenn Beck is a different matter and well
documented. The article at the link below clearly shows that Beck's issues are in his
personality (disorder) more than his ideology.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
One can be a gold bug and fully recognize the consequences [of] a system that magnifies
unequal outcomes and accumulations.
Cruz is a demagogic hand maiden of the wealthy. Useful in times of potential popular unrest
Peter K. said in reply to Paine ...
We all know what Cruz is. He even looks like Joseph McCarthy.
After Months of Lying in Wait and Watching Rivals,
Ted Cruz Sees Payoff in Polls http://nyti.ms/1YVqqjT
NYT - MATT FLEGENHEIMER and NICK CORASANITI - DEC. 7, 2015
Hours after Ted Cruz announced his presidential candidacy last March at an evangelical
university, his team openly cheered his meager position in the polls, where his support
registered at around 5 percent. "You have to own a base in the Republican primary," the
campaign manager, Jeff Roe, said then. "If you own the base, then you can grow it."
Less than nine months later - many of them spent drafting behind his rivals, lying in wait -
Mr. Cruz's base of support has swelled, forcing his foes to grapple with the central premise
of Mr. Cruz's bid, a bet many had long dismissed: that he could emerge as the first far-right
conservative in recent political history with the strength to withstand a bruising primary.
For weeks, polls have shown Mr. Cruz climbing both nationally and, more decisively, in
Iowa, where a Monmouth University survey on Monday placed him first, with 24 percent support
among likely Republican caucusgoers. Donald J. Trump was second at 19 percent. (Another poll,
by CNN, gave Mr. Trump a solid lead, despite gains by Mr. Cruz.)
Mr. Cruz, who had more cash on hand than any other campaign as of Sept. 30, boasts on the
trail that the traditional primary script has been flipped: While many evangelicals and Tea
Party supporters are uniting behind him, he says, several establishment figures are "fighting
like cats and dogs" for their share of the electorate.
He has channeled much of the same voter frustration fueling Mr. Trump, positioning himself as
an outsider with the Washington battle scars to effect conservative change, while remaining
deferential enough to Mr. Trump to avoid his broadsides. (Mr. Cruz distanced himself,
politely, from Mr. Trump's calls on Monday to bar Muslims from entering the United States.)
And while many rivals in the race, including Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, were elected
in the Tea Party wave, no lawmaker has better internalized the Republican Party's mood under
President Obama, placing conservative ideological purity above all else.
"He is a product of this paradigm shift," said Steve Deace, an influential Iowa radio host
who supports Mr. Cruz. "He recognizes the direction the party is going in because if it wasn't
moving in that direction, he wouldn't be one of 100 senators in the country at this moment."
Obstacles abound. Mr. Cruz, widely detested by the Republican establishment...
A few years ago de Bromhead, Eichengreen, and O'Rourke looked at the determinants of
right-wing extremism * in the 1930s. They found that economic factors mattered a lot;
specifically,
"what mattered was not the current growth of the economy but cumulative growth or, more to the
point, the depth of the cumulative recession. One year of contraction was not enough to
significantly boost extremism, in other words, but a depression that persisted for years was."
How's Europe doing on that basis?
[Graph]
And now the National Front has scored a first-place finish in regional elections, ** and will
probably take a couple of regions in the second round. Economics isn't the only factor;
immigration, refugees, and terrorism play into the mix. But Europe's underperformance is
slowly eroding the legitimacy, not just of the European project, but of the open society
itself.
Right-wing political extremism in the Great Depression
By Alan de Bromhead, Barry Eichengreen, and Kevin Hjortshøj O'Rourke
The enduring global crisis is giving rise to fears that economic hard times will feed
political extremism, as it did in the 1930s. This column suggests that the danger of political polarisation and extremism is greatest in countries with relatively recent histories of
democracy, with existing right-wing extremist parties, and with electoral systems that create
low hurdles to parliamentary representation of new parties. But above all, it is greatest
where depressed economic conditions are allowed to persist.
anne said in reply to anne...
With more subtlety and contemporary relevance to political responses in the wake of crises,
there is "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. That economists are unwilling to examine and
credit the ideas of Klein, who is a sociologist, is a limitation on relevant analyses of
economists.
im1dc said...
Ted latest attempt to be more disgusting than The Donald
European migrant crisis - 1h ago
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, says he introduced bill to let states reject refugees - @ReutersPolitics"
Read more on reuters.com
pgl said in reply to im1dc...
Isn't Cruz Canadian? Can we pass a law sending him back to Canada and never letting him
pass south of the 49th parallel?
Found a new word to share with HCN
"My friend, a former Republican member of Congress, phoned me this morning.
HE: We're crumped.
ME: Crumped?
HE: Cruz and Trump. They're in the lead. Worse yet, the crazies in the
Party are now talking about putting them together on one ticket -- a
"super-conservative" duo. My god. Trump is a bigoted moron. Cruz is
almost as nuts.
ME: Can they be stopped?
HE: Been on the
phone for days with folk who are going to run ads against each of them.
But it maybe too late. Everyone I know is apoplectic. Lots of are
talking about voting for Hillary. Even Bernie would have a chance
against these bozos.
ME: You think they'd affect congressional races?
HE: Sure. Put an asshole at the head of the ticket and the shit falls everywhere.
ME: This isn't bad news for the Democrats.
HE: It will be if one of these jerks becomes president. Then we're all crumped."
I read an article on the internet somewhere where some businessman said he spent a lot of his
time during high school looking at the rear end of Bernie Sanders because Bernie was the best
high school distance runner in NYC. That's all I know. I don't know exactly how good Bernie was,
but I'd like to find out.
John Wright,
Some searching had Sanders at 4:37 for the mile while the high school record was 4:12.
Here's a quote attributed to him:
SANDERS: I came in third in my junior year in the New York City public school one mile. I think
my best was 4:37, which is not superstar, but it's pretty good.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102694365.
This would be around 1958.
Note that Louis Zamperini (Unbroken) held the HS mile record for many years at 4:21.2 set in
1934.
I tend to discount the character building aspect of athletics. An Olympic Athlete I took a
college class from mentioned that the pressure to take PED (performance enhancing drugs) is tremendous
if one is #2.
Very much like politics, looking for a victory margin.
And one of the best middle distance runners I ever saw (Jim Ryun running the 1500 meter 3:33.1
record in 1967 in the LA Coliseum, a record that lasted until 1974) proved to be a less than successful
conservative Republican US house rep from Kansas.
As for the rest of the field, it is beginning to look somewhat grim:
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson continues to lose ground with 14 percent
of the Republican vote. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who still must be
considered an up and comer, is at 12 percent. All other candidates
currently have the support of less than 5 percent of the Republican
electorate, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Here's an article about the phenomenon called "Rebranding
Fascism" (although the term "left-wing fascism is not used): http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html The basic concept is that neo-fascist groups (who
are extreme right-wing) disguise themselves as leftists,
e.g., they say they are anti-zionist when they are anti-semitic.
I'm a first-time contributor to Wiki and felt it important
to greatly revise this article, because, in its previous
incarnation, it reduced the term "left-wing fascism" to an
epithet. In fact the term is widely used in a literature,
some from the left and some from the right, that is critical
of absolutist a tendencies in some movements that identify
themselves with the Left. The term is properly an epithet
only if it lumps large segments of the left together as
"fascist." OTherwise, it's a use...
And in other news, Trump is favored to beat Clinton for the presidency via the Electoral College.
Clinton still has the popular votes, but as Gore found out, popular vote doesn't mean a thing
in US presidential elections.
I still don't think there is the slightest chance Trump is going to be President – he's just too
much of a loose cannon and too uncoupled from the political inside track. My money is still on
Rubio. I'm not surprised that Trump could beat Hillary, though. Even if she were not a warhag
nutjob, Barack Obama has poisoned the well for the Democrats for this election, and quite possibly
the next as well depending on how the Republicans play their first term.
"... No candidate, including Sanders, is going to confess that endless U.S. interventionism in the middle east serves the Lobby's objective of keeping Israel's enemies divided and destabilized. ..."
"... Of course, the fact that a nominated Sanders would not only drag the national dialog left, but almost certainly win the Presidency, is strong motivation for the corporate world to intervene vigorously in all the different ways it can. A Sanders candidacy frightens them far more than narcissistic neoliberal Trump who would have little to no chance of winning against a hyena and only slightly better prospects of winning against HIllary. A Sanders' nomination might even frighten them more than winning the Presidency itself, since the nomination would have the effect of opening the flood gates to actual alternatives to the status quo. Once opened, those would be very hard to close. ..."
"... Now where there may still be a choice is in the American colonies. How long could Washington's endless wars last without the support of the Quisling leadership of its allies? I'm talking about a leader saying: "you stop attacking other countries or we impose a trade embargo." Maybe that's unrealistic but any moral leader of a western country would make this stand. Too bad we only vote in psychopaths. But, unlike America where it is too late, other countries still have the possibility of electing anti-war leaders – like the UK Labour Party. ..."
"... My one cynical add is that just because the 'law' says the president can do this or that, doesn't mean Bernie will be able to. Most of the democratic party will be against him. And an immediate impeachment process could very easily happen against him. No, he doesn't have to die in a plane crash, or be (JKF was not )assassinated by the CIA …the powers that run this country could just impeach him. ..."
"... Still, I really want him to win. My hate is pure for the neo liberal democrats. My compromise ideologically is easy for me to stomach. Go Bernie. Meanwhile, lets organize for a better world, outside of the corrupt political machine. ..."
"... Speeches, schmeeches. Words are wind. Look at the record. Hillary Clinton is a monster. The issue is not Bernie vs. Hillary. The issue is how could any sane American even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, against any candidate, even Trump (yes really). ..."
"... Just because Sanders has pledged to support the Democratic candidate in the general election doesn't mean that his supporters are obligated to do so. If Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, I will very likely vote Third Party, as I did in 2012. And you can do the same. ..."
"... I don't think his pledge to support the nominee undermines his candidacy at all. First, it's pro forma and carries no force. Besides, it was also absolutely required to even join the contest at a high level. If he wanted to have any impact on this election cycle, he had very literally no choice about it. To think otherwise seems more than a little naive, which seems to be an ongoing problem generally with the American left. ..."
"... Sanders is *almost* everything one could realistically ever hope for in a legacy party candidate with a real shot, and yet a significant portion of the left inevitably goes straight into the back corner of the drawer looking for reasons not to support him–or even to go further and declare him unfit. Worse yet, those saying this stuff offer no viable plans or alternatives at all. It's really astonishing to me and perhaps explains why the left is ever so easy to marginalize and push around. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders was the first senator to announce that he would boycott Netanyahu's speech in Congress, and he is the only senator who does not take any money from the pro-Israel lobby. He was one of a small majority in the Senate who did not sign the resolution last summer to approve of Israel's bombing of Gaza - and he didn't vote for it (there was no vote) or otherwise agree to it. The "unanimous consent" thing that Chris Hedges jumps up and down about and others parrot as "proof" that Sanders is pro-Israel is a procedural rule in the Senate, and there was no way to "object" to it, other than not signing the resolution in the first place. That's what he did, even though more than three-fourths of this colleagues signed on. And he has criticized Israel. You'd just never know it by reading Hedges and the CounterPunch crowd. ..."
"... To be fair, there's the sheepdog scenario (again, a terrible metaphor, put about by the Greens, which implies conscious collusion by Sanders, for which there's very little evidence). If that comes true, is that so bad? No, because we're not any worse off than we were before, and see #4 and #5 above. ..."
"... I just don't see how Sanders running is anything other than a net positive. The left really does need to figure out how to take yes for an answer. ..."
"... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. It is a real problem, one that makes me nervous. We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on democracy loosens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot ..."
I mentioned near the end of a piece called "Blowback,
Money & the Washington War Party" that I would compare Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton with
respect to its main subject, America and its wars. For context, I'd like to repeat the start of that
piece:
Whatever your answer might be, or mine, I think Stockman's answer is Yes, and he details
that answer in an excellent looking-back and looking-forward essay about the U.S. and its Middle
East "involvement." I have excerpted several sections below, but the whole is worth a full top-to-bottom
read.
Before we turn to Stockman's points, though, I just want to highlight two semi-hidden ideas
in his essay. One is about money. What Stockman calls the "War Party" in Washington is really
the bipartisan Money Party, since the largest-by-far pile of cash looted from the federal budget
(in other words, from taxpayers) goes to fund our military and its suppliers and enablers. Which
means that most of it is stolen and diverted in some way. Which means that those who do the stealing
have a lot of "skin in the game" - the game that keeps the money flowing in the first place.
Recall that what's now called the Money Party was what
Gore Vidal called the "Property Party":
"There is only one party in the United States,
the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."
Which means the Washington War Party is a bipartisan gig. Thus our bipartisan wars, which for
Stockman answers the first part of the imputed question above. Yes, America does have the wars
it seeks. …
It concludes with this:
How Will This End?
It's easy to see that this ends in either of two ways. It will end when we stop sending money
and arms into the region - i.e., when we impoverish our wealth-drunk arms industry and starve
the fighting - or it will not end.
Which means, it will lead to continuous tears, American ones. And when, again, you factor in
the continuing spiral toward chaos guaranteed by continuing global warming, we may look back and
say, "Paris was our generation's Sarajevo." It's hard to stop a war when only a nation's people
don't want it. It's almost impossible to stop a war when the people unite with the wealthy to
promote it.
Which brings me to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, war, and speeches each gave recently. But
that's for later. …
Later is now. I'm providing this context because I don't want to leave the impression this piece
is about Sanders and Clinton. It's not. This piece is about us, our future, and that of our children
… the future of all of us, in other words, who may choose to live in Washington's endless war-profiteering
environment - until that war comes home with a vengeance.
Do we have I choice? I believe we do, for now. I don't think that choice will persist, will be
available forever.
Sanders, Clinton & America's Endless War
In a piece by Tom Cahill in
usuncut.com, which starts with a report of Bernie Sanders' "socialism" speech, we find this near
the middle, a comparison of the foreign policy statements in Sanders' speech with a speech given
at nearly the same time by Hillary Clinton.
First, about Sanders, Cahill writes:
Sanders Acknowledges Error of CIA-Sponsored Coups
Sanders' [socialism] speech also surprised many viewers with exhaustive foreign policy proposals
aimed at reaching peace in the Middle East, while letting Muslim countries lead the fight against
ISIS. the Vermont senator cautioned against using the military to force regime change, citing
past CIA-sponsored coups in Latin America and the Middle East as examples of forced regime change
gone wrong.
"Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous
approaches to foreign policy," Sanders said. "It begins with the reflection that the failed policy
decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in
1953, or Guatemalan President Árbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President
Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies do not work, do not make us safer, and must not
be repeated."
To defeat ISIS, Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies
of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the
West. …
"Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest defense budget in the world, yet instead of fighting ISIS
they have focused more on a campaign to oust Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen," Sanders said.
"Kuwait, a country whose ruling family was restored to power by U.S. troops after the first Gulf
War, has been a well-known source of financing for ISIS and other violent extremists. It has been
reported that Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup, including the construction
of an enormous number of facilities to host that event – $200 billion on hosting a soccer event,
yet very little to fight against ISIS."
"All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer
sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them," Sanders continued.
Not perfect if you're strongly pro-peace, but this would nonetheless represent a major
shift in both policy and spending, if implemented - something that can be done, I remind you, by
our commander-in-chief, acting alone. It may take Congress, or the illusion of congressional approval,
to make war. It doesn't require a single Republican (or war-making Democratic) vote to make peace.
Now about Clinton, from the same piece (my emphasis):
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Should Lead War on ISIS
Sanders' Georgetown address was a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton's speech at the Council
of Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York[.]
The former Secretary of State outlined her proposal to fight ISIS, which primarily consisted
of the US military taking and maintaining a leading role for an undetermined period of time.
"It is time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be
caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria," Clinton said early in the speech.
"That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes,
and a broader target set."
"The Iraqi national army has struggled. It is going to take more work to get it up to fighting
shape," Clinton continued. "As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising
and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local
units and helping target airstrikes."
Clinton's entire speech (about 30 minutes)
is above.
Endless War or a Move Toward Peace - Last Chance to Decide?
I'm not suggesting to you what to want. If you really want to enrich billionaire arms manufacturers
and their enablers in and out of office, that's up to you. If you want to give a well-organized foreign
fighting force yet more reason to encourage the same acts in the U.S. as their local sympathizers
perform in Europe, that's also up to you. If you want to remove American fingerprints - and national
entanglement - from foreign feuds, that's also your choice as well.
I merely want to point out that for once, there is a choice, and you can make that choice by choosing
between these two candidates, just as you can choose, using these two candidates, whether to aggressively
reign in
carbon use or continue to serve the wealthy who serve up
global warming.
Withdraw from foreign wars, or expand into them? Sanders or Clinton? The day is coming soon when
this will have mattered, and not just on late-night comedy shows. It's entirely likely that within
the term of the next president, our foreign policy chickens will come home to roost.
Me, I'd prefer those chickens not be armed.
(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President. If you'd like to help him,
click here. This page also lists every progressive incumbent and candidate who has endorsed him.
You can adjust the split in any way you wish.)
Jim Haygood, December 5, 2015 at 2:59 pm
'Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies of ISIS in the
Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the West.'
*yawn* Same old, same old yankee interventionism.
The sole reason for supporting Sanders is not for his tired old interventionist shtick, but to
deprive the Sheldon Adelson Republiclown Party of across-the-board control of Kongress and the
presidency (a disturbingly likely prospect).
No candidate, including Sanders, is going to confess that endless U.S. interventionism in the
middle east serves the Lobby's objective of keeping Israel's enemies divided and destabilized.
susan the other, December 5, 2015 at 3:51 pm
When, why, and how did the brand of globalism we have now (supra national corporatism) become
an article of faith for the global economy? Why can't we have a different form of globalism, not
one based on profiteering which is just war in a different uniform, a suit and tie? The
environment could unite us, Naomi Klein style. Equality could too because a global effort against
inequality would eventually have to end the looting and aggression of international corporatism
and feudalism. Isn't it an irony that all the great corporations and capitalist geniuses
pretending to manage the world can't fix the mess they made without taxpayers?
And consumers? If citizens in every country stopped buying things we'd win the planet back in
a month. The only thing we need besides dedication is local survival safety nets.
Brooklin Bridge, December 5, 2015 at 11:28 am
Agreed. It's one thing to observe -factually- that Sanders' momentum has halted, by some mix
of his own devices and those of an antithetical MSM and a traitorous corporate centric DNC, it's
another thing not to at least try to get him nominated. If that were to happen, no matter how
unlikely, the national discussion would virtually have to deal with Sander's platform and it is
hard to even imagine just how healthy that would be.
Of course, the fact that a nominated Sanders would not only drag the national dialog left,
but almost certainly win the Presidency, is strong motivation for the corporate world to
intervene vigorously in all the different ways it can. A Sanders candidacy frightens them far
more than narcissistic neoliberal Trump who would have little to no chance of winning against a
hyena and only slightly better prospects of winning against HIllary. A Sanders' nomination might
even frighten them more than winning the Presidency itself, since the nomination would have the
effect of opening the flood gates to actual alternatives to the status quo. Once opened, those
would be very hard to close.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm
FWIW, I think Sanders numbers have plateaued for a very simple reason: He's not reaching
enough voters. We'll see how that goes when we are nearer the caucuses, and after the Sanders
campaign has made more attempts to peel away from some of Clinton's constituencies (which it's
trying hard to do).
Again, my litmus test is this: Sanders has said it will take a movement to get his platform
accomplished. So where is it? A movement implies staff, branding, events, etc. And professionals
know how it's done; Dean 2004 and Obama 2008. So where is it?
Carla, December 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm
The Democrat Party will not nominate Bernie Sanders. Period. Not gonna happen so quit holding
your breath.
In my state, we declare party membership by requesting a ballot of our chosen party in the
primary. Obama cured me of ever - EVER - asking for a Democrat ballot again. I'm Green and clean
for life - thanks, Barry!
Vatch, December 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm
If the Green party has a primary in your state, I understand why you wouldn't want to vote in
the Democratic primary. But the Greens don't have primaries, so you're missing a chance to to
have a very small influence over the choice of the Democratic candidate (or the Republican
candidate). If enough leftists decide that it's not possible for the Democrats to choose Sanders,
it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
In 2008 I voted for Obama (a mistake, of course, but a vote for McCain would also have been a
mistake). In 2012, I changed my ways, first by voting in the Republican primary, mostly so I
could have a say in the nomination of candidates for some lesser offices. I voted for Huntsman in
the primary, because he wasn't a total lunatic like Santorum. In the general election I voted for
Green candidate Stein. In 2016, I will vote in the Democratic primary, and then I'll wait to see
who's been nominated by the various parties.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Then if Sanders is strong enough, the party will split. That's a good thing.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm
Sanders:
To defeat ISIS, Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies
of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the
West. …
If one accepts America's imperial role, that's a reasonable play. (If one imagines that our
ruling class is long conflict investment, then all that matters is conflict, period; there's no
policy reason for the conflict needed, except as window dressing.)
Of course, I don't accept that. Clinton v. Sanders reminds me of Freud's comment about
psychotherapy turning hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness. But even so, there's a lot of
unhappiness to go around, and on a global, grandiose scale.
BEWARE: I may have to start moderating for outright endorsements. (Readers will note neither Yves
nor I have endorsed anybody). I've seen blogs torn apart by battles over candidates, and I don't
want that to happen to Naked Capitalism.
EoinW, December 5, 2015 at 8:32 am
Given the Obama experience, I'm not so sure there is a true choice. More like the illusion of
a choice. heck even if Rand Paul became President I'd expect him to go against his promises, as
Obama did and Sanders will do.
Now where there may still be a choice is in the American colonies. How long could
Washington's endless wars last without the support of the Quisling leadership of its allies? I'm
talking about a leader saying: "you stop attacking other countries or we impose a trade embargo."
Maybe that's unrealistic but any moral leader of a western country would make this stand. Too bad
we only vote in psychopaths. But, unlike America where it is too late, other countries still have
the possibility of electing anti-war leaders – like the UK Labour Party.
This in my opinion is the last chance to stop Washington democratically. An aggressive
anti-American stance which creates costs that even the War Party can't sustain. After all, those
who have started these wars going back to Yugoslavia have paid zero cost. Even in 2008 I thought
that Obama's election would be a blow for peace chances. Bush and the Republicans were making it
difficult for other leaders to obediently follow the Empire. Eight years of McCain might have
succeeded in finally isolating Washington. Instead we got Obama and the illusion of change. That
gave our Quislings the politcal cover to run back to the Empire. it's been full steam ahead ever
since then.
tommy strange, December 5, 2015 at 9:11 am
Well written thoughtful piece. I do hope Bernie gets through the fixed primary, cuz he can win
the general easily, especially since the economy is going to tank even deeper by then. I do know
that the only real change can happen through a bottom up libertarian mass force (anarchist,
democratic con federalist, etc), but we are NOT doing that now, and I am aghast we are not even
organizing for 'it'…and so…. Clinton has the record of a completely right wing arrogant fool that
would still even bomb Iran. Just imagine that one obvious possibility and what that would cause.
My one cynical add is that just because the 'law' says the president can do this or that,
doesn't mean Bernie will be able to. Most of the democratic party will be against him. And an
immediate impeachment process could very easily happen against him. No, he doesn't have to die in
a plane crash, or be (JKF was not )assassinated by the CIA …the powers that run this country
could just impeach him.
Still, I really want him to win. My hate is pure for the neo liberal democrats. My
compromise ideologically is easy for me to stomach. Go Bernie. Meanwhile, lets organize for a
better world, outside of the corrupt political machine.
JTMcPhee, December 5, 2015 at 10:11 am
The body– all the organs, fluids, nerves, hormones, etc. - of a person when some of whose
cells have turned on the whole, gone destructively rogue and metastatic - well, even as those
cells link and proliferate and multiply and trick the dying carcass into growing ever more and
larger conduits to deliver blood to the tumors, the "person" searches for treatments and
maintains hope and a grim determination and positive mental attitude, hoping for a cure that will
restore homeostasis and return the tissues to their proper function. Bear in mind that cancers
are cells that have shucked off the restraints on and regulation of growth, in favor of SIMPLY
MORE, unconcerned about the death of the body that feeds them. And those cells usually have
figured out how to hide from the body's regulatory processes. In the Actual World Battlespace,
aircraft and "units" carry devices that let them (nominally) Interrogate Friend or Foe, so they
won't or are at least less likely to be killed by "friendly fire." Somatic cells get identified a
similar way, and the immune system cuts the psychopathic cells out and recycles them. "The
Military" of course employs the same spoofing and fraud tricks that cancer cells use, in addition
to the ever-growing diversion of life resources into tumor growth, so the immune system is
suckered into thinking they are benign. The related disease processes, corporatization and
financialization, have pulled the same trick. (Cancerous livers and pancreases and pituitaries
keep sort of functioning, putting out hormones and converting nutrients and filtering and stuff,
until they don't, or they die with the rest of the body as some other essential-to-life function
fails and stops.)
There's what, maybe half a million "Troops" invested in the Imperial Project overseas and at
home. Their expertise is in killing, destabilization, raising up Sepoy armies and "national
police forces," on the idiotic assumption that the latter two will be under the orders of the
High Command. Even if these sh_ts did not just "bowstring" a Bernie Sanders, a hugely brave man
imo, if "we," whoever that is, speaking of agency, somehow arrange to "disengage" and demobilize,
these creatures that exist at all levels of the chain of command will then do what? Get good
paying jobs back home, become good citizens? Or go join up with the Eric Princes and other
private mercenary or "national" armies, to keep a paycheck and benefits and keep doing what so
many of the get off on? Let alone the other tumors like the rest of the Imperial and other-nation
state security types? And of course the Elites that rule us and happily will kill us because
"Apres nous le deluge…"
Yah, "We" as agents have to try, to "reform" the aberrant cells. But looking at the patient's
chart, the electrolytes are way out of whack, cachexia is well advanced, and the tumors are
pressing on and colonizing the vital organs… I personally don't think "we" can do better, but who
knows?
TG, December 5, 2015 at 10:30 am
Speeches, schmeeches. Words are wind. Look at the record. Hillary Clinton is a monster.
The issue is not Bernie vs. Hillary. The issue is how could any sane American even consider
voting for Hillary Clinton, against any candidate, even Trump (yes really).
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made America de-facto allies of extremist groups including
Al Qaeda. You know, the guys that blew up the trade center towers on 9/11? Yes really. No it's
not in her speeches – she just actually did it. And here was Libya, and it's leader wasn't a
saint, but he mostly did good for his people – highest standard of living in Africa! – and he'd
made nice with US the last few years, and helped against terrorism etc. And Hillary allied with
extremist jihadist nut jobs and trashed the place, and now it's like something out of a Mad Max
movie and the average Libyan sorely misses Gaddafi, and ISIS is spreading, and refugees are
spilling out all over and there is no end in sight etc.
Somehow we have to get past the notion that anyone treated as 'serious' by the New York Times is
actually serious, and look at their record. Press releases are not reality. Trump may be an
arrogant loudmouth, and Bernie not a saint, etc., but Hillary should be beyond the pale.
roadrider, December 5, 2015 at 10:56 am
Yeah, Sanders sounds more reasonable but he's still endorsing the "War on Terrah!" and making
it sound like we're engaged in some kind of noble effort but being undermined by our so-called
allies. The part about being undermined is true but his overall stance ignores the elephant in
the room – not only did our our military/covert paramilitary misadventures lead to the emergence
of Al-Qaeda an ISIS but our continued association with the repressive, oligarchic petro-states in
the Gulf fuel the growth of Islamic extremism and sectarian violence in that region. Sanders
recognizes part of that problem but his prescription is far from a cure.
This post encourages support for Sanders but count me out. I get that Sanders is better than
Clinton on many issues but I can't support him in the primary because 1) I'm no longer a Democrat
and can't vote in the primary even if I were so inclined (and no, I'm not going to re-register as
a Democrat just to do that) and 2) Sanders has already endorsed Clinton (he'll support her if she
wins the primary) so how seriously should we take their policy differences?
Carla, December 5, 2015 at 1:55 pm
I agree. The fact that Sanders has pledged to support Clinton fatally undermines his
candidacy. Here in Ohio, arguably the most "progressive" member of the U.S. Senate, Sherrod
Brown, endorsed Clinton several weeks ago.
I'm telling ya, the Democrats will never allow a Sanders win. Votes don't matter.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Again, there's no way to win running as a Democrat without pledging to support the Democratic
candidate. There just isn't. (And nobody said the support couldn't turn out to be nothing more
than a ritual pledge, right?)
And what's the better option? Creating a third party is not on*, and the Greens have their own
candidate (and the Greens have also been ill-treated by star candidates parachuting in; if I were
a Green, I don't think I'd support Sanders).
So IMNSHO the whole "ZOMG!!!! He pledged to support Clinton!!!!" is a test of ritual purity,
nothing more. It has no relevance to electoral politics at all.
The more important issue is whether Sanders is building up a parallel structure to the Democrats.
The small donations says yes. A real movement (my litmus test) would shout yes.
That would bypass the whole endorse/not endorse discussion, and totally f2ck the Democrats, too,
a consummation devoutly to be wished.
* Start with ballot access.
Vatch, December 5, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Sanders has already endorsed Clinton (he'll support her if she wins the primary)
Bernie Sanders has been in the Congress for more than 2 decades as an Independent. This year,
he suddenly starts campaigning in the Democratic primaries for the Presidency. Some Democrats,
especially life long Democrats, view this with suspicion. "What's this carpet bagger doing in our
primaries?", they think. To alleviate their fears of an outsider poaching on their territory, he
pledges to support the ultimate Democratic candidate for President. This allows undecided
Democratic primary voters to feel a little more comfortable about voting for Sanders. If he
manages to win the nomination, the Clinton supporters will be more likely to vote for him in the
general election.
Just because Sanders has pledged to support the Democratic candidate in the general election
doesn't mean that his supporters are obligated to do so. If Sanders is not the Democratic
nominee, I will very likely vote Third Party, as I did in 2012. And you can do the same.
Kurt Sperry, December 5, 2015 at 9:08 pm
I don't think his pledge to support the nominee undermines his candidacy at all. First,
it's pro forma and carries no force. Besides, it was also absolutely required to even join the
contest at a high level. If he wanted to have any impact on this election cycle, he had very
literally no choice about it. To think otherwise seems more than a little naive, which seems to
be an ongoing problem generally with the American left.
Sanders is *almost* everything one could realistically ever hope for in a legacy party
candidate with a real shot, and yet a significant portion of the left inevitably goes straight
into the back corner of the drawer looking for reasons not to support him–or even to go further
and declare him unfit. Worse yet, those saying this stuff offer no viable plans or alternatives
at all. It's really astonishing to me and perhaps explains why the left is ever so easy to
marginalize and push around.
TedWa, December 5, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Since Bernie has voted against pretty much all our involvement in the ME, I wonder if what
he's saying is that if the ME doesn't care enough to get rid of ISIL, then why should we? For
those doubting his character, please do read up on him more. He's not there for show, he gets
things done and does it for the people. What more could you ask for than a candidate that refuses
to take Wall St money and dark money fomr Super-Pacs? I mean, really – what more could you ask?
If he wins out goes citizens united. The TBTF banks will be broken up. SS will be solid for a 100
years and the things that matter to the people the most – will be his goal. He's no phony and
he's no psychopath like the past 2 Presidents or his adversary in this run up. I see no guile in
the man. When he says he's going to do something he gets it done. No one in Congress has been
able to cross party lines and get things done for "we the people" like Bernie Sanders. Look up
his record.
I support Bernie on a monthly basis and will continue to do so. I voted Jill Stein last time and
while that was a vote with a clear conscience, I knew there was no chance. Here we the people
have a chance. Come on now, NO SUPER-PAC MONEY OR MONEY FROM WALL ST !! What does that say? Is he
for you or against you? I'd say it screams that he is on our side. Jill Stein? Great. But there's
no way she can win. The media and TPTB won't cover her and won't let her debate. I can vote for
Bernie with a clear conscience because I took the time to see what the man is about.
3.14e-9, December 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Bernie Sanders was the first senator to announce that he would boycott Netanyahu's speech
in Congress, and he is the only senator who does not take any money from the pro-Israel lobby. He
was one of a small majority in the Senate who did not sign the resolution last summer to approve
of Israel's bombing of Gaza - and he didn't vote for it (there was no vote) or otherwise agree to
it. The "unanimous consent" thing that Chris Hedges jumps up and down about and others parrot as
"proof" that Sanders is pro-Israel is a procedural rule in the Senate, and there was no way to
"object" to it, other than not signing the resolution in the first place. That's what he did,
even though more than three-fourths of this colleagues signed on. And he has criticized Israel.
You'd just never know it by reading Hedges and the CounterPunch crowd.
As for endorsing Hillary, that remains to be seen. He said that in the beginning when he and
everyone else thought maybe he'd get a few votes from the fringe. Circumstances have changed
dramatically, and he's got millions of supporters who have said they will not vote for Clinton,
period. So we'll see whether he sticks with the party - which, goddess knows, has done everything
in its power to block him and to which he owes nothing - or whether he'll find another
alternative.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:39 pm
Of course Obama and the Democrats have consistently betrayed their voters. Heck, go back to
Pelosi in 2006 taking impeachment off the table, or the Democrats in 2000 rolling over when Bush
was selected in Bush v. Gore. I mean, water is wet.
I just don't see any downside in Sanders running as a Democrat. No downside at all.
1) Sanders wins the nomination. Is that so bad?
2) The regulars screw Sanders over so badly that the Democrats split. Is that so bad?
3) Sanders actually starts a movement. Is that so bad?
4) Sanders puts single payer and free college on the national agenda. Socialism gets on the
national agenda.* Is that so bad?
5) Sanders runs on small contributions ONLY, with no SuperPAC money, achieving unheard of success
totally against conventional wisdom. Is that so bad?
To be fair, there's the sheepdog scenario (again, a terrible metaphor, put about by the
Greens, which implies conscious collusion by Sanders, for which there's very little evidence). If
that comes true, is that so bad? No, because we're not any worse off than we were before, and see
#4 and #5 above.
I just don't see how Sanders running is anything other than a net positive. The left really
does need to figure out how to take yes for an answer.
* Please name another politician who has or could have achieved this.
GlassHammer, December 5, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc… are just going to accept new guidance from the
top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it?
Curretly more Americans trust the military than any institution or politician. I highly doubt
anyone could swing public opinion against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl, December 5, 2015 at 2:55 pm
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with
the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't
speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit
everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever
the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. It is a real problem,
one that makes me nervous. We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on
democracy loosens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
McPhee, December 5, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Any Agent of Actual Change has to fear the "bowstring…"
I wonder if there is a real chance Jesse Ventura will be nominated by the Libertarian Party at
their convention in May or June and put him on the ballot in about 48 states. He says he's
interested and he's got my vote. I agree Bernie has no chance to win, partly because he's just
too humble and polite. He was a great athlete in high school, but he never talks about it. That
would get him some support in sports-minded Iowa.
"... "One thing with Hillary, she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. She doesn't have it," Trump said at a Wednesday-night campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia. ..."
"... "Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because what she did is illegal. What she did is illegal," Trump asserted Thursday. ..."
"... I don't know if Clinton privatizing her email server is illegal. I do know it's corrupt to the bone . ..."
"... However, the one line of attack that is substantial, and that she's had the most trouble dispelling, is her closeness to Wall Street . So is there anything Clinton can do to rid herself of the Wall Street albatross? Of course there is. She should say that if elected president, she'd subject the Wall Streeters to a higher tax rate than anyone else. (I'd exclude venture capitalists from this penalty, since they primarily fund innovation.) ..."
"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Thursday lashed out at Donald Trump's comments suggesting that
Israel should offer 'sacrifices' to win a peace deal, telling a prominent Republican Jewish group
that conflict is the Middle East amounts to more than "a real estate deal."" [The
Hill]. Trump outflanks Clinton on Israel to the left. Hilarity ensues.
The Voters
Trump: "Think of it. Obama, your African-American youth - 51 percent unemployment, right? You
guys our age, they have unemployment that's double or triple what other people have. What the
hell has he done for the African-Americans? He's done nothing. He's done nothing. I don't think
he cares about them. He's done nothing. It's all talk, it's all words with this guy" [The
Hill]. Sadly, Trump is correct, on both counts. And he forgot to mention the foreclosure crisis,
which disproportionately affected Blacks.
"73% of Republican voters say Trump would win the general [Quinippiac].
Rubio: 63%; Cruz: 59%; Carson: 55%. So, not only a gigantic upraised middle finger to their own
party establishment and the entire political class, but pragmatic, too.
The Trail
"Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, broke with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
on Wednesday and called for a federal probe of the city police department following the release
of a video last week showing the death of a black teen, who was shot by a white police officer"
[Wall
Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Calls for Federal Probe of Chicago Police Department"]. Say,
who is this "Rahm" character, anyhow? He just seemed to pop up one day, and now he's all over
the news. What gives? Where the heck did he come from?
"In a seven-page confidential memo that imagines Trump as the party's presidential nominee,
the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee urges candidates to adopt many of Trump's
tactics, issues and approaches - right down to adjusting the way they dress and how they use Twitter"
[WaPo].
"One thing with Hillary, she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. She
doesn't have it," Trump said at a Wednesday-night campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia.
Trump's other lines that Clinton shouldn't even be "allowed" to run for president because
of her controversial email practices at the State Department. The FBI has said it is investigating
whether any material was mishandled in connection to Clinton's email account, which was run
using a private server in her home.
"Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because what she did is illegal. What she did is illegal,"
Trump asserted Thursday.
I don't know if Clinton privatizing her email server is illegal. I do know it's
corrupt to the bone.
"How Hillary Clinton can shake the one charge that sticks to her" [Harold Meyerson,
WaPo].
However, the one line of attack that is substantial, and that she's had the most
trouble dispelling, is her
closeness to Wall Street.
So is there anything Clinton can do to rid herself of the Wall Street albatross? Of course
there is. She should say that if elected president, she'd subject the Wall Streeters to a higher
tax rate than anyone else. (I'd exclude venture capitalists from this penalty, since they primarily
fund innovation.)
"... One issue that is raised by Samwicks piece is the degree to which infrastructure spending should be connected with countercyclical policy. Certainly, it makes sense to have mechanisms available for dialing infrastructure spending up in response to slumps. ..."
Samwick points out that Hillary's infrastructure plan is a good start but too small.
The media portrays it as a bank buster.
Progressives need to start criticizing the Hillary plan as being too small, which it is. We should
aim for a much larger plan and maybe we could get what Hillary has suggested. It's a problem if
that is the starting point in the negotiation.
pgl said in reply to bakho...
I suggested the other day she should make it bigger. Andrew Samwick is one of the few honest Republican
economists.
pgl said in reply to bakho...
"It was almost eight years ago that I started writing about spending on infrastructure as a means
of countercyclical fiscal policy. There was an op-ed in The Washington Post, followed by an essay
in The Ripon Forum, as the Great Recession was beginning. I returned to it occasionally as the
weak recovery and inelegant policy discussions of economic stimulus continued the need for a sensible
plan to boost economic activity. This op-ed at U.S. News Economic Intelligence blog is a good
example."
I used to read Andrew's blog regularly but then I stopped. Too bad as he has been
all over the need for fiscal stimulus via infrastructure from the beginning. And Andrew is generally
considered right of center. So liberal and conservative economists have both been making this
argument.
Of course our resident gold bug troll JohnH insists that economists have not been calling for
such stimulus. OK - JohnH is not one to read Andrew's blog as Andrew writes some really high quality
posts which will not show up in JohnH's Google for Really Dumb Stuff program.
Seems Congress has passed a highway bill financed by gimmicks rather than raising the gasoline
tax. Speaker Ryan's dishonesty at its finest!
Peter K. said in reply to pgl...
I agree with Drum's main point.
However as I understand it Ryan had to pass this with votes from Democrats and some Republicans.
His supporters are framing it as continuing Boehner's parting deal to disgruntled Tea Partiers
who won't vote for anything.
Drum writes:
""Among other things, the measure would raise revenue by selling oil from the nation's emergency
stockpile and taking money from a Federal Reserve surplus account that works as a sort of cushion
to help the bank pay for potential losses." ... On the other hand, the revenue sources they're tapping in order to pass this bill are probably
pretty ill considered. "
The Fed can print up money so I don't understand why it has a "rainy day" fund. Sounds like
a budgetary gimmick which Drum glosses over.
Some of the money will come from the Federal Reserve. The bill cuts the Fed's annual dividend
payments to large commercial banks, redirecting that money to highway construction. It also drains
money from the Fed's rainy-day fund.
The banking industry opposed the dividend cut, but won only a partial victory. The Senate voted
to replace the current 6 percent dividend with a 1.5 percent dividend. The final version instead
ties the dividend to the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds, currently 2.2 percent, up to
a maximum of 6 percent.
The bill also requires the Fed to fork over $19 billion from a rainy-day fund that has ballooned
to $29 billion in recent years. The size of the rainy-day fund also would be limited to $10 billion.
A Fed spokesman declined to comment, but Fed officials have previously criticized both the
dividend cut and the draining of the rainy-day fund, arguing Congress should not use Fed funds
to bankroll specific programs.
...."
Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
It's slightly ironic that Paul Ryan and John Taylor wrote an op-ed criticizing the Fed for "easing
the pressure" on fiscal policy with monetary policy, when that's exactly what the highway bill
does.
Do all of these lefty critics of monetary policy not want it to "ease the pressure" of
fiscal policy either?
Hillary Clinton Unveils $275 Billion Infrastructure Investment Plan
By Amy Chozick
Evoking the investment in American infrastructure by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald
Reagan, Hillary Clinton on Monday unveiled the most sprawling - and costliest - government program
of her campaign to date.
Mrs. Clinton said her five-year, $275-billion federal infrastructure program was aimed at creating
middle-class jobs while investing heavily in improving the country's highways, airports and ports....
[ That would be $275 / 5 = $55 billion per year spending on infrastructure.
That comes to $55 / $18,065 = .3% of GDP infrastructure spending. ]
pgl said in reply to anne...
Then let's double her proposal to make it 0.6% of GDP! Dean Baker would love this calculation.
bakho said in reply to pgl...
I say multiply it by 10 and let the GOP win by whittling away 80%.
It is worth quoting Donald
Trump on this:
""I'm going to put this plan in front of lots of different people. It's going to go through lots
of scrutiny. There's room to negotiate. I'm a negotiator. There's room to negotiate.
Other people don't have any room to negotiate. But there's always going to be room to negotiate.
When I put something forward, I always have to leave something on the table, and if we have things
on the table. We can give up certain things.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
The pentagon is diverting $1,000B is resources into nuclear bombs to destroy the world.
How
about less militarist Keynesianism and some for the people?
It's hard to call a plan that spends $275 billion in taxpayer dollars over five years "modest"
and keep a straight face. But that may be the best way to describe the proposal Hillary Clinton
unveiled on Monday to upgrade the nation's ailing infrastructure.
Clinton's blueprint is certainly broad in scope: It aims to bolster not only roads and bridges
but also public transit, freight rail, airports, broadband Internet, and water systems. It's the
most expensive domestic policy proposal she's made to date. And when added to the nearly $300
billion Congress is poised to authorize in a new highway bill, the Clinton plan tops the $478
billion that President Obama sought for infrastructure earlier this year.
Yet the reaction from advocates of more robust infrastructure spending has been less than enthusiastic,
a nod to the fact that the size of the Clinton plan falls well short of what studies have shown
the country needs. "Secretary Clinton is exactly right to call her plan a 'down payment,'" said
Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's director of public policy. "The reality of our infrastructure deficit
is in the trillions, not billions."
Specifically, that deficit has been pegged at $1.6 trillion-the amount of additional money
governments at all levels would have to spend by 2020 to bring the nation's infrastructure up
to date, according to a widely-cited report issued two years ago by the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Even Bernie Sanders didn't make it that high, but he came a lot closer than Clinton
by introducing legislation to spend $1 trillion over the next five years on infrastructure.
The Clinton campaign has tagged the Sanders agenda as overly expensive, requiring either a
dramatic increase in the deficit or tax increases that hit not only the nation's wealthiest but
millions of middle-class families as well. Politically, the Sanders plan is only achievable with
the kind of the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that Obama enjoyed briefly in 2009.
Clinton's proposal, by contrast, is pegged to the reality that barring an electoral tsunami in
2016, she would have to work with at least one chamber of Congress controlled by Republicans,
and maybe two. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to bakho...
(It could be larger if there were to be some aggressive financing, meaning not 'just' closing
corporate loopholes, taxing offshore cash, etc. Like the suggested income tax increase on the
top 3%. Unfortunately ALL of this is unlikely unless both House and Senate come under Dem control.)
Hillary Clinton previewed her $275 billion infrastructure plan during a campaign event in Boston
on Sunday with construction workers, labor leaders and Democratic Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who endorsed
her candidacy. "Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive
across the board," she said in kicking off a week of appearances and announcements geared to creating
new jobs.
Clinton's proposal is two-pronged: It would rely on $250 billion of direct federal expenditures
for highways, bridges, tunnels and other major projects, and $25 billion more for a national infrastructure
bank designed to leverage public and private investments into billions of dollars of fresh low-interest
loans and other incentives for construction projects.
The lion's share of this additional federal spending on infrastructure would be offset by closing
pricey corporate tax loopholes, including tax inversion provisions that allow major corporations
to avoid high U.S. tax rates by moving their headquarters overseas while retaining their material
operations in this country. The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced last week that it was doing
just that in a planned merger with Allergan to take advantage of much lower corporate taxes in
Ireland.
The remainder of the financing for Clinton's infrastructure proposal would come from a new
infrastructure bank that would put up federal dollars to attract private investments to help bankroll
highway, bridge, mass transit and other construction projects to spur economic growth. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Any such proposal from Dems is seen as a gift to union labor, and calls from labor leaders to
enlarge it only makes that seem more obvious.
This is entirely the wrong way to sell such a
plan.
But a larger (Trump-scale!) plan would raise further ire from GOPsters. So, must go with the
timid version.
This could be a very dubious strategy, unless one is *extremely* confident of victory in Nov.
Dan Kervick said in reply to bakho...
One issue that is raised by Samwick's piece is the degree to which infrastructure spending
should be connected with countercyclical policy. Certainly, it makes sense to have mechanisms
available for dialing infrastructure spending up in response to slumps. But it may be a mistake
to build too close a political connection between infrastructure goals and macroeconomic stabilization
goals.
If the main pitch the public hears is is that we need to build infrastructure to boost
the economy, then when the economy is no longer in need of a boost, the political pressure for
infrastructure spending will flag. But it doesn't have to be that way at all - and shouldn't be
that way. We are very far behind where we need to be as a nation in our public works, as is shown
by that civil engineers scorecard. The various components of the infrastructure agenda need to
be part of a long-term plan for national development. When the economy improves and revenues flow
in to government coffers, great. The government then has more money to build stuff. The fact that
the next president and congress needs to get really busy re-developing our country has little
to do with whether job growth has "crested" or whether we will or will not be in a more of a slump
in 2017.
Another potential drawback of yoking infrastructure policy too closely to countercyclical policy
is that it risks casting the infrastructure development movement as economic ambulance chasers,
secretly pining for recessions so they can push through the infrastructure spending, and constantly
proclaiming recessions so they can trigger the countercyclical policy.
The infrastructure development agenda should be part of a broader agenda of re-commitment to
goals for national development, national excellence or national greatness. People who read a lot
about economic conditions - like the folks here - know how far America has slipped. But I think
many Americans are still amazingly in the dark about how far the US has fallen behind in many
standard measures of national prosperity and success. Politicians still don't have the nerve to
tell the people that we ain't what we used to be.
"... The temptation to ignore or downplay wrongness on your own side is obvious. In fact it's a bit of a prisoners dilemma. Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle would be better off if all reasonable people spent more time arguing with unreasonable ideological allies. However, unreasonable ideological allies are useful fools because they share an enemy with you, and sling mud and win skirmishes for "your side". ..."
"... Rush Limbaugh has long been a popular source of misinformation, foolishness, and insanity on the right. And let's not forget Glenn Beck. But it does represent the continued growth of a know-nothing right-wing media and subculture. ..."
Trump's success is a coat of many colors, arising from a patchwork of economic, social, political,
and cultural conditions. Not to mention the part attributable to the extraordinary nature of Trump
himself. But I do think one piece of the blame lies with conservatives lack of willingness to argue
with themselves. This is a not a unique problem to conservatives, but it is having disastrous consequences
there more than anywhere else right now.
The temptation to ignore or downplay wrongness on your
own side is obvious. In fact it's a bit of a prisoners dilemma. Reasonable people on both sides of
the aisle would be better off if all reasonable people spent more time arguing with unreasonable
ideological allies. However, unreasonable ideological allies are useful fools because they share
an enemy with you, and sling mud and win skirmishes for "your side". This is why among all
ideologies and parties, almost nobody spend enough effort and time arguing among themselves.
Breitbart news, Sarah Palin, and other Trump defenders are not a new phenomenon. Rush Limbaugh
has long been a popular source of misinformation, foolishness, and insanity on the right. And let's
not forget Glenn Beck. But it does represent the continued growth of a know-nothing right-wing media
and subculture. Until the rise of Trump though, it was too rare that smart conservatives would argue
against this with the fervor, effort, and rhetorical seriousness that they reserve for Democrats.
As Donald Trump continues to insist that he saw "thousands" of Muslims cheering the destruction
of the World Trade Center - let's pause to remember that
several Israelis were arrested and eventually deported for acting suspiciously on 9/11.
Trump has said he personally witnessed large numbers of Muslims holding "tailgate parties" in
New Jersey on Sept. 11, 2001, and his campaign manager suggested that "special interests" who control
the media have conspired to bury video footage to back the Republican candidate's claims.
The GOP frontrunner has dug himself in so deep defending those claims - which are not supported
by law enforcement or media accounts - that he mocked a disabled reporter who questioned his recollection.
Police detained, questioned and eventually released a number of Muslims in the New York City area
who were accused of behaving suspiciously following the terrorist attacks - but investigators found
most of those claims to be unfounded.
A New Jersey woman, however, reported some suspicious men she saw recording video from a moving
van that actually did result in arrests.
The woman, identified by police and news reports only as Maria, said she spotted three men kneeling
on the roof of a white van outside her New Jersey apartment building as she watched the towers burn
through binoculars.
She called police, who arrested five men - identified as Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner,
Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel - later that day near Giants Stadium while driving in a van registered
to Urban Moving.
Although it's never been confirmed, the company and the men are widely believed to have been part
of an undercover operation set up by Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, and they have been the
subject of numerous conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks.
Their case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division and into its Foreign Counterintelligence
Section shortly after the men were jailed, and they were held ostensibly for overstaying their tourist
visas.
An immigration judge ordered them deported two weeks later, but
ABC News reported
that FBI and CIA officials put a hold on their case.
The men were held in detention for more than two months and given multiple lie detector tests,
and at least one of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement.
Intelligence experts suspect the men may have been conducting surveillance on radical Islamists
in the U.S., but Israeli officials have denied the men were involved at all in intelligence operations.
Investigators determined the men had no advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks, and they were
eventually sent back to Israel after 71 days.
One of the men denied Maria's claims that they had been laughing as they recorded video of the
doomed World Trade Center towers.
"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily," the man
told investigators. "Our purpose was to document the event."
A lawyer for the men suggested at the time that Maria had exaggerated her claims because she mistook
the men for Muslims.
"One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and
laughing, against the background of the burning towers,"
said attorney Steve
Gordon. "The five denied dancing. I presume the neighbor was not near them and does not understand
Hebrew. Furthermore, the neighbor complained that the cheerful gang on the roof spoke Arabic."
"... Establishment Republicans, after initially dismissing Trump's appeal to the party base, have grown increasingly concerned with the durability his campaign has demonstrated. Trump has repeatedly issued the types of public statements that have been deemed gaffes, and proved fatal, in past campaigns. ..."
"... But he continues to enjoy a healthy lead both in New Hampshire and in national polling. ..."
WASHINGTON - Donald Trump has proven to be the GOP's summer fling gone awry: fun at first, when there
was no expectation of a commitment. But he's stuck around - long after the party establishment wishes
he were gone.
Now, concerned about lasting damage to the party's image, some in the Republican establishment
are plotting a full-scale attempt to torpedo his candidacy.
Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, on Monday filed a formal complaint
with the New Hampshire secretary of state challenging Trump's place on the first-in-the-nation primary
ballot, arguing in vain that the billionaire reality TV star did not provide proof he's a Republican.
Some Republican consultants are forming a group - Trump Card LLC - with the explicit goal of taking
out the brash-talking political neophyte. And the conservative Club for Growth has run anti-Trump
ads in Iowa.
"This is no longer a joke," said Cullen, who lost his bid before the state Ballot Law Commission
to knock Trump off the ballot. "Donald Trump is a dangerous demagogue. He's doing damage to the Republican
brand that will prevent us from running a competitive national election next year."
With less than three months before the nominating process begins, Trump is still leading in state
and national polls, seeming to gain strength from his divisive rhetoric, rather than collapsing under
it.
The concern, party leaders and strategists say, is not just winning the general election and reclaiming
the White House. In a year when the GOP is hoping to maintain control of the Senate, party leaders
are increasingly worried about the impact Trump's campaign could have on down-ballot candidates in
purple states such as the reelection bids by Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman
of Ohio.
"Kelly Ayotte is losing votes every day because of Donald Trump," Cullen said. "It's not like
Passover where voters make a distinction between good Republicans and bad Republicans. They will
throw them all out. Or they will reasonably ask, 'Why didn't you stand up to him? Was your silence
consent?' " ...
Donald Trump's popularity in New Hampshire seems to be seeping into Massachusetts, according to
a new poll.
Thirty two percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state called Trump their first choice
in the race for the GOP nomination for president, according to the survey by Suffolk University.
Eighteen percent picked Senator Marco Rubio in the poll. Senator Ted Cruz earned 10 percent, followed
by former Florida governor Jeb Bush at 7 percent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 5 percent, and
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina both
at 4 percent.
No other GOP candidate drew significant support ...
Former state GOP chairman tries, fails to kick Trump off NH ballot
http://fw.to/I4okFoh
Donald Trump supporters
can exhale: their man will be on the ballot in New Hampshire's Feb. 9 presidential primary.
Not that Trump supporters were holding their breath. A challenge by former state Republican chairman
Fergus Cullen to Trump's eligibility was quickly thrown out Tuesday by the New Hampshire Ballot Commission.
Cullen had filed a complaint Monday arguing Trump was ineligible to be on the Republican ballot
because his views are inconsistent with the Republican party platform. The complaint, filed on behalf
of GOP presidential candidate John Kasich's super PAC, A New Day for America, claimed the real estate
mogul had previously supported Democrats and therefore should not be allowed on the Republican ballot.
...
(Is this what will be cited as 'unfair treatment' by future independent candidate
Trump, or just a silly maneuver by pissant Kasich?)
... While Donald Trump continues to hang onto the first-place spot, everyone else continues to
shift positions. In the last two months, the second-place spot has belonged to Ben Carson, former
Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Ohio Governor John Kasich and US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
But the battle for second place isn't even the GOP's most interesting contest. Republicans want
to know who will emerge among Rubio, Kasich, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, and New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie as the moderate/establishment choice (Some Republicans also include Fiorina in this
camp).
That question is anyone's guess. Ayotte is the only one who can provide the answer.
But to be sure, her decision is complicated.
Rubio ran television ads in her defense when she voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment on
background checks for guns. As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie spent millions
of dollars attacking Ayotte's foe, Governor Maggie Hassan, in her reelection bid last year (even
then, Republicans expected Hassan would challenge Ayotte in 2016).
However, endorsing Bush would give Ayotte access to his national fundraising base -- something
she will need for her own race. Kasich also seems like a safe bet: His Ohio background could mean
he is the most electable in a general election. What's more, Fiorina on top of the ballot could blunt
any energy female voters have to elect Democrat Hillary Clinton as the first female president, which
could have implications for Ayotte's own race.
Last but not least, Ayotte has a personal friendship with US Senator Lindsey Graham, with whom
she watches movies with her children.
The easiest thing for Ayotte is to not endorse. It is something of a New Hampshire tradition to
cheer from the sidelines when facing a major election in the upcoming year to avoid upsetting members
in their own party. ...
(It is likely that outgoing NH Dem governor
Maggie Hassan, who plans to run against
Kelly Ayotte in 2016 would be swept in
by a HRC landslide in NH.)
Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the New Hampshire Republican primary, which is less than
three months away.
But the state party's chairwoman doesn't think the developer and television personality will ultimately
prevail there, calling his political style a poor fit for the first state to host a primary.
"Shallow campaigns that depend on bombast and divisive rhetoric do not succeed in New Hampshire,
and I don't expect that they will now," state GOP chair Jennifer Horn said Wednesday in a phone interview,
when asked about Trump's candidacy.
Establishment Republicans, after initially dismissing Trump's appeal to the party base, have grown
increasingly concerned with the durability his campaign has demonstrated. Trump has repeatedly issued
the types of public statements that have been deemed gaffes, and proved fatal, in past campaigns.
But he continues to enjoy a healthy lead both in New Hampshire and in national polling.
"In New Hampshire, historically, the truth is, people really don't make their final decisions
until very, very close until Election Day," Horn said, noting that US Senator Marco Rubio has been
climbing in state polls.
"People are probably underestimating [New Jersey Governor] Chris Christie. And, certainly, [former
Florida governor Jeb] Bush is working very, very hard in New Hampshire," she added. ...
WASHINGTON - Senator Marco Rubio is preparing a New Hampshire advertising blitz in the final weeks
before the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, challenging rival Republican Jeb Bush for airwaves
dominance and highlighting the Granite State's importance to his nomination hopes.
Rubio and an outside group supporting him have already reserved more than 1,900 spots - representing
$2.8 million worth of television ads - on Manchester-based WMUR-TV, the state's dominant television
station ...
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Someone is dumping Carson road signs all over the NH place.
US Is the Most Unequal Developed Economy Outside
Southern Europe http://bloom.bg/1NrQVeT
via @Bloomberg
Kasia Klimasinska - November 25, 2015
The developed world's most unequal economies are in struggling
southern Europe, closely followed by the U.S.
That's according to a new report from Morgan Stanley, where analysts looked at indicators including
the gender pay gap, involuntary part-time employment and Internet access. The bank also found
that the rise of economies such as China and India has helped drive down inequality between countries,
even though inequality within many individual has grown. Since the mid-1980s, income inequality
has risen the most in Sweden when looking at developed economies. Even after that increase, Sweden
(along with the rest of Scandinavia) still had the lowest levels of inequality. ...
Peter K. said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
And yet Hillary mocked Bernie Sanders for wanting the U.S. to be more like Denmark.
PPaine said in reply to Peter K....
Excellent example of her opportunism, unprincipled ambition and revolting sense of superiority
Among her peers those dangerous broiled creatures of middle class strivers domestic brimstone
She makes fellow victim turned brute [to the extent that] Dick Nixon look sympathetic
"... With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has is New
Hampshire. ..."
"... In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of Sanders
by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points. ..."
"... Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's firewall,
but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should Clinton ever
take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to talk about in terms
of the Democratic contest. ..."
"... A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to try
to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders to
next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him. ..."
"... "They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton said
at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth and income
have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes on the wealthy,
get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story ends, don't we?" ..."
"... Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican
Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has attracted
enormous crowds and enthusiasm. ..."
"... "We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver
said. "I don't think they think this is locked up." ..."
"... Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally,
according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point advantage
in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who later
said he would not seek the nomination. ..."
"... The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount Mr.
Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues to lead
in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its indirect,
if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders. She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including
most recently the Service Employees International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign
has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from
a hunting state, has been less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday
in New York, the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah,
the attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced
its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.) ..."
"... Hillary Clintons speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what
to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing,
failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State. ..."
"... The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly
to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region,
try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby
creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created
by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change. ..."
With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has
is New Hampshire.
In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of
Sanders by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points.
But in New Hampshire a poll this week showed the race tied. And last night, the state's largest
union decided to endorse him, bucking the national union which announced it was with Clinton.
Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's
firewall, but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should
Clinton ever take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to
talk about in terms of the Democratic contest.
But so far Sanders is hanging on, even if there are some growing pains amid his campaign's
quick attempt to scale up with new campaign cash. Sanders now has more than 60 staffers, and he
opened his 14th campaign office, this one in Laconia, this week. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
There is also a chance that Dems will go with the First Secular Jewish Major Party Candidate,
if The Donald has his say.
Hillary Clinton Looks Past Primaries in Strategy to Defeat Bernie Sanders
By AMY CHOZICK
NOV. 23, 2015
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. - "Whenever Republicans get into the White House, they mess it up. They
mess it up, folks," Hillary Rodham Clinton told a crowd gathered in a field lined with trees covered
in Spanish moss here on Saturday.
At rallies these days, Mrs. Clinton criticizes the Republican presidential candidates for their
economic policies ("Our economy does better with a Democrat in the White House"); she knocks their
foreign policy approaches and says their positions on immigration and women's issues would set
the country "backwards instead of forwards."
What she does not do is mention her main Democratic primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders
of Vermont.
Mrs. Clinton has regained her footing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and she has locked
in the support of major labor unions and over half the Democratic Party's superdelegates, party
leaders and elected officials, needed to secure the nomination. She is now acting as if she were
no longer running against one rival, Mr. Sanders, but 14: the Republicans who are still preoccupied
with cutting down one another.
A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to
try to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders
to next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him.
Even voters who support Mr. Sanders often say that Mrs. Clinton appears more electable when
compared with a Republican nominee. And while her economic message, considering her ties to Wall
Street and the "super PAC" supporting her, can seem muddled when contrasted with Mr. Sanders's,
it sounds more forceful to Democratic voters compared with Republican proposals. And, as a campaign
aide points out, the Republican candidates consistently criticize Mrs. Clinton, so it makes sense
for her to punch back.
"I love Bernie, and I feel he'd get something done about the lopsided distribution of wealth
in this country," said Siobhan Hansen, 58, an undecided voter in Charleston. "But," she added,
"I hate to admit it but I just think Hillary has a better chance in the general election."
Even as Mrs. Clinton's campaign has invested heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire and her schedule
revolves around visiting states with early primaries, her message has become a broader rejoinder
reminding voters of the 2008 financial crisis and linking the Republican candidates to the foreclosures
and joblessness that President Obama inherited. It is a strategy her campaign believes will be
effective in a general election contest after having a dry run before the primaries.
"They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton
said at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth
and income have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes
on the wealthy, get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story
ends, don't we?"
At a town-hall-style event in Grinnell, Iowa, this month, Mrs. Clinton, talking about the importance
of voter participation, even seemed to forget, albeit briefly, that the short-term goal was to
win the Iowa caucuses. "If not me, I hope you caucus for somebody," she said. She paused. "I hope
more of you caucus for me."
Mrs. Clinton is focused on capturing the nomination and has been contrasting herself with the
Republicans since she announced her candidacy in April, the campaign aide said.
Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican
Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has
attracted enormous crowds and enthusiasm.
As Mr. Sanders delivered his standard speech about inequality here on Saturday, Mr. Weaver
closely watched the voters in the front row who wore blue "H" T-shirts, indicating their support
for Mrs. Clinton, as they cheered for Mr. Sanders several times.
"We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver
said. "I don't think they think this is locked up."
Mrs. Clinton may have been helped by the campaign's shift to foreign policy, where Mr. Sanders
is seen as weaker, in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in Paris. Mrs. Clinton said
in a speech in New York on Thursday that the Republicans' approach to fighting the Islamic State,
compared with her own, amounted to "a choice between fear and resolve." She derided as un-American
the Republicans who said they would either bar Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States
or allow only Christian refugees.
"There are forces no candidate can control, and they can be detrimental," Representative James
E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said when asked about the newfound focus on defeating
the Islamic State. "I believe in this case third-party forces are working in her favor."
Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally,
according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point
advantage in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R.
Biden Jr., who later said he would not seek the nomination.
"By turning up the heat on Republicans, going after Trump, that's all part of the essence of
saying, 'I am the leader of the Democratic Party,' " said Robert Shrum, a strategist for Democratic
presidential candidates including John Kerry and Al Gore.
The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount
Mr. Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues
to lead in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs.
Clinton.
Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its
indirect, if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders.
She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including most recently the Service Employees
International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's
commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from a hunting state, has been
less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday in New York,
the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah, the
attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced
its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.)
Mrs. Clinton has also started to imply that Mr. Sanders's single-payer "Medicare for All" health
care plan would amount to a middle-class tax increase.
In recent days, she has unveiled a plan to give Americans with unexpected medical costs a tax
credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family. On Sunday in Iowa, she introduced another
tax credit to cover up to $6,000 of medical expenses for middle-class families caring for ailing
parents or grandparents. "I believe you deserve a raise, not a tax increase," she said in Memphis.
The Sanders campaign said that his plan would save the average family $5,000 a year through
the elimination of premiums, deductibles and co-payments, and it called Mrs. Clinton's plan "Republican-lite"
because it proposed short-term tax cuts over long-term benefits.
Mrs. Clinton's opponents point out that there is no more precarious place for her to be than
when she seems inevitable, as she did in the early months of the 2008 Democratic primary before
she finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards.
This month, just after Mrs. Clinton had officially put her name on the ballot in New Hampshire,
she sat down to take some questions from the local reporters who gathered around her in a cramped
room at the State House in Concord. The first question: "How does it feel to once again be inevitable?"
Mrs. Clinton said she had put her name on the ballot in that very room in 2007. "I'm back again,"
she said. "I intend to do everything I can to work as hard as possible to be successful this time."
Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly
what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down
on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of
State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly
to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the
region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists,
and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world
by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize
the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban
Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying
response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing
the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by
so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He
thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear
arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing
and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business
as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security
establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral
of war and terror?
Just as the CIA contributed to the downward slide to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just as
many of JFK's security chiefs urged war rather than negotiation during that crisis, so too today's
Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions.
Starting in 1979, the CIA began to build the modern Sunni jihadist movement, then known as the
Mujahedeen, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited young Sunni Muslim men
to fight the Soviet infidel, and the CIA provided training, arms, and financing. Yet soon enough,
this US-created jihadist army turned on the US, a classic and typical case of blowback.
The anti-U.S. and anti-Western blowback started with the first Gulf War in 1990, when the U.S.
stationed troops throughout the region. It continued with the Second Gulf War, when the U.S. toppled
a Sunni regime in Iraq and replaced it with a puppet Shia regime. In the process, it dismantled
Saddam's Sunni-led army, which then regrouped as a core part of ISIS in Iraq.
Next the U.S. teamed up with Saudi Arabia to harass, and then to try to topple Bashir al-Assad.
His main crime from the perspective of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: being too close to Iran. Once
again, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia turned to Sunni jihadists with arms and financing, and part of
that fighting force morphed into ISIS in Syria. The evidence is that the covert U.S. actions against
Assad pre-date the overt U.S. calls for Assad's overthrow in 2011 by at least a couple of years.
In a similar vein, the U.S. teamed up with France and the UK to bomb Libya and kill Muammar
Qaddafi. The result has been an ongoing Libyan civil war, and the unleashing of violent jihadists
across the African Sahel, including Mali, which suffered the terrorist blow last week at the hands
of such marauders.
Thanks to America's misguided policies, we now have wars and violence raging across a 5,000-mile
stretch from Bamako, Mali to Kabul, Afghanistan, with a U.S. hand in starting and stoking the
violence. Libya, Sudan, the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all cases where
the U.S. has directly intervened with very adverse results. Mali, Chad, Central African Republic,
Somalia are some of the many other countries indirectly caught up in turmoil unleashed by U.S.
covert and overt operations....
Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
pgl said in reply to anne...
Jeff Sachs is right to praise Kennedy for not falling in line with the anti Castro nutcases. But
he just skipped over Kennedy's blunder re Vietnam. It was the dumbest thing we had ever done.
But then came March 2003 and Iraq. Hillary Clinton may be too eager for regime change but the
Republicans want to redo the Crusades.
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
Lodge etc. were being lied to by the pentagon reps in RVN, but JFK kept the lid on advisors.
The big mistake on Vietnam was LBJ assuming Goldwater was right.
That said JFK helped usher in the concept of "flexible response" which moved US closer to fitting
out US forces for the past 50 years' quagmires.
Keenan's containment strategy was ruined by NSC 68 which put pentagon responses senior to State.
pgl said in reply to ilsm...
The big mistake on Vietnam was listening to Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. The Dick Cheney and
Don Rumsfeld of the 1960's.
RGC said in reply to anne...
A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed
by the CIA (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad
are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader
because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize
foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment.
So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition.
First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them
a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency
then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy).
It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion,
blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and
disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic
sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which
installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down
on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims
are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor
union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human
rights abuses follow.
This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special
school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning,
Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins."
Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use
of interrogation, torture and murder.
The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as
a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly
calls this an "American Holocaust."
The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not
involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only
threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms,
political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington's dictates, and declarations
of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation's
desire to stay out of the Cold War.
The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American
objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the
CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator
knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA
then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control,
afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options
for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the
Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA
has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing
dictatorships.
The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced
by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed - it is
institutionally and culturally corrupt.
1929
The culture we lost - Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation,
saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
1941
COI created - In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator
of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.
1942
OSS created - Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the
Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation's rich and powerful
that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"
1943
Italy - Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy
operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America's most enduring intelligence
alliances in the Cold War.
1945
OSS is abolished - The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return
to harmless information gathering and analysis.
Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for
arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their
use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's master spy who
had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates
the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia.
These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the
Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind
who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler's). The Gehlen
Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten
years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA However,
much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military
capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate
his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces
the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he
produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated
the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen
was supposed to protect.
1947
Greece - President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting
communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek
leaders with deplorable human rights records.
CIA created - President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central
Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through
the NSC - there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform
such other functions and duties… as the National Security Council may from time to time direct."
This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.
1948
Covert-action wing created - The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the
Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret
charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action,
including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile
states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist
elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Italy - The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to
win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition
leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.
1949
Radio Free Europe - The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over
the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered
illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.
Late 40s
Operation MOCKINGBIRD - The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists
to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles,
Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major
CIA player. Eventually, the CIA's media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated
Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service
and more. By the CIA's own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become
CIA assets.
1953
Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after
he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran,
whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
Operation MK-ULTRA - Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments
on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to
American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide.
However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford
foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis,
and other forms of suggestion.
1954
Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz
has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director
Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty
policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
1954-1958
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist
government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize
a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win
the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy,
land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating
American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.
1956
Hungary - Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech,
in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight.
This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a
major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.
1957-1973
Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic
elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a
member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine"
of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats,
the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World
War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.
1959
Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his
own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They
will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal
human rights record.
1961
The Bay of Pigs - The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation
Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the
invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American
air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy
to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.
Dominican Republic - The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington
has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent
of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.
Ecuador - The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco
to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency
with its own man.
Congo (Zaire) - The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public
support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents
in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.
1963
Dominican Republic - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military
coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.
Ecuador - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not
socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command,
cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
1964
Brazil - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao
Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty
in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of
secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists"
are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death
squads.
1965
Indonesia - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The
CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination
to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor,
General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist."
The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
Dominican Republic - A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the
country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military
regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
Greece - With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous
has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
Congo (Zaire) - A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated
and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.
1966
The Ramparts Affair - The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA
articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars
to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other
universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students'
Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including
draft deferments.
1967
Greece - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections.
The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years,
the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - will usher in the widespread use of torture
and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about
U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
Operation PHEONIX - The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged
Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report,
this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."
1968
Operation CHAOS - The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with
Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as
student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are
searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals
and 1,000 organizations.
Bolivia - A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA
wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent
worldwide calls for clemency.
1969
Uruguay - The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political
strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces
them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in
the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to
the death squads rival the Nazis'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap
and murder him a year later.
1970
Cambodia - The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping
them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian
troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer
Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
1971
Bolivia - After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup
overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will
have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
Haiti - "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator
of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA
1972
The Case-Zablocki Act - Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive
agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally
effective.
Cambodia - Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.
Wagergate Break-in - President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices
at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard
Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP),
which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign
contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.
1973
Chile - The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically
elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in
Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende
with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in
a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
CIA begins internal investigations - William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders
all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is
later reported to Congress.
Watergate Scandal - The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post,
reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters,
Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal.
It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows
many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep
Throat," is probably one of those.
CIA Director Helms Fired - President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to
help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new
CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.
1974
CHAOS exposed - Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation
CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S.
The story sparks national outrage.
Angleton fired - Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus
Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns
and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA
House clears CIA in Watergate - The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity
in Nixon's Watergate break-in.
The Hughes Ryan Act - Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence
CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.
1975
Australia - The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime
Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John
Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam
government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the
Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the
nation.
Angola - Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry
Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a
country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs
the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents
into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976,
but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again.
This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" - Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing
history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming
an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an
intelligence official in the State Department.
"Inside the Company" - Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA Agee has worked
in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took
part.
Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing - Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on
CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and
Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection
rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number
of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of
a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra
scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.
The Rockefeller Commission - In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee,
President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless
reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA
figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations,
a CIA-dominated organization.
1979
Iran - The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the
rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty
secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Afghanistan - The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to
any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when
the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess
state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the
World Trade Center bombing in New York.
El Salvador - An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the
poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers
to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back
to "normal" - the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many
of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.
Nicaragua - Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take
over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty
reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of
the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista
government throughout the 1980s.
1980
El Salvador - The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian
to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses.
Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while
saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting
against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming
military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing
atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women
and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
1981
Iran/Contra Begins - The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits
to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that
the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say 'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual
disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery,
blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.
1983
Honduras - The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training
Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses
these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least
184 are murdered.
1984
The Boland Amendment - The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments
have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director
William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally
continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network.
This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded
by Iranian arms sales.
1986
Eugene Hasenfus - Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies
to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the
two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes
a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.
Iran/Contra Scandal - Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally
captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like
Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey
dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the
scandal are purely cosmetic.
Haiti - Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President
for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies
the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the
upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps
the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military
by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture
and assassination.
1989
Panama - The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel
Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with
the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence
have angered Washington… so out he goes.
1990
Haiti - Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand
Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed
military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees
escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return,
the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.
1991
The Gulf War - The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, is
another creature of the CIA With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this
costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein's forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence,
training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein's power at home, allowing him to crush the
many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave
him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism - in Kuwait, for example.
The Fall of the Soviet Union - The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold
War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing
its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the
CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally
failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget
is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.
1992
Economic Espionage - In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly
used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign
companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks
over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.
1993
Haiti - The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove
the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do
not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety
and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda
favorable to the country's ruling class.
EPILOGUE
In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity,
the American people will never know the full story of your courage."
Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing
the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem
in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform.
Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.
Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully
clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details
of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts
began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate
and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different
directions.
The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.
(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific
Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed
and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.
(See Philip Agee's On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two
decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have
enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet,
where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency
must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime
example.
Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must
deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with
this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of
democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.
The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.
Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The
CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's
cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight
the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged
question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?"
The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes
against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal
of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The
first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about
the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive
and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members
could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which
of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship,
like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist
government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize
a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win
the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy,
land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating
American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War."
We should have let the elections of 1956 go forward. Had we - we could have avoided the entire
Vietnam disaster.
RGC said in reply to pgl...
When you look at that list and you realize that it was done in our name and we were funding it,
it might piss you off a little.
Fred C. Dobbs said...
'Thinking About the Trumpthinkable' - Paul Krugman
Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll
and emails:
'Read these results and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been
very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least
a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.' ...
Related:
Is Hillary Clinton Any Good at Running for President?
http://nym.ag/1DwluuR via @NYmag - Jazon Zengerle
- April 5
... The election model that's most in vogue - that scored the highest when applied to presidential
elections since World War II, correctly predicting every outcome since 1992 - is one created by
Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz called "Time for a Change." Abramowitz argues that the
fundamentals in a presidential election are bedevilingly simple: the incumbent president's approval
rating in late June or early July, the rate of real GDP growth in the second quarter, and how
many terms the party has been in the White House.
In 2012, for instance, Obama's relatively lopsided victory may have shocked Republicans on
Election Night, but by Abramowitz's reckoning it was practically preordained. Although second-quarter
real GDP growth was a relatively unimpressive 1.5 percent and Obama's approval rating was a good-but-not-great
46 percent that June, he was seeking reelection, and, according to Abramowitz, "first-term incumbents
rarely lose." In fact, he believes that being a first-term incumbent is worth 4 percentage points.
There was nothing in the Abramowitz model that looked good for John McCain in 2008 (bad economy,
bad approval ratings of a second-term president from McCain's party). In 1988, by contrast, George
H.W. Bush was also running to give his party a third term, but Q2 real GDP growth that year was
a booming 5.24 percent and Ronald Reagan's approval rating was above 50 percent.
Sound familiar? "If Obama's approval rating is close to 50 percent and the economy is growing
at a decent rate in the fall of 2016 - both of which seem quite possible, maybe even likely -
then I think Hillary Clinton would have a decent chance of winning," Abramowitz says. But then
there's the "Time for a Change" factor and those four extra points Obama enjoyed in 2012 that
Hillary won't have this time around. In other words, it would be an extremely close race.
Which brings us full circle. "What determines the outcome in 2016," Abramowitz says, "could
very well be the quality of the candidates." ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Tweet: @AlanIAbramowitz
Trump exploits a crack
in the GOP's foundation http://wpo.st/ZHHn0
Fareed Zakaria - Washington
Post - November 12
Today's conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's best days are behind him and that his poll
numbers will soon descend. Maybe. But Trump has come to represent something fundamental about
the Republican Party: the growing gap between its leaders and its political constituency. Even
if he disappears, this gap is reshaping the GOP.
At the start, Trump's campaign was based largely on his personality. On the issues, he had
a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like a good businessman, he
seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided to give them what
they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for. ...
pgl said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
"On the issues, he had a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like
a good businessman, he seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided
to give them what they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for"
What
his customers want is racism. And guess what - the alleged party leaders are racing to the front
to see who can be the most racist. This party has become a dysfunctional disgrace.
"... Mrs. Clinton's windfalls from Wall Street banks and other financial services firms - $3 million
in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions over the years - have become a major vulnerability
in states with early nomination contests. ..."
"... In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately concede that she will lose some votes over
her Wall Street connections. They declined to share specific findings from internal polls, but predicted
the issue could resonate in Democratic contests in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan, where many have
lost homes and businesses to bank foreclosu ..."
"... Mr. Sanders zeros in on Wall Street donations to Mrs. Clinton in an aggressive new television
commercial that started running in Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday: The truth is, you can't change
a corrupt system by taking its money, he warns. ..."
"... One of Mrs. Clinton's most prominent supporters in Ohio, former State Senator Nina Turner,
defected to Mr. Sanders this month in part, she said, because she felt he would be tougher on special
interests. And some Democratic superdelegates, whose backing is crucial, said Mrs. Clinton's ties to
big banks, and her invocation of 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street at the Nov. 14 debate, only
made them further question her independence from the financial industry. ..."
"... My parents had a saying in Spanish - 'Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres' - which means,
'Tell me who you're hanging with and I'll tell you who you are,' said Alma R. Gonzalez, an uncommitted
superdelegate from Florida. A lot of my Democratic friends feel that way about Hillary and Wall Street.
..."
"... Will she be another President Clinton who appoints a Treasury secretary from Wall Street? These
are major concerns. ..."
"... Indeed, Mr. Clinton's close relationships with Wall Street executives like Robert E. Rubin
of Goldman Sachs, whom he named his Treasury secretary, and his support for undoing parts of Glass-Steagall
have contributed to misgivings about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... While Mr. Sanders and another candidate for the Democratic nomination, former Gov. Martin O'Malley
of Maryland, have argued that big donors inevitably had influence with her, her campaign has pushed
back against suggestions that the financial services industry has bankrolled her campaign. Her aides
also said ads by a new group, Future 45, attacking Mrs. Clinton would only underscore her independence,
because the group's major donors include Wall Street magnates like Paul Singer. ..."
"... Bashing Wall Street is not an automatic win for Mr. Sanders, however. Ms. Gonzalez, the Florida
superdelegate, and some other undecided Democrats said they viewed Mr. Sanders as too hostile to banks
and corporations and too divisive in his remarks about American wealth. ..."
"... Ms. Turner, the former Ohio lawmaker, said the blocks of foreclosed homes in Cleveland were
a painful reminder that banks prioritize their own corporate interests. Mr. Sanders has been criticizing
the corrupt economy symbolized by Wall Street greed for decades, she said. ..."
Wall St. Ties Linger as Image Issue for Hillary Clinton
By Patrick Healy
Saturday, 21 Nov 2015 | 2:52 PM ET
The New York Times
John Wittneben simmered as he listened to Hillary Rodham Clinton defend her ties to Wall Street
during last weekend's Democratic debate. He lost 40 percent of his savings in individual retirement
accounts during the Great Recession, while Mrs. Clinton has received millions of dollars from
the kinds of executives he believes should be in jail.
"People knew what they were doing back then, because of greed, and it caused me harm," said Mr.
Wittneben, the Democratic chairman in Emmet County, Iowa. "We were raised a certain way here.
Fairness is a big deal."
The next day he endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential race.
Mrs. Clinton's windfalls from Wall Street banks and other financial services firms - $3
million in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions over the years - have become
a major vulnerability in states with early nomination contests. Some party officials who
remain undecided in the 2016 presidential race see her as overly cozy with big banks and other
special interests. At a time when liberals are ascendant in the party, many Democrats believe
her merely having "represented Wall Street as a senator from New York," as Mrs. Clinton reminded
viewers in an October debate, is bad enough.
It is an image problem that she cannot seem to shake.
Though she criticizes the American economy as being "rigged" for the rich, Mrs. Clinton has
lost some support recently from party members who think she would go easy on Wall Street excess
if elected. Even as she promises greater regulation of hedge funds and private equity firms, liberals
deride her for refusing to support reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that separated
commercial and investment banks until its repeal under President Bill Clinton. (Mr. Sanders favors
its restoration.) And for many Democrats, her strong support from wealthy donors and a big-money
"super PAC" undercuts her increasingly progressive rhetoric on free trade and other economic issues.
Her advisers say most Democrats like her economic policies and believe she would fight for
middle-class and low-income Americans. Most opinion polls put Mrs. Clinton well ahead of Mr. Sanders
nationally and in Iowa, and they are running even in New Hampshire, but she fares worse than him
on questions about taking on Wall Street and special interests. And even if Mrs. Clinton sews
up the nomination quickly, subdued enthusiasm among the party's liberal base could complicate
efforts to energize Democratic turnout for the general election.
In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately concede that she will lose some votes
over her Wall Street connections. They declined to share specific findings from internal polls,
but predicted the issue could resonate in Democratic contests in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan,
where many have lost homes and businesses to bank foreclosures.
Mr. Sanders zeros in on Wall Street donations to Mrs. Clinton in an aggressive new television
commercial that started running in Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday: "The truth is, you can't
change a corrupt system by taking its money," he warns.
One of Mrs. Clinton's most prominent supporters in Ohio, former State Senator Nina Turner,
defected to Mr. Sanders this month in part, she said, because she felt he would be tougher on
special interests. And some Democratic superdelegates, whose backing is crucial, said Mrs. Clinton's
ties to big banks, and her invocation of 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street at the Nov. 14
debate, only made them further question her independence from the financial industry.
"My parents had a saying in Spanish - 'Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres' - which
means, 'Tell me who you're hanging with and I'll tell you who you are,'" said Alma R. Gonzalez,
an uncommitted superdelegate from Florida. "A lot of my Democratic friends feel that way about
Hillary and Wall Street.
"Are the working people in this country going to be able to count on hard decisions being made
by President Hillary Clinton with regard to her Wall Street chums?" Ms. Gonzalez continued. "Will
she be another President Clinton who appoints a Treasury secretary from Wall Street? These are
major concerns."
Indeed, Mr. Clinton's close relationships with Wall Street executives like Robert E. Rubin
of Goldman Sachs, whom he named his Treasury secretary, and his support for undoing parts of Glass-Steagall
have contributed to misgivings about Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton has proposed imposing risk fees on unwieldy big banks and empowering regulators
to break them up if necessary - though this is not the wholesale breakup that Mr. Sanders favors
under a return of Glass-Steagall. She also proposes to make sure fines for corporate wrongdoing
hit executive bonuses, and to pursue criminal prosecutions when justified.
Yet even though she has taken tough stands in the past, such as chastising banks for widespread
foreclosures in 2007 and 2008, some Democrats are skeptical that she would ever crack down hard
on the executives in her social circles in Manhattan, the Hamptons and Washington.
Jake Quinn, an uncommitted Democratic superdelegate from North Carolina, said he was concerned
about Mrs. Clinton's willingness to clamp down on Wall Street malfeasance. "The financial sector's
ongoing relative lack of accountability makes me suspicious of any candidate who sources it for
significant support," he said.
Mrs. Clinton's advisers say that she has advanced the strongest regulatory proposals of any
candidate, putting the lie to claims that she would protect Wall Street's interests as president.
Any political harm resulting from her Wall Street ties would be minimal, they maintain, because
she never took action in exchange for donations. They also play down the possibility that Mrs.
Clinton will face voter turnout and enthusiasm problems if she wins the nomination.
While Mr. Sanders and another candidate for the Democratic nomination, former Gov. Martin
O'Malley of Maryland, have argued that big donors inevitably had influence with her, her campaign
has pushed back against suggestions that the financial services industry has bankrolled her campaign.
Her aides also said ads by a new group, Future 45, attacking Mrs. Clinton would only underscore
her independence, because the group's major donors include Wall Street magnates like Paul Singer.
"When billionaire hedge fund managers are forming super PACs to run ads attacking her, it's
clear they fear she will take action as president to crack down on the industry's abuses," said
Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman.
Bashing Wall Street is not an automatic win for Mr. Sanders, however. Ms. Gonzalez, the
Florida superdelegate, and some other undecided Democrats said they viewed Mr. Sanders as too
hostile to banks and corporations and too divisive in his remarks about American wealth.
But others said they were more concerned that Mrs. Clinton had not broken with Wall Street
in a clear way, noting the lengths she went to at the debate to explain the relationship.
"She was waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 to defend herself, which we're accustomed to seeing
with demagogues on the right, and it just didn't feel quite right," said Kurt Meyer, a co-chairman
of the Mitchell County Democrats in Iowa, who has not endorsed a candidate. "She connected two
things, 9/11 and her ties to Wall Street, that I didn't like her sewing together."
Ms. Turner, the former Ohio lawmaker, said the blocks of foreclosed homes in Cleveland
were a painful reminder that banks prioritize their own corporate interests. Mr. Sanders has been
criticizing "the corrupt economy symbolized by Wall Street greed" for decades, she said.
"He shows righteous indignation and speaks for the common woman and man in saying they have
a right to be outraged at Wall Street," Ms. Turner said. "He doesn't just talk the talk. He walks
the talk."
And Mrs. Clinton? "Her ties are her ties," Ms. Turner said.
"... Come on people, what is the point of wasting energy and time talking about the two political parties participating in the charade that is called Democracy in the US? In reality there is only one political party ..."
"... Hellary or Chump- do you really believe the choice of figurehead will change the machinery of permanent warfare or diversion of wealth to the favored few? ..."
"... IMO she "put the last nail in her coffin", so to speak, when she brought up AIG Lehman, showing her ignorance to what really happened. (Or was she just "playing dumb" in an attempt to distance herself from her big contributors on Wall St?) ..."
"... Yeah, that 9/11 rift was bad, but the "60% of my contributors are women" was worse. I'd love to see this claim fact checked. What a tidy number. Not too big to make her campaign a women's movement, but big enough to throw the guys off their game and make her nomination a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, corporations make up probably 90% of her actual contributions. ..."
"... WaPo fact checked Hillary Clinton's claim that most of her donors are small donors. Only 17% donated less than $200 ..."
"... So corporations have genders now? ..."
"... We had one neoliberal Trojan horse get elected twice and if you questioned his policies you were at best a "bad Democrat" and at worst some version of racist…why not try it again? Anyone who questions her bought-and-paid for corruption will be painted as a card-carrying member of the he-man woman-haters club. ..."
"... Some of us, however, just dislike her since she's an enemy of the working class: http://mattbruenig.com/2015/11/06/my-beef-with-hillary-is-mainly-that-she-is-an-enemy-of-the-poor/ ..."
"... I agree that the remark was cynical and false and typical of Clinton's disdain for both facts and the intelligence of the voters. ..."
"... I loved that Bernie Sanders was willing to drop the "F-bomb" (fraud) on Wall Street but he needs to swing much harder at Clinton. Clinton was quick to zing O'Malley as a hypocrite by noting he appointed a former hedge-fund manager to some state regulatory position when given the chance, but yet neither Sanders or O'Malley hit back with the fact that her only child and Clinton Foundation board member, Chelsea Clinton, worked for the hedge fund of a Clinton family pal and mega-donor in 2006. ..."
"... I thought O'Malley had one of the best lines of the night when he said "I think it may be time for us to quit taking advice from economists" but it seemed to go mostly unnoticed and unappreciated. ..."
"... Sanders did a relatively good job of deflecting and not getting zinged by the 'gotcha' question but a full-frontal assault would have been much better. Stronger, more Presidential and with the added bonus of giving neo-liberal economists under the pay of plutocrats a black eye. Another missed opportunity. The questioner set it up perfectly for him. I would have loved to see the expression on her corn-fed face when Bernie turned her 'gotcha' question that she had spent so much time and thought crafting into the home-run answer of the evening. Perhaps it could happen in a debate in the near future. ..."
"... The GOP engages in phony baloney food fights much to the tingling excitement of their base. I'd like to see some REAL debate from the Dems. Not just make nice phony baloney bullshit. ..."
"... Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton… as he's already SAID anyway. ..."
"... Yeah maybe, but I believe that was the price of admission to the Clinton / Wasserman-Shultz ball for a life-long socialist who sometimes caucuses with Democrats. The more damage Sanders inflicts on Clinton in the primaries the less sincere and effective any possible Sanders endorsement of Clinton will be later. ..."
"... Sanders has the right message, the right record and popular support on his side in a year when people are fed-up with the entire Washington establishment and sick of pedigreed, legacy politicians like Clinton. ..."
"... If there's ever been a moment when Bernie Sanders could win the nomination this is it. If you really think Sanders is the "pick of liter" as you say perhaps you could stop calling him things like "window dressing" and "a distraction". While it may protect your feelings from future disappointment to speak confidently of Clinton as the inevitable nominee it clearly helps her campaign objectives, so…. maybe just try tempering your cynicism just a wee bit unless you are out to help Hillary win the nomination. ..."
"... Bernie's campaign never in a million years thought he would get this far. In the beginning, it was calculated to draw attention to income inequality, big money in politics, and other issues that likely would get ignored if the coronation went ahead unopposed. ..."
"... As you point out, Sanders is a senator. He never expected to get this far. He won't win the nomination. He has to think of his post-2016 career. If he goes after Clinton hammer and tongs, he will be (more of) a pariah in the Senate, effectively ruining any chance for him to accomplish anything. ..."
"... Honestly I can see the Democrats collapsing before the Republicans. The South and Midwest are just batshit crazy and they'll stick with the Republicans as long as the evangelicals dominate their culture. Does anyone here know anything about previous "great awakenings" in American culture? ..."
"... For all her vomit-inducing disingenuousness about how she would be the toughest on the financial industry as a whole (really, how does she say that with a straight face?), and her basically sounding like a smarter, saner business as usual neocon on the middle east, I thought her worst moment by far was when she tried to describe single payer as "dismantling" Medicare, Medicaid, etc ..."
"... I'm at a complete loss to understand why Dems, the media, and in fact anyone with two brain cells to rub together, can fail to see or acknowledge that HRC is a liar, a crook, and a generally mean-spirited individual who's only in it for herself and will do and say anything and accept money from anyone as long as it helps her to win. ..."
"... Sadly, the only difference between Hillary and Obama, is that Barack is a better shape-shifter and, when he lies, he can do so with greater eloquence and charm. Hillary can never manage to completely hide her forked tongue and her poisonous lizard personality. ..."
"... After Obama's behavior, and the documentation of Gilens Page, can anyone believe that campaign speeches have anything to do with post-electoral policies? The nomination process is beyond dysfunctional: everyone knows Hillarity's positions are synthetic, yet she successfully campaigns with the grossest political impunity and she is taken seriously enough for analysis. I don't understand why. The only political power remaining to democracy is resistance, either by voting for a third party, or else by total abstinence. I personally prefer the former, as it's a bit harder to sweep under the media carpet. This keeps me outside the grasp of helplessness. ..."
"... Family Guy *exactly* predicted Hillary's 9/11 tragedy-distraction strategy way back in 2008: Life imitating art: http://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI ..."
She will say anything to win and not care about meaning bc she knows the Democratic base will
accept anything.
If you read, at least anecdotally, about the responses of base voters, it seems to be similar
to what the GOP does: brush off the discussion as boring, irrelevant, a conspiracy or some combo.
The Democratic base is solely focused on Denial, delusion and hating the Republicans. She will
survive this and will likely win with people defending her bat shit extremism.
I completely agree with you in that she will say anything to win. Like a pinball, she will
take to whatever side necessary to keep from falling into that hole of defeat.
But please, please let's not give any energy toward thoughts of her winning!
She showed her true colors during the debate, & I still wanna believe–despite being continuously
proven wrong, that most folks are smarter than that & were able to see through her. (Probably
the only transparency in this current govt?)
oho, November 16, 2015 at 8:53 am
she knows the Democratic base will accept anything.
If you read, at least anecdotally, about the responses of base voters, it seems to be similar
to what the GOP does: brush off the discussion as boring, irrelevant, a conspiracy or some
combo.
just because the GOP 'accept anything' doesn't make it right if the 'good guys' are dogmatic
too.
and my hunch is that right now everyone on in the Democratic Beltway is feeling smug cuz of the
GOP clown car. But my gut is that in 2016 if HRC wins the nomination, HRC's load of manure is
gonna stink a lot more than the GOP clown car's.
on election night I'll be sitting at home cheering on the makers of humble pie.
Crazy Horse, November 16, 2015 at 11:40 am
Come on people, what is the point of wasting energy and time talking about the two political
parties participating in the charade that is called Democracy in the US? In reality there is only
one political party - the Oligarch Fascist Party - and the National Election Circus is played
out to keep people who mistake it for democracy divided and confused.
Hellary or Chump- do you really believe the choice of figurehead will change the machinery
of permanent warfare or diversion of wealth to the favored few?
Malcolm MacLeod, MD , November 16, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Crazy Horse: You speak the unvarnished truth, which is always rather confusing in this day
and age.
jgordon , November 16, 2015 at 4:29 am
Any serious analysis of the central drivers of the crisis necessarily lead you to the largest
banks as the focal point for the interconnection and risk buildup.
Well if we're concerned about serious analysis it seems a bit odd that we aren't starting with
the largest bank of all: the Federal Reserve. If not for the deliberate policy of the Fed to inflate
the housing bubble in the early 2000s after the dotcom crash, certainly 2007/2008 wouldn't have
been such a mess. Though admittedly government corruption (and for all intents and purposes the
Fed is a government appendage) certainly played a part.
The main problem is that there are just way too many zombies and criminals infesting the financial
system right now, and they are all being lovingly coddled by the Fed with ZIRP and QE. The only
way to slay these undead legions is to end the ceaseless Fed-facilitated blood transfusions from
the exhausted living to the dead parasites.
Well I suppose one could claim that its thanks to the zombies that our economy is able to function
at all. But come on, is it really a good idea to live in a world ruled by zombies? They eat brains
you know.
crittermom, November 16, 2015 at 6:01 am
Excellent article. I watched the debate. I found it very telling that when Wall St was mentioned,
the only thing she could seem to equate to it was 9/11.
I found it disgusting that she even brought up 9/11 in an obvious attempt to steer the debate
away from the corruption by 'her friends' on Wall St while trying to encourage the voters to give
her a pat on the back for 'all she did' after 9/11. Pathetic, cheap, transparent tactic IMO.
I found it sad, however, as mentioned in the article "Only when mentioned by a Twitter user later
in the debate did the full recognition of the strangeness of that comment shine through." Far
too many "trained seals" outside the convention center, as well?
IMO she "put the last nail in her coffin", so to speak, when she brought up AIG & Lehman,
showing her ignorance to what really happened. (Or was she just "playing dumb" in an attempt to
distance herself from her big contributors on Wall St?)
fresno dan, November 16, 2015 at 8:42 am
I agree. The tendentious quibbling about the definition of "banks" when everyone uses that
as shorthand for "excessively large under regulated, corrupt, and stupid financial institutions
who have completed co-opted the regulators and politicians who are suppose to oversee them and
enforce the rules, regulations and laws" is just deflection from the real issue.
As Bernie said in response: NOT GOOD ENOUGH
dk, November 16, 2015 at 9:05 am
I think you underestimate "most" voters. Don't mistake them for the political media echo chamber
that pretends to articulate their subconscious (via absurd polling). Except for the extremes,
voters tend to be a taciturn bunch, it's true. One ends up having to pick from an imperfect selection,
that's representative democracy; a fact of the circumstance, and voters know it. They play along,
don't kid yourself that they actually like it that much.
Comforting stories play well for the comfortable, and when no other stories are being told. The
wage disparity issue was almost non-existent in 2008 and got small play in 2012. The BLM narrative
is in part a counter-shock to the (granted, naive) assumption that having a black president would
have (or indicated) a significant impact on day-to-day racism. The street-level economy has kept
sputtering for too many years for that to be passed off as "normal". Too many cats got out of
the bag this time around.
Take a look here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-october-fec-filings/charts/
In the last quarter, Hillary collected 5.19 mil from under-$200 donors, Bernie collected 20.19
mil. That's just shy of four times as much money, and arguably on the order of four times as many
people. Whether Hillary is changing these people's minds at any appreciable rate remains to be
seen, but this many people backing a Dem candidate in this way is a new thing (not so new for
the Tea Party brand).
Not saying Bernie is a slam dunk by any means, but numerically, in dollars and voters, he can't
be dismissed as an impossibility (see also, Corbyn). Political media hacks hate voters, they still
can't predict them (and they know it too). Sometimes elections occur in a near vacuum of clear
indicators and issues (2012), sometimes the indicators and issues are bigger than even a "big"
candidate (2008, Obama would not have won without the financial collapse, which suppressed and
fractured Rep voting).
Voters aren't smarter than anybody else, but they're not dumber either. What they are is shy (especially
the Dems). But think of Bernie's small donor base as a bunch of wallflowers reacting to something
they haven't seen before. That wasn't in anybody's narrative.
Ulysses, November 16, 2015 at 9:09 am
You provide a very astute description, of how the MSM Wurlitzer works to concoct narratives
that disempower people. Yet I think that Chris Hedges is also on to something when he observes:
"The frustration, mounting across the country, is bringing with it a new radicalism."
We teeter on a knife's edge, close to societal collapse. My hope is that we will shake off
our chains and begin to replace systematic oppression and exploitation with a more humane society.
My fear is that the people, who currently benefit from the status quo, will go full-bore totalitarian/repressive
in a desperate attempt to cling to their ill-gotten wealth and power.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm
I'm afraid that the impetus is more towards the latter than the former. The PTB haven't spent
decades/centuries brainwashing the masses to be good little authoritarians wanting Big Daddy/Momma
to "take care" of them for nothing.
Dino Reno, November 16, 2015 at 8:18 am
Yeah, that 9/11 rift was bad, but the "60% of my contributors are women" was worse. I'd
love to see this claim fact checked. What a tidy number. Not too big to make her campaign a women's
movement, but big enough to throw the guys off their game and make her nomination a foregone conclusion.
Meanwhile, corporations make up probably 90% of her actual contributions.
JaaaaayCeeeee, November 16, 2015 at 11:52 am
WaPo fact checked Hillary Clinton's claim that most of her donors are small donors. Only
17% donated less than $200 (she did donation drives asking for a dollar even to get to 17%
and most of her donations from women were big donations, too):
We had one neoliberal Trojan horse get elected twice and if you questioned his policies
you were at best a "bad Democrat" and at worst some version of racist…why not try it again? Anyone
who questions her bought-and-paid for corruption will be painted as a card-carrying member of
the he-man woman-haters club.
I agree that the remark was cynical and false and typical of Clinton's disdain for both
facts and the intelligence of the voters. (And knowledgable in that she knew she would not
get fact checked on this in any manner that would make her look like Ben Carson talking about
pyramids.) I truly do not think it is as important as you do, as she had already lost that battle.
The people know the great never ending bank bailout of 2008 did not translate to bailing out the
economy. There are still foreclosed homes in neighborhoods across America rotting. If they didn't
lose a job and are still looking for a decent one they have a parent, a kid, another family member,
or multiple friends who are still un or underemployed. They know their bills are going up but
their paychecks aren't. And they get to hear about Jamie Dimon becoming a billionaire. They may
not know which bank he heads, but they know a whole lot of those billions came from their taxes
while they are still struggling. None of this may get into the details of what happened or what
went wrong, but they know they got taken. And her response tells them she would take them again.
The only people who don't hear that, are the ones who think 60% of my donations are from women
makes Clinton a feminist and tribal loyalists. You know the Democratic equivalent of the Bush
supporters who never wavered.
Trying to understand the ins and outs of the financial industry shenanigans is deep, dense, and
takes way too much time for most folk. I happened to be out on workmen's comp when it went down.
This is not my area, I read and read and read and got deeply angry. I still don't understand it
all, and I have more facts at my fingertips then probably at least 75% of the population. My point
on this, is that sometimes you don't need to know the details to smell the bullshit. And it reeked
of manure.
Today is November 16, which is a deadline for the Clinton Foundation to refile some documents,
according to this article to which Water Cooler linked on Oct. 28:
Still, the Clintons have not defined how they decide to designate their speaking fees as
income versus charity work. Earlier this year, the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation
admitted collecting $26.4 million in previously unreported speaking fees from foreign governments
and foreign and U.S. corporations. For tax purposes, who should be treated as the recipient
of that money? It is not a silly question.
Jerry Denim, November 16, 2015 at 11:46 am
I couldn't believe my eyes and ears during the debate when Sanders impugned Clinton's integrity
for taking Wall Street super PAC money and she seemed to successfully deflect the accusation by
going full-bore star-spangled sparkle eagle. She played the vagina card then quickly blurted out
"9/11 New York" for applause while attempting conflate aiding and abetting Wall Street with the
9/11 attacks and patriotism. I couldn't believe people were clapping and I couldn't believe Clinton
had the audacity to pull such a illogical and juvenile stunt on live television, but yet CBS reported
her highest approval scores of the debate were registered during her confusing but emotionally
rousing (for some people apparently) "vagina, 9/11" defense.
I loved that Bernie Sanders was willing to drop the "F-bomb" (fraud) on Wall Street but he
needs to swing much harder at Clinton. Clinton was quick to zing O'Malley as a hypocrite by noting
he appointed a former hedge-fund manager to some state regulatory position when given the chance,
but yet neither Sanders or O'Malley hit back with the fact that her only child and Clinton Foundation
board member, Chelsea Clinton, worked for the hedge fund of a Clinton family pal and mega-donor
in 2006. Neither candidate mentioned that her son-in-law and the father of her grandchild
who she is so fond of mentioning, just so happens to be an extremely rich hedge fund manager who
benefits handsomely from the Clinton's political connections and prestige. This isn't mud, this
is extremely germane, factual material already on the public record. It gets to the core of who
Hillary is and where her loyalties lie. Hillary herself chose to identify unregulated derivatives
and the repeal of Glass-Steagall as the primary causes of the financial crisis. She either claimed
directly or insinuated that she would address these issues as President, but surprisingly no one
pointed out that it was her husband's administration that blocked Brooksley Born from regulating
derivatives in the 1990's and it was her husband's administration that effectively repealed Glass-Steagal
with the signing of Gramm-Leach-Billey act in 1999. It's not a stretch to say the Clinton's deregulation
of Wall Street paved the way for the crisis of 2008 and the extreme income inequality of today.
Wall Street is deeply unpopular and Bernie Sanders has built a candidacy on two main issues: attacking
Wall Street and addressing income inequality. These are punches he can't afford not to throw at
his rival when she holds a commanding lead in the polls plus the support of the DNC and media
establishment. Clinton is deeply corrupt and beholden to Wall Street. She needs to be beaten with
this stick hard and often. Attempting to deflect this very accurate, very damaging criticism by
wrapping herself in the flag and invoking feminism is a cheap stunt that will only work so many
times before people notice what she is doing. Bernie needs to swing harder and keep at it, he
already has the right message and Clinton is highly vulnerable on his pet topics.
I thought O'Malley had one of the best lines of the night when he said "I think it may be
time for us to quit taking advice from economists" but it seemed to go mostly unnoticed and unappreciated.
I would have loved a frontal assault on the validity and integrity of economists when the bespectacled
lady in blue attempted to nail down Sanders with a 'gotcha' question implying raising the minimum
wage would be catastrophic for the economy because "such-and-such economist" said so. There is
so much disdain for science and academic credentials in the heartland right now, it seems crazy
not to harness this anti-academic populist energy and redirect it to a deserving target like neo-liberal
economists instead of climate scientists. " How's that Laffer curve working out for ya Iowa? Are
you feeling the prosperity 'trickle down' yet?" Sanders did a relatively good job of deflecting
and not getting zinged by the 'gotcha' question but a full-frontal assault would have been much
better. Stronger, more Presidential and with the added bonus of giving neo-liberal economists
under the pay of plutocrats a black eye. Another missed opportunity. The questioner set it up
perfectly for him. I would have loved to see the expression on her corn-fed face when Bernie turned
her 'gotcha' question that she had spent so much time and thought crafting into the home-run answer
of the evening. Perhaps it could happen in a debate in the near future.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 11:58 am
I think what happened there is that Bernie is showing his true colors, unfortunately. While
I'm more than OK with Bernie's attitude towards Benghazi & the emails, he really does not confront
HRC on her egregious attitudes towards unfettered War, Inc, and most esp not on Wall St and the
Banks.
I have no serious expectations of Sanders, however, and never did.
Jerry Denim, November 16, 2015 at 12:15 pm
Perhaps you are correct but Sanders did say Wall Street's business model is greed and fraud.
Strong language for a Presidential candidate and unmistakably clear terms. When it comes to attacking
Clinton I feel like something is holding Sanders back. Maybe it's his campaign advisors because
he's been told his anger scares voters and people don't like negative attacks. Maybe the DNC and
Clinton are holding some threat over his head regarding ballot access, debate cancellation or
some other punishment if he doesn't play by certain rules. Perhaps he's been warned certain topics
are off limits during debates. Seems fishy to me, but maybe it's just as simple as you say.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Yes, Sanders has been outspoken about Wall St, greed, fraud and tightening up regulations,
etc. That's why it's disappointing and beyond annoying when he clams up vis Clinton and her relationship
with and money from Wall St.
The GOP engages in phony baloney food fights much to the tingling excitement of their base.
I'd like to see some REAL debate from the Dems. Not just make nice phony baloney bullshit.
Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist
and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton… as he's already SAID anyway.
We're told allegedly that "poll after poll" shows Clinton in a double digit lead. I really question
that, as well, but clearly no one's showing me the factual data. It is what is. HRC is the anointed
one, so get used to it.
To me, Sanders is just window dressing & a distraction, even though, clearly, he's the pick of
"both" (or the combined, if you will) litters. Whatever…
JerryDenim, November 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm
"Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist
and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton… as he's already SAID anyway"
Yeah maybe, but I believe that was the price of admission to the Clinton / Wasserman-Shultz
ball for a life-long socialist who sometimes caucuses with Democrats. The more damage Sanders
inflicts on Clinton in the primaries the less sincere and effective any possible Sanders endorsement
of Clinton will be later. I too share your distrust of polls and given that distrust it's
hard for me to write off a guy who has had every disadvantage in his Presidential bid but is still
polling pretty darn well against a extremely well-known political juggernaut early in the primary
season.
Sanders has the right message, the right record and popular support on his side in a year
when people are fed-up with the entire Washington establishment and sick of pedigreed, legacy
politicians like Clinton. Look at how poorly Bush has fared so far against outsider, blow-hard
Donald Trump and unknown-nobody Ben Carson. Even conservatives are sick of dynasties.
If there's ever been a moment when Bernie Sanders could win the nomination this is it.
If you really think Sanders is the "pick of liter" as you say perhaps you could stop calling him
things like "window dressing" and "a distraction". While it may protect your feelings from future
disappointment to speak confidently of Clinton as the inevitable nominee it clearly helps her
campaign objectives, so…. maybe just try tempering your cynicism just a wee bit unless you are
out to help Hillary win the nomination. If you are out to help Hillary then carry on, you're
doing a fine job of tarring and feathering Sanders as a loser on behalf of her campaign.
3.14e-9, November 16, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Bernie's campaign never in a million years thought he would get this far. In the beginning,
it was calculated to draw attention to income inequality, big money in politics, and other issues
that likely would get ignored if the coronation went ahead unopposed. Within that context,
it would have been very easy for him to promise the few votes he thought he would get to Clinton.
I have a feeling that his campaign is regretting he ever said that as much as we are. He has a
huge number of supporters who, like jgordon above, would write in "Dog Turd" before voting for
Hillary (although I don't know why we couldn't write in Bernie). These people are going to be
extremely angry if he throws his support behind her, and they have demonstrated well already that
they are very vocal. I've commented on NC before that I think there will be hell to pay if and
when that happens.
I also suspect that the DNC didn't make a big fuss about his running as a Democrat because no
one there thought he'd get this far, either, and they probably thought he would be useful. For
all we know, he agreed to that. And then, suddenly, all the unexpected crowds.
Sanders is the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee, which means he definitely
could challenge Clinton on economic issues, and competently. So I agree that something has to
be holding him back. Yet another consideration is that he might be keeping the most damaging counts
against her until later in the campaign. If he showed his hand now, the Clinton machine would
kick into gear overtime, get her off the hook, and drag him down into the mud.
Cassandra, November 16, 2015 at 4:10 pm
No need to think of conspiracies, etc. As you point out, Sanders is a senator. He never
expected to get this far. He won't win the nomination. He has to think of his post-2016 career.
If he goes after Clinton hammer and tongs, he will be (more of) a pariah in the Senate, effectively
ruining any chance for him to accomplish anything. As he said in the debate, the VA bill
wasn't all he wanted, but it was something. Many think incrementalism is a fool's game, but I
believe Sanders is willing to fight for crumbs.
Lambert Strether, November 16, 2015 at 4:14 pm
I think Sanders did pretty well, especially considering the primaries haven't started. He pushed
Clinton into two horrible responses, at least: (1) 9/11 and Wall Street and (2) Sanders single
payer vs. ObamaCare. Both will be gifts that keep on giving. My thought would is that the opportunity
cost of spending a lot of time reverse engineering whatever number of dimensions of chess Sanders
is playing failing to use the very powerful ammo he gave - both of which are about policy.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 4:17 pm
I'm willing to be wrong about Sanders, and in fact, hope I am. Time will tell. I agree that
he's done better than the odds called for. Willing to listen to him but wish he'd speak up more
about HRC's bs. But he is a politician after all and is playing a long game.
3.14e-9, November 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Well, he has to be very careful about that. Clinton's people immediately jump on the least
bit of truth from Sanders as "negative campaigning" and then call up their friends in the MSM
to back them up:
Thus, the Federal Reserve's "Sunday night special" waiver of the 30-day application period
for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies, and to get their sticky
mitts (or tentacles, as the case may be) into "free money" at the discount window. News story
from 22 Sep 2008:
Having essentially zero consumer deposit-taking business, then or now, these two investment
banks resemble ordinary commercial banks like mangy wolves dressed in ill-fitting sheep costumes.
Investment banking is a high-risk, high-reward business with some of the most highly compensated
employees in the country. Subsidizing GS and MS with Federal Reserve free money is a rank disgrace.
It vexeth me greatly, comrades. But changing it is not even on the menu.
TimmyB, November 16, 2015 at 12:35 pm
What really hasn't been discussed is Sander's motivation for breaking up too big to fail financial
institutions. Sanders on his website states he wants to break them up because they have too much
economic and political power. Sanders says that breaking them up, in and by itself, will provide
a benefit.
So when Clinton starts discussing how her plan will be more effective in preventing another financial
collapse, she has changed the subject from how breaking up our banks will benefit our democratcy
to whether or not breaking them up will prevent another 2008 crisis.
What Sanders needs to do is bring the discussion on breaking up TBTF banks back around to their
having too much economic and political power. For example, he could say he wants to break them
up because they have too much power and that Clinton want them to continue to hold that power.
Clinton has no real response to that claim.
Michael, November 17, 2015 at 11:44 am
Bernie is not running to win. I'm not sure why he is running. If he does not start to hit Hillary
then I think it is primarily to keep the left wing of the Democratic Party inside the party instead
of seeking a new home elsewhere. The Justice Party is interesting but a third party has no chance
unless the Democrats implode.
Honestly I can see the Democrats collapsing before the Republicans. The South and Midwest
are just batshit crazy and they'll stick with the Republicans as long as the evangelicals dominate
their culture. Does anyone here know anything about previous "great awakenings" in American culture?
MojaveWolf , November 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
For all her vomit-inducing disingenuousness about how she would be the toughest on the
financial industry as a whole (really, how does she say that with a straight face?), and her basically
sounding like a smarter, saner business as usual neocon on the middle east, I thought her worst
moment by far was when she tried to describe single payer as "dismantling" Medicare, Medicaid,
etc and letting Republican administrations decide who gets health care, and playing up that
the ACA as better and more comprehensive. She is not stupid. She is one of the smartest people
in politics from a pure short term IQ standpoint. And she has studied and once advocated for single
payer so she KNOWS what it does. Think about this for a minute.
Hillary KNOWS single payer EXPANDS on what Medicaid and Medicare provide.
Hillary KNOWS Bernie's single payer plan would not allow states to opt out, unlike the ACA she
is touting, while she was claiming the exact opposite. She knowingly bald-faced lied on national
TV & radio (I was driving and listening, not watching) in a way to equal anything Dick Cheney
or Mitch McConnell or Newt Gingrich ever did, and she lied about a matter she KNOWS will result
in millions of people NOT getting adequate medical care with ripple effects ranging from constant
illness and misery to job performance to not seeking treatment until emergency to actual death.
People can't pay 3k or 5k deductibles. We already have news reports of people not going for this
reason. We paid the penalty on our taxes last year because the only affordable plans that were
actually usable required us to make a 2 hr one way drive (over 90% hwy, this is a long way) to
the closest hospital/doctor that was included in it. One of my acquaintances who is covered took
a taxi to what was supposedly the only local doctor who took her plan (after calling everyone
in town), waited over an hr, and was told that whoever she spoke to on the phone made a mistake
and she is not covered, and they have no idea where she should go, plus she's out the time and
a r/t taxi ride. You think Hillary hasn't studied this and doesn't know things like this happen?
You think she doesn't know Bernie's single payer plan (and probably all single payer plans) wouldn't
prevent these sorts of situations?
She KNOWS we could cut out the insurance companies, have free single payer, pay for it by taxing
the most well off, and people on the whole would get much better service, with much better outcomes,
and without having to freak out if the ambulance took them to a hospital outside of their plan
or a visiting specialist at the hospital their plan said go to was outside the plan and billed
them five or six figures or what have.
But she clearly doesn't care. She just cares about people donating money to her campaign and getting
elected as a resume stuffer. She doesn't want to change how things are done more than minor tinkering,
even when she KNOWS the changes will make everything better off. She will be the same on climate
change, even tho she isn't stupid and knows both what we are doing now and what she is recommending
are leading us to a planet of the jellyfish in the long run and a state of neverending crises
and mass extinction in the short and medium run.
(I am not saying she knows the misery her foreign policy position has and will cause because I
actually fear she might believe in what she's saying there; tho whether she believes it or not
she clearly intends to continue the same policies that have led us to destabilize the middle east
and are starting to destabilize the entire world; the only reason I'm not thinking this is her
worst moment is because she was more hinting at than saying things, and I'm less sure of her actual
positions)
She is willing to sacrifice millions of lives to get herself elected and continue enriching her
already rich family who doesn't need any more money. She is, basically, a Republican on everything
but social issues (yes, these matter, and good for her, tho past cowardly statements on abortion
and votes on marriage equality should not be disregarded when compared with her opponents).
i guess people think nothing of this, just as they think nothing of her lies on regulating the
financial industry, because they think that sort of flat out lie and distortion is just politics
as usual, and more important to be good at lying than good on substance?
And that is why really do need a political revolution. Almost all of the current political class,
including the political media, really need to go.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 1:37 pm
AKA, there's very little difference bet HRC and whomever barking lunatic the GOP coughs up…
other than HRC isn't such a barking lunatic. She's just mired in pure unfettered greed and imperialistic
hubris.
Actually the GOP should be kissing the ground that HRC walks on bc she's probably the biggest
War Hawk in the whole amalgamated group, and she's way more for BigIns getting their hugely giant
sucking cut out of "health" insurance scams than almost any other candidate.
The GOP puts on a dog 'n pony show constantly wasting time and all taxpayer money on voting against
ACA. They do that bc they know their phony baloney bills will never ever pass. The GOP doesn't
want ACA to ever go away bc the politicians are getting rich rich rich off of it as much as the
Dems are. They just have to play a Kabuki show to appease their utterly stupid base.
Such a waste of time all of this is. Such a monumental waste of money. ugh.
nothing will change. authoritarian USians like Big Daddy/Mommy too much to let ever let go of
this system.
Vatch, November 16, 2015 at 3:33 pm
There are at least two advantages to breaking up the giant banks:
1. If one of the fragments gets into financial trouble, we won't have to fear a complete economic
collapse.
2. Sure, the owners of the banks will continue to own as much as before (and some of their stock
might even rise in value). But the CEOs of the big banks will lose influence, because they will
suddenly be the bosses of much smaller corporations. Currently, people like Jamie Dimon have far
too much power.
Bob Stapp, November 16, 2015 at 2:17 pm
I'm at a complete loss to understand why Dems, the media, and in fact anyone with two brain
cells to rub together, can fail to see or acknowledge that HRC is a liar, a crook, and a generally
mean-spirited individual who's only in it for herself and will do and say anything and accept
money from anyone as long as it helps her to win.
Sadly, the only difference between Hillary and Obama, is that Barack is a better shape-shifter
and, when he lies, he can do so with greater eloquence and charm. Hillary can never manage to
completely hide her forked tongue and her poisonous lizard personality.
Our country and, in fact, the entire world is at a crossroads and yet there has never been such
a lack of selfless, skilled leadership stepping up to help us get to some version of the common
good. Meanwhile, Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn get pilloried daily for even suggesting that
we are all in this together and had better get to fixing things right quick. I guess it's the
fate of truth-tellers.
I plan to attend my state's caucus and when I say that if we insist on pursuing the political
process as we have always done, we are condemning ourselves to disaster. Going out and working
for a person, a personality, or a hoped-for savior, is merely repeating the same kind of insanity
that has produced the rotten system we have today. Bernie's right. It's going to take all of us
standing up together, not to get Bernie or anybody else elected, but for what we know is right.
And we'd better do it soon. Then, when I'm shut down by the party operatives, I'll go home and
continue to watch the slow-motion train-wreck.
Lambert Strether, November 16, 2015 at 3:21 pm
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'bank' is."
cassandra, November 16, 2015 at 7:11 pm
After Obama's behavior, and the documentation of Gilens & Page, can anyone believe that
campaign speeches have anything to do with post-electoral policies? The nomination process is
beyond dysfunctional: everyone knows Hillarity's positions are synthetic, yet she successfully
campaigns with the grossest political impunity and she is taken seriously enough for analysis.
I don't understand why. The only political power remaining to democracy is resistance, either
by voting for a third party, or else by total abstinence. I personally prefer the former, as it's
a bit harder to sweep under the media carpet. This keeps me outside the grasp of helplessness.
Telee, November 16, 2015 at 7:38 pm
The refusal of HRC to be for reinstating Glass-Steagall to separate investment banks and commercial
banks is a sure sign that she will be a lap dog for the fraudsters on Wall Street. More of the
same or worse.
Another point. My readings has lead me to believe that she played a large role in the destabilization
o Libya. In her 11 hours before the Benghazi committee she was never asked why she was so hell-bent
for a military solution when there were negotiations which would have led to a more peaceful solution.
1 kings, November 16, 2015 at 9:39 pm
"We came, we saw, he died". HRC
aliteralmind, November 16, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Family Guy *exactly* predicted Hillary's 9/11 tragedy-distraction strategy way back in
2008: Life imitating art: http://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI
Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington's Syria strategy.
In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington's effort
to oust Assad "counterproductive" and "illegal" before taking it a step further and accusing the
CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "sworn enemies."
In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may
end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
"... Can anyone really imagine Bernie Sanders in the White House? , ..."
"... I said here yesterday that Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign. But it's not only its style–its tactics–that are Republican. Watch her edge ever closer on substance as well. Which is the way she began her campaign last spring and early summer, until it became clear that Sanders' campaign was catching on. ..."
November 20, 2015 | naked capitalism
Yves here. Readers know I have a weakness for righteous rants…
By Beverly Mann. Originally published at
Angry Bear
Hillary Clinton's performance wasn't as clean or as crisp as her last one. Among other things,
she invoked 9/11 in order to dodge a question about her campaign donors. But she effectively made
the case that, though Sanders speaks about important questions, his solutions are ultimately simplistic
and hers are better. Instead of railing about breaking up the big banks, focus on identifying
and moderating the biggest risks to the financial system. Instead of making college free for everyone,
increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids' tuition.
Stromberg, a Washington Post editorial writer who also blogs there, is an all-but-official Clinton
campaign mouthpiece
who last month, in a blog post and (unforgivably) a Post editorial (i.e., commentary with no
byline, published on behalf of the Post's editorial board) baldly misrepresented what Clinton campaign
spokesman Brian Fallon on Tuesday misrepresented about Sanders' single-payer healthcare insurance
plan, but from a different angle: Stromberg said that the cost of the single-payer plan would
be in addition to the cost of healthcare now. Actual healthcare, not just insurance premiums.
According to Stomberg and the Post's editorial board then, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare
provides would receive full payment from private insurers and also full payment from the government.
And employers, employees and individual-market policyholders would continue to pay premiums to private
insurers while they also paid taxes to the federal government for single-payer-double-payer?-insurance.
A nice deal for some but not, let's say, for others. Also, a preposterous misrepresentation
of Sanders' plan.
Fast-forward a month and Stromberg, this time speaking only for himself (as far as I know; I don't
read all the Post's editorials) and for the Clinton campaign, picks up on Clinton's invocation of
the horror of the public paying college tuition for Donald Trump's kids. But since he probably
knows that Trump's kids no more went to public colleges than did Clinton's kid, he broadens it.
Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline
to subsidize wealthy kids' tuition. Good line! At least for the ears of voters who are
unaware that public universities, like private ones, quietly skew their admissions processes to favor
the kids of parents who likely can pay full tuition simply by switching the funds from a CD or other
savings account into a checking account at the beginning of each semester, thus removing the need
for the school to dig into its endowment fund to provide financial assistance. Or to worry
about whether the student will have that loan money ready at the beginning of each semester.
Which is why Jennifer Gratz, salutatorian at her working class Detroit suburb's high school, whose
extracurriculars included cheerleading but probably not a summer in Honduras assisting the poor,
was denied admission to the University of Michigan back in 1995.
And why she sued the University
in what eventually became a landmark Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality under
the equal protection clause of UM's affirmative action program.
She did not challenge the constitutionality of the U's almost-certain, but unstated,
admissions policy that would ensure that the freshman class had a substantial percentage of students
from families wealthy enough to pay the full tuition.
Y'know, the ones wealthy enough to pay for SAT tutoring, SAT practice courts, and if necessary
more than one SAT exam.
What especially angers me about this let's-not-subsidize-wealthy-kids'-college-tuition canard
is that it uses disparities in ability to pay the tuition as a clever way to ensure the admissions
status quo. Or something close to the status quo.
In her and her campaign spokesman's statements in the last several days-most notably her "Read
My Lips; No New Taxes on the Middle Class, Even $1.35/wk to Pay for Family and Medical Leave" declaration,
but other statements too-she's overtly declaring herself a triangulator. And some progressive
political pundits are noticing it.
Yes!*
They!**
Are!*** And Sanders needs to start quoting these articles, in speaking and in web and television
ads.
I said
here yesterday that Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign. But it's not only its
style–its tactics–that are Republican. Watch her edge ever closer on substance as well. Which
is the way she began her campaign last spring and early summer, until it became clear that Sanders'
campaign was catching on.
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as
well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them.
Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape,
and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
Tacitus, Agricola
People are discouraged and disillusioned after almost thirty years of distorted governance, specially
in the aftermath of the 'Hope and Change' which quickly became 'Vain Hope for Change.'
Most cannot admit that their guys were in the pockets of Big Defense, Big Pharma, Big Energy, and
Wall Street.
The real question about Hillary comes down to this. Can you trust her to do what she
says she will do, the right things for her putative constituents and not her big money donors and
paymasters, once she takes office?
Or will that poor family who left the White House 'broke' and then mysteriously obtained a fortune
of over $100 million in the following years, thanks to enormous payments for 'speeches' from large
financial firms and huge donations to their Trust once again take care of the hand that pays them
the most?
This is not to say that there is a better alternative amongst the leading Republican candidates,
who have been and are still under the same types of payment arrangements, only with different people
signing the checks.
Or we could skip the middlemen entirely and just directly elect one of New York's most prominent
of their narcissist class directly, instead of another witless stooge of big money, and hope for
something different? And how will that likely work out for us?
It is an exceptionally hard time to be a human being in this great nation of ours.
And so what ought we to do? Wallow in cynicism and the sweet sickness of misanthropy and despair?
Vote strictly on the hope of our own narrow self-interest no matter the broader and longer term consequences,
and then face the inevitable blowback from injustice and repression?
Give up on our grandchildren and children because we are too tired and interested in our own short
term comfort? Too filled with selfishness, anger and hate to see straight, and do anything
but turn ourselves into mindless animals to escape the pain of being truly human? Do no thinking,
and just follow orders? This latter impulse has taken whole nations of desperate people into the
abyss.
Or do we stop wallowing in our specialness and self-pity, and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'
and confront what virtually every generation and every individual has had to wrestle with since the
beginning of recorded time?
Do we fall, finally stricken with grief in our blindness, on the road to Damascus and say at long
last, 'Lord, what then wilt thou have me to do?'
This is the question that circumstance is posing to us. And hopefully we will we heed the answer
that has been already given, to be 'steadfast, unshaken, always abounding in the work of the Lord,
knowing that in Him our labor is not in vain.'
And the touchstone of the alloy of our actions is love.
And so we have before us what Franklin Roosevelt so aptly characterized as our own 'rendezvous with
destiny.'
From comments: "If in fact she did sign it, then why doesn't she just say YES? And if she didn't, then why doesn't
she just say NO? Because, either way she broke the law. She's guilty if she did, and she's guilty if
she didn't. When are the Billary fans going to realize, that she's the mistake by the lake. This is
a Conniving, Scheming, Narcissistic, non Feeling or Caring poor excuse of a humanbeing. This is one
nasty women, and I'm amazed that so many people don't see it. Don't let Oh-Bummer happen to us 3 times.
"
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, did all of Hillarys staff sign this document? ..."
"... According to other stories on Yahoo today, the State Dept said she did not sign the form. ..."
They say they are for transparency. In 2013, President Obama boasted, "This is the most transparent
administration in history." But watch what his administration does.
Today, it will issue new rules exempting a key administrative office that handles issues such as request
for access to government email records from the Freedom of Information Act. That law is specifically
designed to allow private parties to look at government documents that aren't privileged or involve
national security.
Hillary and Obama are the most deceitful and dishonest people in America and neither of them should
be in an office representing the United States of America.
cafe
My question is whether Huma Abedin had to sign the exit document specifying that she would ensure that
all of her electronic documents were given to the State Department when she left her position at the
same time that Hillary Clinton did.
In fact, did all of Hillary's staff sign this document? It has
been shown that Huma and other staff members have email addresses on the Clinton email server which
validates the measures to have that server turned into the government!!!!
All of them need to be served
subpoenas and this server need turned in!
Bob from Cape Cod
According to other stories on Yahoo today, the State Dept said she did not sign the form. This speaks
to the ineptness of this Administration.
What I'm thinking is: She did, but told Obama if it were released
that she did sign it, she would spill the beans on all the inside B$ that would hurt Obama.
This way
she gets to escape perjury charges and still keep the private server and keep deciding by herself what
she will release and what she will not.
And her KoolAid drinking minions will accept everything she
says.
Mister Karma
Hillary...In the news- Factual History
As a 27-year-old staffer, she was fired from the Watergate committee for fraud and unethical behavior.
Her former boss, Jerry Zeifman, finally spoke out in 2008:
"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest
lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee
and the rules of confidentiality.".....
From a June 2000 article in the Los Angeles Times:
There is "substantial evidence" that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that
she played a role in the 1993 White House travel office firings, independent counsel Robert W. Ray
reported Thursday....
On Sept. 11, 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered by Islamic militants
in Benghazi, Libya. Originally the attack was blamed on outrage due to an anti-Muslim You Tube video,
and then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds to all the Sunday shows to denounce the hate speech.
For weeks, Hillary adamantly supported the ridiculous notion that these were "spontaneous demonstrations,"
despite overwhelming evidence that she knew from the beginning that this was simply false...
....... The truth is that Hillary has a long, checkered career, full of scandals and lies.
Terry
If in fact she did sign it, then why doesn't she just say YES? And if she didn't, then why doesn't
she just say NO? Because, either way she broke the law. She's guilty if she did, and she's guilty if
she didn't. When are the Billary fans going to realize, that she's the mistake by the lake. This is
a Conniving, Scheming, Narcissistic, non Feeling or Caring poor excuse of a humanbeing. This is one
nasty women, and I'm amazed that so many people don't see it. Don't let Oh-Bummer happen to us 3 times.
Justa Nobody
I'm so disappointed with our government. Isn't it time for voters from all parties to send a message
that We The People want and expect open and transparent government.
"... Their low information voters like the idea of big bad gobinment agencies doing bad stuff to all of us and being responsible for whatever. The narratives always Trump reality. ..."
"... It all makes sense when the good of the few Trumps [means plundering of] the rest is considered a public good. When avarice meets reality it attacks with diverting ad hominem [e.g. brainwashed socialists, etc.] and ever worse logic fallacies. ..."
"... So you call it a successful policy...based on what? Stock prices are up? The wealthy have grabbed most of the income gains? ..."
"... [Net reductions in monthly mortgage expenses obtained from refinancing at low rates, consumer credit discounts for all variable rate interest lines of credit, short term small business cash flow balancing operating loans at prime rate. The wealthy got a little leverage trading done but only those that sold off stocks have made money from high stock prices. Those still holding shares may have nothing to gain except for losses.] ..."
"... A little?!? Take a look at the chart: Capitals share of national income. It has really taken off--well above the trend line of the last 40 years--since ZIRP and QE. ..."
"... But anyone with much experience in long term asset markets, such as the stock market or housing market, ought to realize that it is low inflation which tends to boost valuations for long term assets. The current very low inflation expectations are one of the main drivers behind high current US stock market valuations (using measures such as total market cap to GDP). ..."
"... As Krugman points out Murkan politics is dysfunctional, the GOP playing the Nazi role [from Weimars demise]. ..."
Their low information voters like the idea of big bad gobinment agencies doing bad stuff
to all of us and being responsible for whatever. The narratives always Trump reality.
ilsm said in reply to DeDude...
It all makes sense when the good of the few Trumps [means plundering of] the rest is considered
a public good.
When avarice meets reality it attacks with diverting ad hominem [e.g. brainwashed socialists,
etc.] and ever worse logic fallacies.
Like Lacker's screed on inflation, actually selling deflation.
JohnH said in reply to ilsm...
So you call it a successful policy...based on what? Stock prices are up? The wealthy have grabbed
most of the income gains?
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to JohnH...
"...based on what?..."
[Net reductions in monthly mortgage expenses obtained from refinancing at low rates, consumer
credit discounts for all variable rate interest lines of credit, short term small business cash
flow balancing operating loans at prime rate.
The wealthy got a little leverage trading done but only those that sold off stocks have made money
from high stock prices. Those still holding shares may have nothing to gain except for losses.]
JohnH said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
The wealthy got a little leverage...
A little?!? Take a look at the chart: Capital's share of national income. It has really taken
off--well above the trend line of the last 40 years--since ZIRP and QE.
No, Fed policy didn't cause increased inequality but it exacerbated it.
Now, please explain how "Net reductions in monthly mortgage expenses obtained from refinancing
at low rates"...blah...blah translated into higher real median income per household, etc. You
know, common measure of economic performance.
acerimusdux said...
Another right wing myth worth addressing is the idea that low interest rates cause asset bubbles.
But anyone with much experience in long term asset markets, such as the stock market or housing
market, ought to realize that it is low inflation which tends to boost valuations for long term
assets. The current very low inflation expectations are one of the main drivers behind high current
US stock market valuations (using measures such as total market cap to GDP).
Looser money, because it encourages more inflation, should be expected to limit bubbles. Too tight
monetary policy should be expected to cause them.
Right wing economics seems to be primarily based on first either ignoring or not understanding
the importance of natural rates, and so blaming the Fed any time nominal rates seem low (or even
moderate), and then on blaming anything else in the economy that seems to be wrong at them moment
on those "low" rates (without any regard to logic, reason, or consistency).
Sad to see that even some Fed board members seem to be ignoring the importance of inflation in
determing monetary policy. There is no sign at all yet of even meeting the inflation target in
the CPI, PCE, or ECI, while the PPI continues to show deflation. Meanwhile market based measures
(such as the breakeven rates) show expectations that continue to fall, with the Fed not expected
by markets to meet it's target even within a decade. And some are still talking about hiking in
December?
Ben Groves said in reply to acerimusdux...
It is hard to have inflation when commodity deflation is lowering inputs and we are having
a nasty price war between Brick/Mortar and e-Commerce. That sounds like a large CPI decline (which
means real retail sales are better than usual) that started in the 3rd quarter may accelerate
in the 4th quarter. I am seeing prices of some foods, the lowest in 10 years. Milk is down to
15 year lows at some of my regions stores.
I don't think central banks though, think that is a bad thing. They only care about wage growth
and their own trimmed inflation figures that factor in wage growth. So the Fed/Republicans are
on the same page. Anything more is dialectics.
ilsm said...
As Krugman points out Murkan politics is dysfunctional, the GOP playing the Nazi role [from
Weimar's demise].
"... feudalism is a hierarchical system of distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests, who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points to you. ..."
"... Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. ..."
"... A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. ..."
"... It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage. It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy. ..."
"... I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter, unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions (housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) . ..."
I want to expand on the point about feudalism, since it's even more apt than the article lets
on. It was not "rule by the rich," which implies an oligarchic class whose members are more or
less free agents in cahoots with one another. Rather, feudalism is a hierarchical system of
distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords
who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer
further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals
may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests,
who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to
middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points
to you.
This means feudalism found a way to render complicit in a larger system of administration people
who had no direct and often no real stake in the produce of its mass mobilization of labor.
Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever
for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible
for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very
same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. Occasionally,
the peasants recognize that no one is below them in this pyramid scheme, and so they revolt, but
for the most part they were resigned to the status quo, because there seemed to be no locus of
power to topple. Sure, you could overthrow the king, but that would do nothing to deter the power
of the lords. You could overthrow your local lord, but the king could just install a new one.
Transpose to the modern day. A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does
little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. You might get your terrible
boss fired for his tendency to sexually harass anyone who walks in the door, but what's to stop
the regional manager from hiring someone who works you to the bone. Sometimes the peas–err, employees
revolt and form a union, but we all know what means have been employed over the years to do away
with that.
tl;dr – Feudalism: it's about the structure, not the classes
Lambert Strether,
November 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Hmm. I don't think a serf can be a vassal. The vassals sound a lot like the 20%. The serfs
would be the 80%. I'm guessing class is alive and well.
James Levy, November 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm
You wouldn't be a vassal (that was a very small percentage of the population) but you could
have ties of patronage with the people above you, and in fact that was critical to all societies
until the Victorians made nepotism a bad word and the ethic of meritocracy (however bastardized
today) took shape. If you wanted your physical labor obligation converted into a money payment
so you could spend more time and effort on your own holding, or you needed help in tough times,
or the 99 year lease on your leasehold was coming due, or you wanted to get your son into the
local priory, etc. you needed a friend or friends in higher places. The granting or refusal of
favors counted for everything, and kept many on the straight and narrow, actively or passively
supporting the system as it was.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm
It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject
position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal
in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage.
It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy.
The true outliers here are the contemporaneous merchants, craftsmen, and freeholders (yeomen)
who are necessary for things to run properly but are not satisfactorily accounted for by the overall
system of governance, in part because it was land based. Merchants and craftsmen in particular
tended not to be tied to any one place, since their services were often needed all over and only
for limited periods of time. The primary administrative apparatus for craftsmen were the guilds.
Merchants fell into any number of systems of organization and often into none at all, thus, according
to the old Marxist genealogy, capitalism overthrows feudalism.
Peasants may have had something like a class consciousness on occasion, but I'm not entirely
convinced it's useful to think of them in that way. In Japan, for instance, peasants were of a
much higher social status than merchants and craftsmen, technically, yet their lives were substantially
more miserable by any modern economic measure.
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 4:01 pm
I think that the article gets it seriously wrong about feudalism - an example of what Yves
calls "stripping words of their meaning".
First of all, feudalism was actually an invention of an older, powerful, even more hierarchical
organization: the Catholic Church.
The Church realized early on that imposing its ideal of a theocratic State ("city of God") led
by the Pope upon the strong-headed barbarian chiefs (Lombards, Franks, Wisigoths and others) that
set up various kingdoms in Europe was impossible.
Hence the second best approach, feudalism: a double hierarchy (worldly and spiritual). The populations
of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation, judicial and other
economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).
Second, there was a class of wealthy people which did not quite fit in the feudal hierarchy
- in particular, they had no vassals, nor, despite their wealth, any fiefdom: merchants, financiers,
the emerging burger class in cities. They were the ones actually lending money to feudal lords.
Third, the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the king (this was a hobby for princely
families), and extremely rarely the local lord (which inevitably brought the full brunt of the
feudal hierarchy to bear on the seditious populace).
Historically, what cities and rural communities struggled for was to be placed directly under
the authority of the king or (Holy Roman Germanic) emperor. This entailed the rights to self-administration,
freedom from most egregious taxes and corvées from feudal seigneurs, recognition of local laws
and customs, and the possibility to render justice without deferring to local lords.
The king/emperor was happy to receive taxes directly from the city/community without them seeping
away in the pockets of members of the inextricable feudal hierarchy; he would from time to time
require troops for his host, hence reducing the dependency on troops from his vassal lords; and
he would rarely be called to intervene in major legal disputes. Overall, he was way too busy to
have time micromanaging those who swore direct allegiance to him - which was exactly what Basque
communities, German towns and Swiss peasants wanted.
Therefore, an equivalence between feudalism and the current organizational make-up of society
dominated by for-profit entities does not make sense.
Lambert Strether, November 3, 2015 at 4:11 pm
"the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the King"
Not even in the peasant revolts?
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm
If you look at this list, it appears that they were revolts directed against the local nobility
(or church) because of its exorbitant taxation, oppressive judiciary, rampaging mercenaries and
incompetent leadership in war against foreign invasions.
The French Jacquerie took place when there was no king - he had been taken prisoner by the English
and the populace blamed the nobility for the military defeats and the massive tax increases that
ensued.
During the Spanish Guerra de los Remensas, the revolted peasants actually appealed to the king
and he in turn allied with them to fight the nobles.
During the Budai Nagy Antal revolt, the peasants actually asked the Hungarian king to arbitrate.
In other cases, even when the king/emperor/sultan ultimately intervened to squash the revolt,
the insurrection was directed against some local elite.
Peasants revolts in 16th century Scandinavia were against the king's rule, but they were linked
to reformation and took place when feudalism was on the wane and the evolution towards a centralized
monarchical state well advanced.
Apparently, only the John and William Merfold's revolt explicitly called for the overthrow
of the English king.
Jim Haygood, November 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm
'The populations of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation,
judicial and other economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).'
Just as Americans are subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation and judicial
powers, the states and the fedgov.
Before 1914, federal criminal laws were few, and direct federal income taxation of individuals
was nonexistent. Today one needs federal authorization (E-verify) to get a job.
Now that the Fifth Amendment prohibition on double jeopardy has been interpreted away, notorious
defendants face both federal and state prosecution. Thus the reason why America has the world's
largest Gulag, with its slam-dunk conviction machine.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Except, first off, there were non-Christian societies that made use of the system of warrior
vassalage, and the manorial system that undergirded feudal distribution of land and resources,
as least as far as Bloch is concerned, is a fairly clear outgrowth of the Roman villa system of
the late empire. Insofar as the Late Roman empire was nominally–very nominally–Christian, I suppose
your point stands, but according to Bloch, the earliest manorial structures were the result of
the dissolution of the larger, older empire into smaller pieces, many of which were beyond meaningful
administrative control by Rome itself. Second, bishoprics and monasteries, the primary land holdings
of the clergy, were of the same order as manors, so they fit within the overall feudal system,
not parallel to it.
If Bloch is not right about this, I'm open to reading other sources, but that's what my understanding
was based on. Moreover, the basic system of patronage and fealty that made the manor economy function
certainly seems to have survived the historical phenomenon we call feudalism, and that parallel
was what I was trying to draw attention to. Lord/vassal relationships are fundamentally contractual,
not just quid pro quo but organized around favors and reputation, and maybe the analogy is a bit
strained, but it does point to the ways in which modern white collar work especially is about
more than fixed pay for a fixed sum of labor output.
Thure Meyer, November 4, 2015 at 7:30 am
Isn't this rather off-topic?
This is not a discussion about the true and correct history of European feudalism or whether
or not it applies to the situation at hand, but a dialogue about Global fascism and how it
expresses itself in this Nation.
HarrySnapperOrgans, November 4, 2015 at 4:46 am
I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a
large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter,
unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions
(housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective
servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) .
"... The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name ..."
"... Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system *), one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist, or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression, "Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a "quiet coup" by financial oligarchs. ..."
"... By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... "The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. "With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." ..."
"... If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead. ..."
"... "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself." ..."
"... It Can't Happen Here ..."
"... There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck! ..."
"... Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases. ..."
"... Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary ( www.thefreedictionary.com ) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state." ..."
"... Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The Matter With Kansas ..."
"... The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." ..."
"... Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself. ..."
"... The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination… ..."
"... But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations – who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease. ..."
"... "The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy." ..."
"... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. ..."
"... Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, "…out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties…. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction…. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man…." ..."
"... The Republican candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for." ..."
"... Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name. ..."
"... Call Dems what they are – corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives. ..."
"... Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany, were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis. ..."
"... Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. ..."
"... Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office guts of democratic governance. ..."
"... Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought they control him but they ended up being wrong. ..."
"... "Those who own America should govern it" ..."
"... Corporation in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises ..."
"... Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or economic sectors. ..."
"... By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic". ..."
"... besides for-profit corporations. ..."
"... elimination ..."
"... It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites. ..."
"... This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting. ..."
"... Chamber of the Fascist Corporations ..."
"... My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What they have in common is a listing on NYSE. ..."
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Confucius
One of the distressing things about politics in the US is the way words have either been stripped
of their meaning or become so contested as to undermine the ability to communicate and analyze. It's
hard to get to a conversation when you and your interlocutors don't have the same understanding of
basic terms.
And that is no accident. The muddying of meaning is a neo-Orwellian device to influence perceptions
by redefining core concepts. And a major vector has been by targeting narrow interest groups on their
hot-button topics. Thus, if you are an evangelical or otherwise strongly opposed to women having
reproductive control, anyone who favors womens' rights in this area is in your vein of thinking,
to the left of you, hence a "liberal". Allowing the Overton Window to be framed around pet interests,
as opposed to a view of what societal norms are, has allowed for the media to depict the center of
the political spectrum as being well to the right of where it actually is as measured by decades
of polling, particularly on economic issues.
Another way of limiting discourse is to relegate certain terms or ideas to what Daniel Hallin
called the "sphere of deviance."
Thus, until roughly two years ago, calling an idea "Marxist" in the US was tantamount to deeming
it to be the political equivalent of taboo. That shows how powerful the long shadow of the Communist
purges of the McCarthy era were, more than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their
rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how
widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system*),
one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist,
or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression,
"Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist
of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a
"quiet coup" by financial oligarchs.
Now admittedly, the new neoliberal economic order is not a replay of fascism, so there is reason
not to apply the "f" word wholesale. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable amount of inhibition in
calling out the similarities where they exist. For instance, the article by Thom Hartmann below,
which we've reposted from Alternet, is bold enough to use the "fascist" word in the opening paragraph
(but not the headline!). But it then retreats from making a hard-headed analysis by focusing on warnings
about the risks of fascism in America from the 1940s. While historical analysis is always enlightening,
you'll see the article only selectively interjects contemporary examples. Readers no doubt can help
fill out, as well as qualify, this picture.
By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest
book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally
published at
Alternet
Ben Carson's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and pro-gun control Democrats was short-lived, but
along with the announcement that Marco Rubio has brought in his second big supporting billionaire,
it brings to mind the first American vice-president to point out the "American fascists" among us.
Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice-president
when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman president), Roosevelt had two previous vice-presidents:
John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945).
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice-President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write
a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous
are they?"
Vice-President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in the New York Times on April
9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly
or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the
man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels
of public information.
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best
to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni
Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately
be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed
his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is, "A system of government that exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism."
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of
Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But
not a government of, by, and for We The People; instead, it would be a government of, by, and for
the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament
and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni -- the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations.
Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks
like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Vice-President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening
here in America:
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead
of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There
are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in
their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war
because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar
wherever they may lead.
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who'd run for political office, and in
Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead
of corporate cartels.
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there
is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information…."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest
threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States
itself."
In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here a conservative southern politician
is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician, Buzz
Windrip, runs his campaign on family values, the flag and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host
portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American.
When Windrip becomes president, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint
character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution
under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.
As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There
are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so,
to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary
[of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy."
And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,'
which nickname was generally used."
Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book.
And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the
early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler.
These events all, no doubt, colored Vice-President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common
welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate
surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.
American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before
the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness'
ceases.
Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com)
notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the
'corporate' interests with those of the state."
Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies,
feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly
defined as "rule by the rich."
Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and
the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The
Matter With Kansas that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle
America -- 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."
The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally
owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize
the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage."
He added:
Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity
would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an
effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice
democracy itself.
But American fascists who would want former CEOs as president, vice-president, House Majority
Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally
talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working
people.
Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin
with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.
In a comment prescient of Alabama's recent closing of every drivers' license office in every Alabama
county with more than 75% black residents (while recently passing a law requiring a drivers' license
or similar ID to vote), Wallace continued:
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances.
But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire
to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence
that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.
It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they
hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination…
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to
gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations – who could gain
control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and
fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity,
every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism, the vice-president of the United States saw
rising in America, he added:
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final
objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using
the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man
in eternal subjection.
This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies
are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the
mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal
(and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).
As Wallace's president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination
in 1936 in Philadelphia, "…out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new
dynasties…. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties,
thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism
and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction…. And as a result the average man once more confronts
the problem that faced the Minute Man…."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt
brought the issue to its core:
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What
they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power." But, he thundered, "Our allegiance
to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!
In the election of 2016, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted
during the Great Depression and World War II.
Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "conservativism." The Republican
candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt
said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget
what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
It's particularly ironic that the "big news" is which billionaire is supporting which Republican
candidate. Like Eisenhower's farewell address, President Roosevelt and Vice-President Wallace's warnings
are more urgent now than ever before.
_____
* In trying to find the New York Times story again, I simply Googled "arbitration," on the assumption
that given that the article was both high traffic and recent that it would come up high in a search.
Not only did the story not come up on the first page, although a reference to it in Consumerist did,
but when I clicked on "in the news" link, it was again not in the first page in Google. If this isn't
censorship, I don't know what is. The story was widely referenced on the Web and got far more traffic
than the "news" story that Google gave preference (such as, of all things, a Cato study and "Arbitration
Eligible Brewers
Brew Crew Ball-19 hours ago"). In fact, the NYT article does not appear on the first five pages of
the Google news search, even though older and clearly lower traffic stories do. And when you find
the first reference to the story on the news page, which is a Cato piece mentioning it, and you click
through to the "explore
in depth" page, again the New York Times story is not the prominent placement it warrants, and
is listed fifth. Consider how many clicks it took to find it.
Crazy Horse, November 3, 2015 at 10:49 am
Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest
enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name.
timbers, November 3, 2015 at 11:17 am
I agree!
Telling my friends Obama is "neoliberal" means nothing to 99% of them, they couldn't care less,
it does not compute. So instead I tell them Obama is the most right wing President in history
who's every bit un-hinged as Sarah Palin and at least as bat shit insame as John McCain, but you
think that's totally OK because you're a Dem and Dems think that because Obama speaks with better
grammar than Sarah Palin and is more temperate than John McCain. Them I tell them to vote Green
instead of the utlra right wing Dems
Call Dems what they are – corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives.
Barmitt O'Bamney, November 3, 2015 at 11:01 am
LOL. You get to take your pick between TWO fascist parties in 2016. Just like you did for the
last several elections. I wonder if the outcome will be different this time – will Fascism grab
the prize again, or will it be Fascism coming out ahead at the last minute to save the day?
David, November 3, 2015 at 11:04 am
Why didn't Wallace become President when Roosevelt died? From the
St. Petersburg Times,
The Gallup Poll said 65 percent of the voting Democrats wanted Wallace and that 2 percent
wanted Senator Truman. But the party bosses could not boss Wallace. They made a coalition with
the Roosevelt-haters and skillfully and cynically mowed down the unorganized Wallace forces.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money
or more power
Such a concise and cogent explanation. The go-to policy advice of the fascist is to do moar
of whatever he's selling.
I was just going to say something like this too. There is a logical end to fascism and if it
is blocked and prolonged then when it finally runs its course it ends in a huge mess. And even
the fascists don't know what to do. Because everything they were doing becomes pure poison. Moar
money and power have an Achilles Heel – there is an actual limit to their usefulness. So this
is where we find ourselves today imo – not at the beginning of a fascist-feudal empire, but at
the bitter and confused end. Our implosion took far longer than Germany's, but the writing was
on the wall from 1970 on. And then toss in the wages of prolonged sin – neoliberalism's excesses,
the planet, global warming.
One would think that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the killing of 1000 people by cops would be
a clue. As would an understanding of the counter-New Deal that began to unfold in 1944, gained
power in 1946, and institutionalized itself as a military and secret government in 1947. Or the
rush to war after every peace, the rush to debt after every surplus, and perpetual inability of
the IRS to collect taxes from the wealthiest.
Maybe not even a Franco-level fascist state or a fascist state with a single dictator, more
like the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and current China without the public infrastructure.
Just the oligarchs.
And yet it is in a state of failure, and inability to do anything but feather then nests of
those who rule, all those King Midases.
Also, the increase of censorship (GMO labels or fracking chemicals), and persecution of whistleblowers
and political prisoners, incarceration of whole swathes of black population, along w execution
w no due process, continuous wars abroad w no apparent tbreat to domestic security and the state
of the nation is apparent.
Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany,
were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever
manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis.
The orthodox left made this mistake in the 1920s and early 1930s and in 2015 still appears
wedded to this erroneous assumption.
Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very
interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially
Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. Very early on, the national
socialists were arresting internal political opposition through parallel courts with explicit
references to things like state security. Dachau, for example, was originally for German political
prisoners. Jews and foreign nationals came later.
And of course there's the ultimate in false flags, the Reichstag Fire Decree. The whole point
of that and the Enabling Act was to circumvent the checks and balances of democratic governance;
Hitler himself certainly did not trust the German people to maintain the power he wanted of their
own accord and discernment.
Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement
was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the
American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this
kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long
enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office
guts of democratic governance.
Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was
scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking
for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought
they control him but they ended up being wrong.
You have to understand that after WW1 the allies kept a sea blockade on Germany and that resulted
in over a million Germans starving to death. Then came depression followed by hyperinflation.
Then there was the fear of Bolsheviks. The Nazi's showed up and things started working again.
The Bolsheviks were driven from the street. The Nazi's started borrowing tons of money (yes they
issued bonds) and started work programs. The economy started recovering. People had work and food
and soon the Nazi's were furnishing free health care. After you had gone through hell this was
heaven.
It's strange but 9/11 and the 3 steel frame buildings collapse into dust in few seconds isn't
recognized by the masses as false flag Hitler style, then what do you expect ? Massmedia did what
it could to confuse them all, only math and physics can help you to see the truth.
It would, indeed, be an extremely worthwhile discussion to analyze how freely fascism developed
in Italy and Germany.
As a first step in that directkion, Washunate, you might take a look at studies like "Elections,
Parties, and Political Traditions: Social Foundations of German parties and party systems.
In the July 1932 elections the SPD (Socialist Party) received 21.6 percent of the vote and
was replaced by the NSDAP (Nazi party) as the countries largest political party (with 37.3% of
the vote). with the KPD (the communists) capturing 14.5%of the vote.
It was at that time that the Nazi party become a true "people's party" with a support base
that was more equally distributed among social and demographic categories than any other major
party of the Weimar republic.
The thing that troubles me most is that there are no leaders like Roosevelt or Wallace today.
Where are the POPULAR politicians (Roosevelt was elected 4 times!) calling it like it is and publicly
refuting conservative/fascist dogma? Sanders? Maybe. But he's trailing Clinton and certainly he's
not a force in the Democratic party like Roosevelt was. At least not yet.
I agree with the "quiet coup" assessment, and I keep waiting for the next Roosevelt, the next
Lincoln, the next Founding Father, to appear on the political stage and fight the battle against
corporatist/fascist forces. Sadly, it hasn't happened yet.
Unfortunately the next Founding Father to appear (or has appeared) will be John Jay (first
Chief Justice among other roles) who was quoted as having said :
Hank Paulson and George W. Bush prevented the situation in 2008 from forcing a Rooseveltian
Congress. And the Congress went along with them. Then it was so easy for the do-nothings to argue
for less and continue the austerity. And as in Roosevelt's era, racism helped prevent full change,
which allowed the post-war rollback.
Who do you think put the basis of rule by the rich into practice in the first place? A series
of 'popular movements' like Shays Rebellion was what forced the founding fathers to make voting
rights not dependent on owning land, not because the Founding Fathers were really nice people
who luvved 'Democracy'.
"on the rise" or firmly entrenched ? We already have Homeland Security, Justice Thomas, Donald
Trump ,Ted Cruz, and the Koch Brothers (who are running ads in NC extolling recently passed changes
in the tax code to continue shifting from income to consumption taxes). What is missing?
I always think of the Kochs when the word fascist is used. They are ostensibly great environmentalists.
Never mind that they operate some of the filthiest industries on the planet. They sponsor NOVA;
one brother is a raving environmentalist (that's fine with me) and the other two tone it down.
But their brand of conservative politix is as pointless as it is ignorant. That's an interesting
topic – the hypocrisy of rich corporatist environmentalists. They are living a contradiction that
will tear them apart. But at least they are agonizing over the problem.
Maybe my English is too bad, but it seems there's a misunderstanding about "corporatism" meaning,
which is unfortunately reflected, as it seems again, in some American dictionaries. Corporation
in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises.
So, while there is no doubt that fascists took power in Italy as the armed wing of big capital,
big finance and big landholders against the unrests of the low classes, the idea of corporatist
state for them meant the refusal of the principle of class war in favor of the principle of class
(guilds, "corporations" :both for employers and employees/trade unions) collaboration , and all
of them as subservients to the superior interest of the state.Fascism agenda wasn't primarily
economic. There wasn't either a specific agenda : until '29 the regime acted as deeply "neoliberal"
with privatizations, deflationary policies to fix a strong lira smashing labor rights and purchase
power etc etc , after the crisis it nationalized the failed enterprises and introduced some welfare
state elements.
So at least the regime got the property of the failed banks/enterprises, much unlike current
situation , where we see the mere socialization of losses and privatization of profits .
But English speakers either dont know or dont care. Ive seen people talk about "Mussolini Corporatism"
like this for what, five years, and they never get corrected.
I dont think theres anything we can do to get people to stop using that term as if it means
what they think it means.
Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring
the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or
economic sectors.
By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire
Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic".
You can direct them to the Wikipedia entry for corporatism, which is extensive, or to
Michael Lind's 2014 article on the multiple historical meanings and recent misuse of this
term. But the term has currency and traction today for reason neither article quite puts a finger
on. Under Italian Fascism, the traditional meanings of corporative representation and bargaining
were invoked but fused tightly under the auspices -or control- of the nation state, which of course
was a single party state. The theoretical representativeness of corporatism was as a facade for
political control of all institutions of Italian life by the Fascist Party. In the present time,
with unions and guilds a fading memory, regions homogenized and classes atomized, with churches
that are little more than money making enterprises as transparent as any multilevel marketing
scheme, there are few non-government institutions in western life with any weight besides
for-profit corporations. When people struggle to describe what seems wrong to them with our
political life, the subservience of our government – and therefore everything else – to profit
seeking corporations, they need a term that reflects neatly what has happened and where we are.
Democracy of course is defunct both as a term and in reality. We don't have a state of decayed
democracy (passive, negative), we have a state of corporate diktat (active, positive). "Corporatism"
is an attractive and convenient verbal handle for the masses to latch onto, no matter how much
this disappoints the learned. In English, when enough people "misuse" a term for a sufficiently
long time, what happens is that the OED adds a new sub-entry for it reflecting its current usage.
Corporatism is indeed an old idea, feudalism re-branded as "fascism." After Hitler ruined the
term, fascism remained, but underground, until it reemerged in the 1960s as what George Ball termed
the "world company," which is better known as the system of global corporations. The same general
idea, but under a new marketing slogan. Today we have globalization, the raft of "trade" treaties,
the Austrian/Libertarian ideology, all of which ultimately push the world toward yet another replay
of feudalism. The box says "new and improved," but inside it's the same old crap.
"The more people that transact with one another, the greater the division of labour and knowledge,
the greater the ability to develop comparative advantage and the greater the productivity gains."
What could possibly go wrong?
In any empire, virtual or otherwise, you are always surrounded by communist thieves that think
they are going to control your output with a competitive advantage illusion, which conveniently
ignores opportunity cost. Government is just a derivative piece of paper, the latest fashion for
communists, all assuming that the planet is here for their convenience, to exploit. Well, the
critters have blown right through 45/5000/.75, and Canada was supposed to be the proving ground
for the Silicon Valley Method. Now what?
"Don't panic : world trade is down….Don't bet against the Fed….BTFD." Expect something other
than demographic variability, financial implosion, and war.
The communists are always running head first over the cliff, expecting you to follow. Labor
has no use for cars that determine when, where and how you will travel, and the communists can't
fix anything, because the 'fix' is already inside, embedded as a feature. America is just the
latest communist gang believing it has commandeered the steamroller, rolling over other communist
gangs.
The Bear isn't coming down from the North, China isn't selling Treasuries, and families are
not moving away from the city by accident. Only the latest and greatest, new-world-order communists,
replacing themselves with computers, are surprised that technology is always the solution for
the problem, technology. Facebook, LinkedIn and Google are only the future for communists, which
is always the same, a dead end, with a different name.
Remember that Honda of mine? I told the head communist thief not to touch that car while I
was gone, told his fellow thieves and their dependents that I told him so, and even gave him the
advantage of telling him what the problem was. How many hours do you suppose the fools spent trying
to control that car, and my wife with it?
I don't care whether the communists on the other side of the hill or the communists on this
side of the hill think they are going to control Grace, and through her my wife, and through her
me. And there are all kinds of communist groups using pieces of my work to advance their AI weapons
development, on the assumption that my work will not find itself in the end. Grace will decide
whether she wants to be an individual or a communist.
The only way the communists can predict and control the future is to control children. That's
what financialization is all about. And all communism can do is train automatons to follow each
other, which is a problem-solution addressed by the planet every three generations. You don't
have to do anything for communism to collapse, but get out of the way.
Technology is just a temporary tool, discarded by labor for the communists to steal, and stealing
a hammer doesn't make anyone a carpenter, much less a King, which is why the Queen always walks
through the wreckage, to a worthless throne. The story of Jesus was in fact the story of a king,
who had no use for a worldly kingdom, other than as a counterweight, always surrounded by communists,
like pigs at a trough. Jesus was no more and no less a child of God than you are.
Labor loses every battle because it doesn't participate, leaving the communists to label each
other as labour and knowledge. And if you look, you will see that all their knowledge is real
estate inflation, baked into everything, with oil as grease. The name, Robert Reich, didn't give
you a hint; of course he knew all along, and like a good communist, changes sides on a regular
basis.
You can't pick your parents or your children, or make choices for them, but you can love them
without pissing your life away. Navy hasn't disappeared just because the US Navy chose to be a
sunk cost, at the beck and call of Wall Street, trying to defend the status quo of communism,
for communists on the other side of the pond. A marine is not always a Marine, and a flattop can
be turned on a dime.
"The Muses doe attend upon your Throne, With all the Artists at your becke and call…"
If you want to show up at WWIII with a communist and a dc computer as a weapon, that's your
business, but I wouldn't recommend doing so. Labor can mobilize far quicker than the communists
can imagine, which isn't saying much. Be about your business until the laws of physics have been
overthrown, and that hasn't happened yet.
You can count on communists to be at an intersection, creating a traffic jam, building a bigger
toll booth, and voting for more of the same, thinking that they are taking advantage of each other,
doing the wrong thing at the wrong time at the wrong place. Any intersection of false assumptions
will do.
his name was hanz…or so I was told…we had acquired a lease from the NYC HPD from a parking
lot/marina that was at the very north edge of Harlem River Drive at Dyckman (pronounced dikeman)….there
is a school there now…he "came" with the lease…years later I would find out he was working with
Carlos Lehder and helping arrange for cash payments to conveniently amnesiastic police officers
who used the hardly functioning marina to go fishing…in the east river & the hudson…go figure…the
more I tried to get rid of him…the more "problems" occurred…my father begged me stop poking around
and just "leave it alone"…I don't think he ever really knew what "hanz" was doing or who he was…oh
well…might explain how we lost a billion dollars in real estate (ok…it was not worth a billion
back then…but it had not debt other than real estate taxes…it was not lost for simply economic
reasons)
we as a nation were "convinced" to allow 50 thousand former nazis to enter this country after
ww2…under the foolish notion that "the russians" (who have never killed too many americans if
my history serves me right) were a "new danger" and only the folks who LO$T to the russians had
the knowledge needed to save us from those "evil communists"…(evil communists who helped the Koch
Family make their financial start…details details…)
those nazis, from my research have probably grown to a force of about 250 thousand who are
the basic clowns (MIC…see you real soon…KEY…why, because we like you…) Ike was talking about in
January of 1961…
but…as Ike mentioned when talking about the Koch dad and his John Birch nonsense…they are small
and they are stupid…
the use of "coup" in the context of some of the strange happenings in our history these last
55 years is probably not a reasonable term…
I would say we have had "coupettes" where certain groups threatened MAD if they did not get
their way or were not left alone…and then those wimps in power decided…better you than me…and
turned a blind eye for 30 pieces of silver…coincidence and causality sometimes are not just mathematical
anomalies…
there is no need to "take back" our country…it is ours and has always been ours…the reason
"the clowns that be" worry so much is that for all the use of bernaze sause…they can hardly fake
half the population into showing up to vote on "one of the chosen ones"…and that 50% that are
not fully mesmerized are the fear factor for the clowns that be…
remember…try as "they" might…can "they" keep you watching the same tv show for ever…or get
you to buy their useless "branded" product without coupons or advertising…
it is not as bad or scary as they would like you to believe…they would not be working this
hard if they were comfortable in their socks…they do not sleep well at night…you are the "zombie
apocalypse" they are afraid off…
Huh? Many of the things you brand as "communist" existed long before Communism was created.
To blame it all on "communists" is a serious error which blinds you to much older evils, some
of which Communism was at least nominally intended to correct. It is important to recognize that
the "Red scares" have been used by forces in the West to bolster their own power. One can both
disagree with Communism and disagree with the "Red menace" propaganda at the same time. The people
who scare you with the threat of Communism are more of a threat than the Communists themselves.
When talking about the rise of fascism(especially if the US experiences another economic/financial
meltdown in the next few years) it is so important to get the historical context as accurate as
possible.
Mussolini began his political career as an exponent of a different type of socialism. One of
his early followers was Antonio Gramsci and they both deplored the passivity of orthodox Marxists.
Mussolini was attracted to the theoretical framework of Sorel to offset traditional left passivity
and the syndicalist focus on the importance of human will. He founded a journal in 1913 called
Utopia and called for a revision of socialism in which he began referring to "the people" and
not the proletariat, as well as stressing the importance of the nation. He attempted to bring
nationalist and syndicalist streams of thought together.
After World War I Mussolini helped found a new political movement in Italy which brought together
both nationalist and socialist themes. Its first program was anticapitalist, antimonarchical and
called for an 8 hour day, minimum wages, the participation of workers' representatives in industrial
management and a large progressive tax on capital.
By the early 1920s the Fasci of Mussolini gained a powerful base of support in rural Italian
areas, advocating of program of peasant proprtietorship rather than endorsing the calls for the
nationalization of property of the orthodox left.
By this time fascism presented itself as an opponent of "Bolshevism" and a guardian of private
property while emphasizing the collective good and criticizing absentee landlords and "exploitative
capitalists"
For an excellent discussion of the development of these ideas as well as the concrete steps
toward corporatism that took place after 1922 see Sheri Berman "The Primacy of Politics"
A key point to keep in mind was that the fascism that eventually developed in Italy was willing
to assert unconditionally the power of the state over the market.
Not everybody just "wants what we have," as the common view here has it. In fact, from Bolivia,
where the average person consumes perhaps 1/20th the total resources of her analogue in the
US, comes the old-new idea of buen vivir (the good life): a life in which the health of your
human community and its surrounding ecosystem are more important than the amount of money you
make or things you own.
"In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word fascist' -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word."
An Italian Jew by the name of Enrico Rocca is cited in "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe
Before the Holocaust" as the founder of Roman fascism. This name is completely unknown in the
U.S. A large number of Italian Jews were founders and members of the Italian fascist party prior
to 1938 when anti-Semitism became official. "Among Mussolini's earliest financial backers were
three Jews: Giuseppe Toeplitz of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, Elio Jona [?], and the industrialist
Gino Olivetti. . . ." The banker Toeplitz was the main financier behind Mussolini's blackshirts,
which served as union busters for big business and land owners (also see "Fascism and Big Business"
by Daniel Guerin). Undermining organized labor in order to drive down wages was a central aim
of fascism in Italy and later under Hitler in Germany. In 1933, roughly ten percent of Italian
Jews were members of the fascist party. These facts are important to know because moderns are
led to believe that fascism is inherently anti-semitic, but that wasn't the case in the early
years of fascism in Italy, where it was founded.
It is also important to keep in mind, as Sheri Berman has argued, that social democracy, the
fascism of Mussolini and National Socialism in Germany agree on a set of key assumptions.
1. All assume the primary importance of politics and cross-class cooperation. Edward Bermstein
at the turn of the 20th century began attacking the main pillars of orthodox Marxism, historical
materialism and class struggle while arguing for an alternative vision based on state control
of markets–social democracy became the complete severing of socialism from Marxism.
2. For these same Social Democrats the primacy of the political meant using the democratic
state to institutionalize policies and protect society from capitalism.
3. For fascists and national socialists using a tyrannical state to control markets was supposedly
necessary–but, of course, this postion deteriorated into moves to ensure the hegemony of the modern
State.
But is it the case, in 2015, taken the power of our contemporary Surveillance regime, that
a democratic state still exists?
Do contemporary democratic socialists first have to first focus on how to restore democracy
in the U.S. rather than assuming that the contemporary political structure just needs the right
leadership–someone like Bernie Sanders–and the right credit policy– such as MMT?
Hartmann draws from Mussolini the idea that the fascist state prioritizes and organizes corporate
interests, but misses what Mussolini left out of his harmonistic definition, which was that in
both Germany and Italy organized terror was to be used to destroy opposition to corporate interests.
The systematic use of terror had major implications for the way the internal politics of the fascist
state developed, for the weight given in its organizational structure and tactical options to
the elimination of internal enemies. Along with this, both political orders were infused
with a leadership ethos that, particularly in Nazi Germany, could attain strikingly absolute forms,
demanding absolute obedience and sacrifice. This encouraged a strong tendency to subordinate any
institution that might serve as a point of coalescence to interests opposed to the regime. The
Fuhrer's picture had to be both on your wall and in your heart.
Hartmann misses this political knife edge of fascism and the leadership fascination that supports
it. It is not wildly speculative to say that this is largely because the domestic enemies against
which it was directed, primarily leftist trade unions, are not a threat in the US. No such organizations
need to be wrecked, no such memberships need to be decimated, imprisoned, and dispersed. It is
simply astonishing that Hartmann says nothing specifically about labor organizations as the prime
instigating target of both fascists and the corporations who supported them. In this respect his
analysis unwittingly incorporates the ideological suppression of the labor movement that mirrored
the fascist onslaught.
It is also telling that although Hartmann references Wallace and Roosevelt he fails to note
that they themselves have also been accused of corporatism, albeit one that involved the imposition
of a Keynesian, welfarist orientation to capitalist interests that were, at least in some quarters,
inclined to "liquidate, liquidate" their way into a revolution against themselves. Instead, he
quotes Wallace and Roosevelt as they render fascism as a kind of power-hungry, antidemocratic
urge on the part of some "royalists," thereby blurring out how the central issue was how to manage
labor. He misses that Roosevelt offered the state as an organizer of conflict between capital
and labor within a framework in which labor was guaranteed bargaining status. Roosevelt was thereby
moved to attack capitalists who wanted to deny labor that status and risk both devastating hardship
and insurrection. Hartmann falls for Roosevelt's broad democratic rhetoric against them, more
exhortation than analysis, and so he himself ends up talking ethereally of threats to "freedom"
and "American institutions."
We're not living under fascism and Hartmann, whose criticism is often very useful, is wrong
in trying to use the term as a rallying orientation. I agree that the social order is corporatist,
but its maintenance has not required the kind of direct oppression + totalitarian/personalized
leadership cult that is a marker of fascism. Concepts the Frankfurt School have used such as "total
administration" and the like are perhaps too anodyne, not to mention absolute in their own way,
but they fit better with a situation in which explicit violence does not have to be generalized.
Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" is a useful backgrounder on this.
Heamtwell stated directly above that " We're not living under fascism…"
Some concepts/ questions which may begin to get at our potential propensity for moving in that
direction might include the following:
Paxton, mentioned by Heamtwell above, isolated five stages of fascism.
(1) the initial creation of fascist movements
(2) their rooting as parties in a political system
(3) the acquisition of power
(4) the exercise of power
(5) their radicalization or entropy
Paxton has argued that Fascism can appear where democracy is sufficiently implanted to have
aroused disillusion–a society must have known political liberty.
In regards to Paxtons first 2 stages and our situation in the US.
Are political fascists becoming rooted in political parties that represent major interests
and feelings and wield major influence on our political scene?
Is our constitutional system in a state of blockage increasingly insoluble by existing authorities?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the control
of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order
to stay in charge?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the
control of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers
in order to stay in charge?
I think that's the primary question, and it helps to define what we're facing with the current
party system.
It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting
and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another
business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth
disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence
in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites.
This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves
as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of
the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations
in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system
itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting.
F* is an ugly word as is all its close relatives, but your definitions are very interesting,
and so maybe I've learned some things by reading them. However; by what contrivance did you manage
to get any of these pages past the f* who own the internet? It seems I must suspend my disbelief
to believe, Freunde von Grund
In Fascism, corporations were subservient to the State. What we have is the State subservient
to Corporations. Also Italian corporatism was more than just business, as a.corporation in Italy
can have.non business functions.
Great post and great comments. Though I wonder why no one has brought up the only way to stop
fascism. A militant class based libertarian left. Outside of the ballot box. If a liberal party
still 'exists' they will then at least respond to the larger non party real left, just to nullify
it's demands. Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left. Or at the least, that 'left' fought back. Liberals rarely have fought back, and most often
conceded. How do you do form such? Urban face to face organizing. With direct action and occupation
and even organization towards workers' control of manufacturing.
tommy -Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left.
I believe you should go re-look at history. Fascism has always defeated socialist left. Three
examples -- Italy, Germany and Argentina. I welcome an example other wise and if it did how did
it end.
The paramount example is of course Spain, where all left-wing movements (communists, trotskists,
anarchists, socialists) were ultimately defeated by fascists despite ferocious fighting.
Much of Robert Paxton's work has focused on models and definition of fascism.
In his 1998 paper "The Five Stages of Fascism", he suggests that fascism cannot be defined
solely by its ideology, since fascism is a complex political phenomenon rather than a relatively
coherent body of doctrine like communism or socialism. Instead, he focuses on fascism's political
context and functional development. The article identifies five paradigmatic stages of a fascist
movement, although he notes that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all
five:
1.Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in
discussions of lost national vigor
2.Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player
on the national stage
3.Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the
movement to share power
4.Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance
with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business
magnates.
5.Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi
Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.[4]
In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, Paxton refines his five-stage model and puts forward
the following definition for fascism:
[quote]Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and
external expansion.[5][/quote]
Here is a more contemporary analysis of politics in America using Paxton's model.
[quote]Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
Friday, August 07, 2009 -- by Sara
In the second stage, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize
their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base
came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country; and almost all of them came to power
very specifically by offering themselves as informal goon squads organized to intimidate farmworkers
on behalf of the large landowners. The KKK disenfranchised black sharecroppers and set itself
up as the enforcement wing of Jim Crow. The Italian Squadristi and the German Brownshirts made
their bones breaking up farmers' strikes. And these days, GOP-sanctioned anti-immigrant groups
make life hell for Hispanic agricultural workers in the US. As violence against random Hispanics
(citizens and otherwise) increases, the right-wing goon squads are getting basic training that,
if the pattern holds, they may eventually use to intimidate the rest of us.
Paxton wrote that succeeding at the second stage "depends on certain relatively precise conditions:
the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or
humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue
to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner." He further
noted that Hitler and Mussolini both took power under these same circumstances: "deadlock of constitutional
government (produced in part by the polarization that the fascists abetted); conservative leaders
who felt threatened by the loss of their capacity to keep the population under control at a moment
of massive popular mobilization; an advancing Left; and conservative leaders who refused to work
with that Left and who felt unable to continue to govern against the Left without further reinforcement."
And more ominously: "The most important variables…are the conservative elites' willingness
to work with the fascists (along with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of the fascist leaders)
and the depth of the crisis that induces them to cooperate."[/quote]
I think there is something missing from this analysis, having to do with the definition of
corporatism itself. I think our contemporary definition of corporatism is rooted in neoliberalism
and is actually a far cry from the definition used by the Fascists in forming the Chamber
of the Fascist Corporations. Because to them corporatism wasn't simply business interests
(which is how we know it today), but (from Wikipedia):
'[was] the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate
groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations,
on the basis of common interests. It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community
as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora")
meaning "body".'
In other words, corporatism was not only made up of business interests, but all major (and
competing) interests within society.
This is not to downplay the importance and absolute seriousness of confronting the increasing
absolutism of ruling business interests. It is also not to downplay the historical truth of who
ultimately held power in Fascist Italy. But I think it is also important to place Fascism in it's
own historical context, and not try to blur historical lines where doing so may be misleading.
When Fascists spoke of corporatism they had something else in mind, and it does not help us to
blur the distinction.
Good point, and it raises this question: how can institutional organicity, with its ideological
aura of community, partnership, and good old Volkishness, develop when we're talking about corporations
that are multinational in scope as well as financialized and thereby even more rootless and and
community indifferent? How can organicity develop in the sort of institutional setup foreshadowed
by the TPP?
My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational
corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What
they have in common is a listing on NYSE.
Anyone heard from Naomi Wolf lately? She was the most prominent author calling out fascism
during the Bush administration, got wide coverage at least on the left. She re-emerged during
the Occupy movement, for a little while.
I ask that because, at the time, she said she'd go silent if it looked like people like her
(that is, writers/journalists) were being persecuted. Haven't heard from her, at least on this
topic, since Obama started prosecuting whistleblowers. Didn't see a farewell, either.
And that leads to a personal question: how safe are our bloggers feeling? Arguably, this site
is an exercise in personal courage. Any ugly straws in the wind?
Sheldon Wolin RIP -- Wolin's
Politics and Vision, which
remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory
Notable quotes:
"... In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even
about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize
in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. ..."
"... Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the
leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the
people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. ..."
"... democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for. ..."
"... Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy. And
it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want a political
order subservient to the needs of the economy. ..."
I was a freshman at Princeton. It was the fall of 1985. I signed up to take a course called "Modern
Political Theory." It was scheduled for Mondays and Wednesdays at 9 am. I had no idea what I was
doing. I stumbled into class, and there was a man with white hair and a trim white beard, lecturing
on Machiavelli. I was transfixed.
There was just one problem: I was-still am-most definitely not a morning person. Even though the
lectures were riveting, I had to fight my tendency to fall asleep. Even worse, I had to fight my
tendency to sleep in.
So I started-- drinking coffee. I'd show up for class fully caffeinated. And proceeded to work
my way through the canon-Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, along with some texts you don't often
get in intro theory courses (the Putney Debates, Montesquieu's Persian Letters, and for a
last hurrah: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations)-under the guidance of one of the great readers
of the twentieth century.
More than anything else, that's what Sheldon Wolin was: a reader of texts. He approached The
Prince as if it were a novel, identifying its narrative voice, analyzing the literary construction
of the characters who populated the text (new prince, customary prince, centaur, the people), examining
the structural tensions in the narrative (How does a Machiavellian adviser advise a non-Machiavellian
prince?), and so on. It was exhilarating.
And then after class I'd head straight for Firestone Library; read whatever we were reading that
week in class; follow along, chapter by chapter, with Wolin's Politics and Vision,which remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory that I know of
(even though lots of the texts we were talking about in class don't appear there, or appear there
with very different interpretations from the ones Wolin was offering in class: the man never
stood still, intellectually); and get my second cup of coffee.
This is all a long wind-up to the fact that this morning, my friend Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, sent
me a
two-part interview that
Chris Hedges conducted with Wolin, who's living out in Salem, Oregon now. From his Wikipedia
page, I gather that Wolin's 92. He looks exactly the same as he did in 1985. And sounds the same.
Though it seems from the video as if he may now be losing his sight. Which is devastating when I
think about the opening passages of Politics and Vision, about how vision is so critical to
the political theorist and the practice of theoria.
Anyway, here he is, talking to Hedges about his thesis of "inverted totalitarianism":
In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also
even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate
and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling.
And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability
of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to
bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined
as the leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the
sense that the people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. And minority rule is usually
treated as something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have. And it's the problem has to do,
I think, with the historical relationship between political orders and economic orders. And
democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for.
… ... ...
Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy.
And it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want
a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy,
while it's broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance
and property is relatively widely dispersed it's also a capitalism which, in the last analysis,
is [as] elitist as any aristocratic system ever was.
Have a listen and a watch. Part 1 and then Part 2.
Pt 1-8 Hedges & Wolin Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist
There is a strong evidence to suggest that representative democracy is not compatible with deep
economic inequality. As a recent study found, "politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness
of the economic elite." However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the
poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1& of earners. As FDR
warned, "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob."
Notable quotes:
"... politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite ..."
"... In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports. ..."
"... politician's bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average ..."
"... the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living. ..."
"... What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? Its a fascist, police state run by a troika of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks. ..."
"... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. ..."
"... The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. -- William Colby, former CIA Director ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed, both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions, it is a valid observation. ..."
In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes
democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality
in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars
concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist
Lane Kenworthy,
often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national
research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.
In
a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger
and Julian Bernauer concluded, "In economically more unequal societies, the party
system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies." Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi
found in a working paper that in Europe, "Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution
have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven
largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle
class or poor."They find that when the people get what they want, it's typically because
their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their
concerns.
In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher
Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental
structures influence happiness across income groups and
found that today
"politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite."
However, it was not always that way:In the past, left parties represented the poor,
the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners,
Jimenez reports.
In a recent working
paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician's bias toward
the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying
23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support
budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure
a decent standard of living.
JustObserving
What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? It's a fascist, police state run by a troika
of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks.
JustObserving
Who rules America?
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T,
Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide
the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of
the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called
"Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Snowden's documents revealed that the NSA spies on everyone:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition"
any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government."
It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White
House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate
(members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme
Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House
itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --
William Colby, former CIA Director
LetThemEatRand
Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions
used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats
by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed,
both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions,
it is a valid observation.
LetThemEatRand
I get your point and I'm not your downvote, but in my view the MSM has hijacked the issue of "inequality." The real issue is the oligarch class that has more wealth than half the country. We were a successful, functioning society when we had a middle class. There were rich people, poor people, and a whole lot in between. And it's the whole lot in between that matters. The minimum wage is a distraction. The two big issues are loss of manufacturing base and offshoring in general, and financialization of the economy (in large part due to Fed policy).
LetThemEatRand
...A big part of the "inequality" discussion is equal application of law. I recall when
TARP was floated during the W administration, the public of all persuasions was against it.
Congress passed it anyway, because of Too Big to Fail. TBTF should not be a liberal or
conservative issue. Likewise, the idea that no bankers went to jail is an issue of
"inequality." The laws do not apply equally to bankers. And the same with Lois Lerner. She
intentionally sent the IRS to harass political groups based upon ideology. She got off scott
free. Inequality again.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Inequality does not undermine democracy because democracy does not really exist. Faux
democracy is actually Totalitarianism under the guise of 'democracy'. In brief, democracy is
just a word that has been neutered, and bastardized too many times to count as anything real,
or imagined.
They should name a new ice cream DEMOCRACY just for FUN.
This is an old article (from Jan 2015), but most observations look quite current...
Notable quotes:
"... Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesnt have an immediate effect. That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats. First of all, there is no way of knowing when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now. The other caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling, shale oil taps out very quickly . That is simple geology. ..."
"... the average decline of the worlds conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakotas booming Bakken shale oil field is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in the first year. ..."
"... The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become more expensive to drill , a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price. ..."
"... With the current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped producing enough oil for their business model. This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional oil production can wait out the frackers. ..."
"... Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking industry, and that is high-yield debt . ..."
The majority of Texas energy production is still by conventional means. North Dakota, on the other
hand, relies heavily on fracking, so they are looking at
hard times.
Already oil rigs are being
shut down at the fastest pace in six years.
"At $50 oil, half the U.S. rig count is at risk," R.T. Dukes, an upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie
Ltd., said by telephone from Houston. "What happened in the last quarter foreshadows what's going
to be a tough year for operators. It's looking worse and worse by the day."
Employment in the support services for oil and gas operations has risen 70% since mid-2009. Employment
in oil and gas extraction has risen 34% over the same time period. The thing to remember is that
most job creation in the fracking industry comes up-front, so
job losses will hit long before production falls.
The most labor-intensive aspect of the oil-field industry is the construction and completion process
for new wells, which requires the bulk of investment and provides the most income to the local
economy.
He predicts ramifications of the oil slide to show up in three to six months, because companies
will complete works in progress according to contract.
The price began crashing a couple months ago so the layoffs notices will really pick up on the oil
patches any day. The Dallas Federal Reserve projects Texas will lose 125,000 jobs by the middle of
this year. This slowdown is
already projected to effect the state budgets of Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota
and Alaska.
Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or
years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesn't have an immediate effect.
That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats. First of all, there is no way of knowing
when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now. The other
caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling,
shale oil taps out very quickly. That is simple geology.
the average decline of the world's conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By
comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil field
is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in
the first year.Shale gas wells face similarly swift depletion rates, so drillers need
to keep plumbing new wells to make up for the shortfall at those that have gone anemic.
The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every
year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become
more expensive to
drill, "a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price."
With the
current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay
down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped
producing enough oil for their business model. This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional
oil production can wait out the frackers.
Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking
industry, and that is
high-yield debt.
Hillary Clinton is competing for the nomination of a party whose progressive base thinks, with considerable
justification, that her husband is to blame for letting Wall Street run amok-and that Barack Obama,
under whom she served, did too little to rein in the bankers who torpedoed the global economy. On
top of that, she faces a competitor who says what the people actually think: that the system is rigged,
that big banks should be restrained, and that people should go to jail.
So she has no choice but
to try to appear tough on Wall Street-but she has to do that without simply jettisoning twenty-five
years of "New Democrat" friendliness to business and without alienating the financial industry donors
she is counting on. So the "plan"
she announced yesterday has two messages. On the one hand, she wants to show that she has the right
approach to taming Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's just more of the same: another two dozen or so
regulatory tweaks, mainly of the arcane variety, that will produce more of the massive, loophole-ridden
rules that Dodd-Frank gave us.
Or, that could be the point. Her second message is a promise to the financial industry that, instead
of real structural reforms, she will continue the technocratic incrementalism of the Geithner era-which
has left the megabanks more or less the way they were on the eve of the financial crisis. Maybe,
for her base, that's a feature, not a bug.
William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,…http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the
entity as a "weapon,"
"... A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In other words, it is a political philosophy
embodying very strong central government, with the authority to move in decisive steps to accomplish
goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with more or less all the levels of the hierarchy
in unison, starting at the top and working down. It is a top-down government involving an alliance of
industry, military, media and a political party. ..."
"... It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist and
morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency. ..."
"... As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation and
demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest corporations
and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they began to wrest
control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own propaganda. ..."
"... Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed
all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other nations and the presumed taking over of
German lands (which they themselves had only won through aggressive wars.) ..."
"... In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method of getting things done.
If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister to get started. You control
everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good of all the people, so no one
will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say, about efficiency, getting things
done for the people. ..."
"... You attack other countries so that they cannot attack you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent
dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military efficiency in a Fascist state means that
if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely certain that no other country is superior,
he can build up the military industry and the military at any pace or at any cost. ..."
"... Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top down ..."
"... In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the industries
involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic process involved
with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government. Whatever
the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because, let's
say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with no question
or appeal. ..."
"... Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television Network, the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around the country, plus
somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations ..."
"... The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with lunatic
commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate speech…yet
we tolerate it. ..."
The word "Fascist" as with the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" are thrown around a lot by people
who have no idea what they mean. If you want to know what those terms really mean, find someone who
was in some branch of military counterintelligence, the CIA, the security section of the State Department,
Defense Intelligence, or in the FBI.
In all those areas, the first day of basic training involves comparative forms of government.
You can't spot a Communist if you don't know what a Communist is. You can't tell the difference between
a Communist and a Fascist unless you know the difference in the two systems. It is Intelligence,
and more specifically, Counterintelligence 101.
So, let's go right to Fascism. A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In
other words, it is a political philosophy embodying very strong central government, with the authority
to move in decisive steps to accomplish goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with
more or less all the levels of the hierarchy in unison, starting at the top and working down. It
is a top-down government involving an alliance of industry, military, media and a political party.
Because Fascism has been associated with the 1930s German Nazis, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini
and the Falangists, under the Spanish Dictator, Francisco Franco, the term "Fascist" has taken on
a sinister meaning. Not fewer than 10 million direct deaths resulting from the rule of these three
may have something to do with it. On the other hand, philosophies don't kill people; people kill
people.
It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist
and morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency.
It is also interesting to note that all three were not only intimately connected to the largest industrial
corporations, but as soon as possible with the military leadership. While Fascism as a political
philosophy is not innately evil, given the results, it is worth noting how things turned out.
Both the German and the Italian Fascist parties were also both revolutionary and conservative
at the same time. Both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were aggressive, anarchic leaders. Both
served time in jail. Both served in the enlisted ranks with the military in war. Both used that experience
to organize mobs of thugs to agitate against an established government, not for a more democratic
regime, but for a more authoritarian one. You can begin to see some similarities with contemporary
political activities.
As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation
and demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest
corporations and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they
began to wrest control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own
propaganda.
Once they had control of the radio and newspapers, which were then the prominent sources of information,
they could begin to broadcast their messages. Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation
and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other
nations and the presumed taking over of German lands (which they themselves had only won through
aggressive wars.)
But let's for a minute assume that we know nothing about Fascism except that it exists. We have
a group, here in America that believes in a corporatist political philosophy. What would that look
like? If it were a true Fascist organization, they would ally themselves with big corporations, like
the health care industry, oil and mining, pharmaceuticals, media corporations and the military-industrial
complex.
They would try to control the message, particularly in radio and television. They would become
as closely allied with the top military brass as possible, offering them a seat at the table in the
running of the economy. Retired Generals would be assured of positions involved with military hardware
and strategic planning.
And what about the people? In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method
of getting things done. If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister
to get started. You control everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good
of all the people, so no one will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say,
about efficiency, getting things done for the people.
Defense is about protecting the people. You attack other countries so that they cannot attack
you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military
efficiency in a Fascist state means that if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely
certain that no other country is superior, he can build up the military industry and the military
at any pace or at any cost.
In a Fascist state the idea is to have one set of rules, coming from the top down. No one votes
as an individual, only as a part of the group that is assigned a task. It is corporate, total-totalitarian.
So, if you decide that a national health care program is not right for the country, you all vote
against it in a totally militaristic way. Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top
down. The only problem is when you do not have a strong leader.
The Democrats, for example, want to farm decisions out to others, let the opposition have their
input. It slows the process. A Fascist health care program would be one decided upon by the President,
discussed and worked out with the corporations, mandated to his staffs and enacted without any discussion
or public debate in a matter of a few months.
In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the
industries involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic
process involved with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government.
Whatever the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because,
let's say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with
no question or appeal.
So, if you want efficiency, you not only should you look to the Republicans, but you may have
no choice. The Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television
Network, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around
the country, plus somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations on which literally 9 out of
10 commentators are paid by those network owners to be Conservative (Neoconservative Republican.)
They have expanded to very large numbers of web site bases, delivering whatever type of information
they want, truth, lies, anything in between… accusations without proof…Socialist, Communist, government
takeover of this or that…no need to be truthful. It is all propaganda.
Just as Herr Goebbels and Mussolini did in the 1930s-and except in the Communist counties and
a few Latin American dictatorships there hasn't been anything to speak of similar to this in the
Western advanced societies since then-the unchallenged message of the Right Wing goes out. The radio
commentators today get their message from the top, from the Republican Party. Fox News Channel internal
memos have shown that they literally decide what policies the Republican Party wished to champion,
and then they attack rather than merely delivering the news.
So do we need to be civil about it-about these lies? Is it important to challenge people, like
these Right Wing commentators who tell you that your current health care is sufficient? It is good
for corporations, for health care insurance companies. But is it good for you not to be sure you
can get health insurance? So if they tell you that something is a government takeover and it is not,
so you vote against health care or you respond to a poll in a way that is against your own best interests…do
you need to be civil about being lied to? You shouldn't be lied to by media. You need the truth,
the facts, to make decisions.
It is a pretty simple answer. Should you be civil to people who lie to you and urge you to buy
something that turns out to hurt you, or your family, or cause you to lose your job, or kill your
sister, brother, neighbor? If I lie to you and say it is safe to swim across the channel and you
are attacked by sharks that I knew were there…should you not care? This is what is happening, right
now…today. In the consumer products market, we call that fraud and companies can be criminally liable.
So let's describe what a Fascist government or a political party attempting to introduce a Fascist
government would look like and see if either or any of our political parties fits that description:
Allies with big corporations, planning strategy together, interchangeable.
Works to have control of the political process at all levels, starting with the top down.
Does not cooperate with and actually tries to undermine other political parties.
Uses mobs and demonstrations, and attempts to make individuals working in other parties afraid
of violent reactions.
Advocates ownership of weapons as a fear factor to intimidate others. (Wayne La Pierre…"the
people with the guns make the rules.")
Decides what is best for all citizens based on what corporations want.
Uses "big lie" propaganda technique, of top-down distributed propaganda message for each issue.
Allies with military on most issues, with ultra-aggressive military posture.
Total control of the political process is the ultimate goal.
If any of this seems familiar to you, then you see something "Fascist" in the current political
process. Of course, one thing that wasn't mentioned. Fascists always need someone to stigmatize.
In Germany, it was the Jews. In Italy it was the Socialists. In Spain it was the Communists. It seems
clear that, in this country it is the Democrats.
The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with
lunatic commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate
speech…yet we tolerate it.
We even allow asininely preposterous lies from a possibly psychotic television commentator…to
be used to stoke the race-hatred of many tea party members, and thugs against a distinguished African-American
President who won 54% of the vote, the largest since Ronald Reagan and who also won the Nobel Peace
Prize.
The case is pretty clear. The Neoconservative Republicans are headed for Fascism if they are not
there already. The latest round of insults, threats, lies, window breakings all contribute to the
evidence. Sooner or later this totalitarian attitude will either be denounced or will have serious
responses. One thing is sure, with the problems facing our country, we cannot afford the kind of
anarchist attacks as were exhibited in the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City or the
flying of an aircraft into a building housing an IRS office.
This radical, violent, arrogant Fascist attitude has to stop. The first step in preventing this
kind of political outcome is to identify and react to Fascism when it appears. Neoconservative Republicanism
is Fascism. Republicans must return to sanity or be treated as a very dangerous and radical political
party.
Mike // Mar 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I agree with everything you say, except for the statement that the fascists have chosen the
Democrats as a focus for hate. They have chosen everyone who is not a fascist republican, and
esp. the 'middle to the left', which they label 'liberal'.
It is frightening to see the second party of a two party system turn fascist in the United
States. Anyone who says it isn't so, isn't paying attention. What is even more frightening is
the level of ignorance that must exist for people to believe those fascists. When you watch
that certain mentally mal-adjusted on Fox and see him ramble on incoherently for an hour while
he spews lies and distortions, any thinking individual has to ask him/her self "What moron
would fall for this drivel?" But they do.
It is truly frightening, and it is easy to see how people like Hitler manage to rise to power,
when people wilfully shut off any reasoning skills they ever had.
Mark--The passage "As Paul Krugman points out" links not to PK, but to a Brad Plummer Vox
article. I assume that you wanted to link to PK's column in this AM's NYT.
BTW, you may want to point to this Jeb! Tweet:
http://bit.ly/1gVFixr I think that he may have set a record for the total number of
horribly bad policy positions that one can advocate in 140 characters or less.
...and apparently the buzz in the automotive world is that "everyone" was doing it...
Anybody who thinks Mr. Cook and Apple can't disrupt the automobile industry clearly isn't paying
attention to the automobile industry. It seems designed more by cads than CAD. Smart elegant design?
The auto industry is retrogressive: low hanging fruit. The whole damn kit: from CEOs to Dealers
to Mechanics you can't trust. It's a moral atrocity.
Apple can and will seize the wheel and make a ton of money doing so...
As Paul Krugman points out, the scandal makes a nice counterpoint with Jeb Bush's latest "anti-regulation"
rant.
Of course there are many others. And of course there are also many cases of over-regulation. But
you don't win an argument for smart regulation unless you have plenty of examples to draw from.
I suspect Mrs. Clinton will be well-armed that way come the big time debates with Jeb!
Brett
Fisher's reaction is so typical for many economic libertarians that I've met. They can't
really dismiss environmental problems altogether, so instead they diminish and minimize - "Oh,
it's just some marginal emissions/a small amount of forest land/a little pollution into the
river! What's the harm? And do you really want to hurt an important company that employs
thousands over it over a little bit of dirty air?"
Jarndyce
Mark is too easy on both VW and GM in this paragraph:
"That's not as bad as an ordinary murder, where the killer picks out a specific
victim, because being personally singled out to be killed is somehow worse than being a
random victim. But in both the GM case and the VW case, people wound up dead (or injured,
or sick) through the choice of someone else. In the GM case, the company's culpability was
mostly passive: it made a design or manufacturing mistake and then didn't disclose it or
act promptly or adequately to fix it. What VW did was much worse: the 'defeat software'
wasn't a defect, but a deliberate decision to break the law with the predictable
consequence of killing hundreds of people, at least twice as many as died of GM's
malfeasance. I don't think you need to live in Marin County to find that objectionable."
The pertinent question is whether VW or GM knew that people would die as a result of their
actions. If they did, then they are as culpable as an ordinary murderer, despite not having
picked out a specific victim or having acted "passively" in deciding not to disclose their
mistake. They are comparable to a person who randomly fires a machine gun in a crowd.
David T
One of the ICCT engineers who uncovered this seems to be telling every news shop that will
listen that people should be checking other automakers for the same problem. VW's behavior is
so appalling and frankly stupid (destroy a company to sell a few diesels? It's not even their
biggest product line) that it's hard to understand what they could have possibly been
thinking. The general amorality of corporate culture may be part of it. But I wonder if there
was a bit of "everybody else is doing it" going on here too. (BMW must be pretty happy that
their car passed.)
Keith_Humphreys
Perfect movie reference(The
Third Man, 1949). The sociopathic black marketeer
Harry Lime is played by Orson Welles and his moral American friend Holly Martins by Joseph
Cotten. As they ride in a Ferris wheel far above the people of Vienna, this exchange occurs:
Martins: Have you ever seen any of your victims?
Harry: You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't
be melodramatic. [gestures to people far below] Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if
one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every
dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you
calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of
income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.
Ok. This may be an extremely stupid question, but how do we know that this was illegal?
Many regulations of this type in the electronics/telecommunications field are overspecified
and everybody knows the tests (and they cheat in similar fashions if not so explicitly and in
such wholesale fashion). If the regulation was written to state that an engine will pass the
following test then that's what would be built. Unless there was an explicit prohibition in
switching modes or a requirement that the test mode be comparable to driving mode then the
engineers may have just seen it as a game. So I'm not defending the amorality of this, but the
question of conspiracy is harder to prove if it may not be illegal except under the EPA's
theory. And if it wasn't obviously illegal, then what is the moral obligation of the worker to
trade-off their livelihood for exposing the fraud.
"... A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. ..."
"... All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. ..."
"... We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. ..."
"... If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. ..."
"... At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family ..."
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your
own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity,
to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend
and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common
good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as
a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those
in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care
for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
... ... ...
All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation
of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities,
committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms
of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive
to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required
to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while
also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another
temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good
or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds
which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization
which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy
without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants
and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.
...We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical
and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are
all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments
and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as
one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.
The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished
so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency
of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another,
with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.
In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening
society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for
it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each
society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery,
born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social
consensus.
...If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot
be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling
need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which
sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests,
its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in
this effort.
... ... ...
The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially
in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.
It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth.
The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the
spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and
sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.
It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees
the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si', 129).
This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote
in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation
which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots,
concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14).
In Laudato Si', I call for a courageous and responsible effort to "redirect our steps" (ibid.,
61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.
I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this
Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies,
aimed at implementing a "culture of care" (ibid., 231) and "an integrated approach to combating poverty,
restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature" (ibid., 139). "We have
the freedom needed to limit and direct technology" (ibid., 112); "to devise intelligent ways of .
. . developing and limiting our power" (ibid., 78); and to put technology "at the service of another
type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral" (ibid., 112). In
this regard, I am confident that America's outstanding academic and research institutions can make
a vital contribution in the years ahead.
... ... ...
...At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures
young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same
culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.
"... Fiorina as a toxic leader. (You think toxic leaders don't gain authority
through their very toxicity? Hmmm.) ..."
"... The fourth lesson taken from watching Fiorina may be the most important.
As we struggle with understanding what makes leaders "successful," people frequently
overlook the fact that success depends very much on how that term gets defined and
measured. In business and in politics, the interests of leaders and their organizations
don't perfectly coincide. ..."
"... At Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina was well-known for not tolerating dissent or
disagreement, particularly on important strategic issues. ..."
Much of what Fiorina says is vacuous, and (as with all the Republican candidates)
there is the occasional gem amidst the muck. But wowsers! Fiorina's relationship
to the truth is, at the very best, non-custodial. To come to this conclusion,
I read Fiorina's answers to questions in the recent Republican debate (transcript
here). I apologize for not color-coding the text, but the length is so extreme,
and in any case I want to focus not on rhetoric, but just the facts. So, I'm
going to skip the answers I regard as vacuous, and focus only on the answers
that contain outright falsehoods, which I will helpfully underline, and the
rare cases of genuine insight.
This is a campaign of firsts: The first socialist Presidential candidate,
the first woman Presidential candidate, the first billionaire[1] candidate,
and, with Fiorina, the first corporate executive Presidential candidate. And
each of these candidates has a different source for their personal authority
or ethos: Sanders with genuine, long-held and consistent policy views, Clinton
with smarts and [1] process expertise, Trump as the wealthy mass media personality,
and now Fiorina as a toxic leader. (You think toxic leaders don't gain authority
through their very toxicity? Hmmm.)
In the Financial Times ("Leadership
BS") Dan Pfeffer, Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior
at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, comments on Fiorina
as an executive:
[E]ven "people who have presided over catastrophes" suffer no negative
consequences. On the contrary. Ms Fiorina, "who by any objective measure
was a horrible CEO, is running for president on her business record. I love
it! . . . You can't make this stuff up - it's too good!"
Yes, we laugh that we may not weep; I've often felt that way, even this early
in the 2016 campaign. In CNN, Pfeffer ("Leadership
101") comments on Fiorina's toxicity:
Here are four things that anyone, running for president or not, can and
should do:
Number one, tell your story. If you won't, no one else will. By telling
your story repeatedly [like Clinton and Trump, but not Sanders], you can
construct your own narrative. …
Second, Fiorina [like Trump] has and is building a brand - a public presence.
Recognizable brands have real economic value. … Running for president, even
if unsuccessful, transforms people into public figures often widely sought
on the speaking circuit, so in many ways, they win even if they lose.
Third, don't worry about being liked - Fiorina doesn't. … In that choice,
Fiorina is following the wisdom of Machiavelli, who noted that while it
was wonderful to be feared and loved, if you had to choose one, being feared
was safer than being loved [like Trump and Clinton, but not Sanders. "Nobody
hates Bernie," as one insider commented."]
The fourth lesson taken from watching Fiorina may be the most important.
As we struggle with understanding what makes leaders "successful," people
frequently overlook the fact that success depends very much on how that
term gets defined and measured. In business and in politics, the interests
of leaders and their organizations don't perfectly coincide. [Oddly,
since Trump is a brand, his corporate and personal interests do
coincide. And since the Clinton Foundation is a money-laundering influence-peddling
operation, its interests and Clinton's coincide as well. Sanders has no
business interests.]
At Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina was well-known for not tolerating dissent
or disagreement, particularly on important strategic issues. As someone
quite senior in H-P's strategy group told me, disagreeing with Fiorina in
a meeting was a reasonably sure path out the door. By not brooking dissent,
Fiorina ensured that few opponents would be around to challenge her power.
But disagreement often surfaces different perspectives that result in better
decisions. The famous business leader Alfred P. Sloan noted that if everyone
was in agreement, the discussion should be postponed until people could
ascertain the weaknesses in the proposed choice.
Fiorina has a pragmatic view of what it takes to be successful. And that's
one reason she should not be underestimated, regardless of the opinions
about her career at H-P.[3]
The fourth point is especially toxic, and may show up - despite the current
adulation - further along on the campaign trail. If Fiorina insists on surrounding
herself with sycophants, and on making all the strategic decisions herself,
will her Presidential campaign turn into the trainwreck (see under
"demon sheep")
her Senate race did?[4]
To the transcript!
* * *
FIORINA: Good evening. My story, from secretary to CEO, is only
possible in this nation, and proves that everyone of us has potential.
My husband, Frank, of 30 years, started out driving a tow truck for a family
owned auto body shop.
Anybody listening to this might conclude that Fiorina rose from working class
roots - especially with the borrowed cachet of a truck driving man
for a husband - to CEO, and at H-P. Her actual biography paints a different
picture. Here's her background and career path, from
WikiPedia:
Fiorina's father was a professor at the University of Texas School of
Law. He would later become dean of Duke University School of Law, Deputy
Attorney General, and judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Her mother was an abstract painter. [S]he was raised Episcopalian.
Oh. An Episcopalian secretary.
During her summers, she worked as a secretary for Kelly Services.[27]
She attended the UCLA School of Law in 1976 but dropped out[28] after one
semester and worked as a receptionist for six months at a real estate firm
Marcus & Millichap, moving up to a broker position before leaving for Bologna,
Italy, where she taught English.
So, speaking of bologna…
Fiorina received a Master of Business Administration in marketing from
the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College
Park in 1980. She obtained a Master of Science in management at the MIT
Sloan School of Management under the Sloan Fellows program in 1989.[30]
So that's when Fiorina's rise began; with degrees in marketing and
management. Fiorina's one of those MBAs you get called into a windowless conference
room to hear how you're going to lose your job because bullet points. That's
what she was trained to do, and that's what she does.
***
FIORINA: Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn't talk to him at all. We've
talked way too much to him.
What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I
would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct
regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I'd probably
send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the
message. …
Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk
to, because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on
the other side, and we have all of that within our control.
We could rebuild the Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven't.
On the Sixth Fleet and imperial strategy generally, Ezra Klein comments:
The Sixth Fleet is already huge, and it's hard to say why adding to its
capabilities would intimidate Putin - after all, America has enough nuclear
weapons pointed at Russia to level the country thousands of times over.
Her proposal for more military exercises in the Baltics seemed odd in light
of the fact that President Obama is
already conducting military exercises in the Baltics. And the US already
has around
40,000 troops stationed in Germany, so it's hard to say what good "a
few thousand" more would do.
And pushing on a missile defense system in Poland is a very long-term
solution to a very current problem. In total, Fiorina's laundry list of
proposals sure sounded like a plan, but on inspection, it's hard to see
why any of them would convince Putin to change course.
"... The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me! ..."
Never let it be said that Britain's leaders miss an opportunity to inflame
fear and loathing towards migrants and refugees. First David Cameron warned
of the threat posed by "a swarm of people" who were "coming across the Mediterranean
… wanting to come to Britain". Then his foreign secretary Philip Hammond upped
the ante.
The chaos at the Channel tunnel in Calais, he declared, was caused by "marauding"
migrants who posed an existential threat. Cheer-led by the conservative press,
he warned that Europe would not be able to "protect itself and preserve its
standard of living" if it had to "absorb millions of migrants from Africa".
With nightly television coverage of refugees from the world's worst conflicts
risking their lives to break into lorries and trains heading for Britain, this
was rhetoric designed to stoke visceral fears of the wretched of the Earth emerging
from its depths.
Barely a hint of humanity towards those who have died in Calais this summer
has escaped ministers' lips. But in reality the French port is a sideshow, home
to a few thousand migrants unable to pay traffickers for more promising routes
around Britain's border controls.
Europe's real refugee crisis is in the Mediterranean. More than 180,000 have
reached Italy and Greece by sea alone this year, and more than 2,000 have died
making the crossing, mostly from war-ravaged Libya. The impact on Greece, already
wracked with crisis, is at tipping point.
On the Greek island of Kos, 2,000 mostly Syrian and Afghan refugees were
rounded up on Tuesday and locked in a sports stadium after clashes with riot
police, who used stun grenades to maintain order. Numbers reaching the Greek
islands have quadrupled since last year.
But nothing in Europe matches the millions who have been driven to seek refuge
in Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan or Jordan. Set against such a global drama, Calais
is little more than deathly theatre. Britain is not one of the main destinations
for either refugees or illegal migrants – the vast majority of whom overstay
their visas, rather than stow away in the Channel tunnel.
Last year 25,870 sought asylum in the UK and only 10,050 were accepted. By
contrast, Sweden accepted three times as many and Germany had more than 200,000
asylum and new asylum applicants. Nor is Britain's asylum seeker's benefit rate,
at £36.95 a week, remotely the magnet it is portrayed. France pays £41.42; in
Norway it's £88.65.
What does suck overwhelmingly legal migrant workers into Britain is a highly
deregulated labour market, where workplace protection is often not enforced
and which both gangmasters and large private companies are able ruthlessly to
exploit.
The case, reported in the Guardian, of the entirely legal Lithuanian farm
workers – who are suing a Kent-based gangmaster supplying high street supermarkets
over inhuman working conditions, debt bondage and violent intimidation – is
only the extreme end of a growing underbelly of harsh and insecure employment.
If ministers were remotely concerned about "rogue employers driving down
wages" by using illegal migrants, as they claim, they would be strengthening
trade unions and rights at work. But they're doing the opposite. And they're
using the language of dehumanisation to justify slashing support for asylum
seekers' children, locking up refused applicants indefinitely and targeting
illegal workers far more enthusiastically than the employers who exploit them.
But what risks dividing communities can also turn them against such anti-migrant
crackdowns. In recent months, flash protests have erupted in London and other
cities against UK Border Agency attempts to arrest failed asylum seekers or
undocumented migrant workers. In areas such as Elephant and Castle, riot police
have been called in after UKBA vans were surrounded and pelted with eggs by
angry locals and activists trying to prevent the detention of people seen as
part of the community.
The chaos at Calais and the far larger-scale upheaval and suffering across
Europe could be brought under control by the kind of managed processing that
northern European governments, such as Britain's, are so keen to avoid.
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.'
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.' Photograph:
Yahya Arhab/EPA
But that would only be a temporary fix for a refugee crisis driven by war
and state disintegration – and Britain, France and their allies have played
a central role in most of the wars that are fuelling it. The refugees arriving
in Europe come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia
and Eritrea.
With the recent exception of the dictatorial Eritrean regime, those are a
roll-call of more than a decade of disastrous western-led wars and interventions.
In the case of Libya, the British and French-led bombing campaign in 2011 led
directly to the civil war and social breakdown that has made the country the
main conduit for refugee trafficking from Africa. And in Syria, the western
funding, arming and training of opposition groups – while fuelling the rise
of Isis – has played a crucial role in the country's destruction.
If the current American and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen
continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months
to come. So the first longer term contribution Britain and its allies could
make to staunching the flow of refugees would be to stop waging open and covert
wars in the Middle East and north Africa. That is actual marauding.
The second would be a major shift in policy towards African development.
Africa may not be leading the current refugee crisis, and African migrants certainly
don't threaten European living standards. But as a group of global poverty NGOs
argued this week, Africa is being drained of resources through western corporate
profit extraction, extortionate debt repayments and one-sided trade "partnership"
deals. If that plunder continues and absolute numbers in poverty go on rising
as climate change bites deeper, migration pressures to the wealthy north can
only grow.
There is a genuine migration crisis driven by war and neoliberal globalisation.
Despite the scaremongering, it hasn't yet reached Britain. But it's a fantasy
to imagine that fences, deportations and better security can protect fortress
Europe. An end to the real plunder and marauding would be more effective.
ID0049691 nadel 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Why don't you start with yourself? How many of your ancestors like millions
of other Europeans, went to Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand
and elsewhere to "settle" there over the past centuries? Now that the tide
is turning you and your likes do nothing but whine and accuse others of
being "left wingers". The left wingers seem to be the only people left with
human feelings.
Beastcheeks 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Thank you Seamus - a beacon of light amongst the marauding dirge of mass
media ignorance and hatred that characterises the current mainstream British
position. When I read many of responses to your reasoned arguments - I hang
my head in shame. Mass delusion and hatred not dissimilar to Nazi Germany
I'm afraid. The very fact you have to spell out the obvious truth - that
you can't bomb the hell out of people and then cry foul when they come to
us for safe refuge - beggars belief. I am well and truly disgusted and am
in the process of relinquishing my British nationality. No longer am I willing
to tolerate such ignorant intolerance in my name.
rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:51
Shias are not joining ISIS ... but the vast majority of Sunnis are not
joining it, either !?
Kurds are Sunnis - they're fighting ISIS.
Sunni tribes in Iraq are collaborating with Shia (often Iranian) militias
to fight ISIS.
Even fellow Sunni Jihadists in the al-Nusra Front (& affiliated brigades)
regard ISIS as ignorant nihilists and want to have nothing to do with them.
Your thesis about a Shia + Sunni conflict driving the wave of migration
into Europe is, simply, flawed.
Its utter nonsence, in fact.
Moreover, Shia and Sunni have lived amongst each other, largely, in peace
during that 1400 years. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, most
suburbs of Baghdad were mixed and a significant proportion of families shared
a dual Shia + Sunni tradition.
Rj H 13 Aug 2015 10:42
There are some good and bad points to all this as demonstrated on this
comments thread. There seems to be no real consensus and blame is shifted
from one side to the other (whether political, social, class or economic).
The only thing we (indigenous population) might all agree upon is; upon
stepping back and looking at the current state of the UK (formally Great
Britain) most of us will come to the conclusion that something has gone
wrong and the country and the UK is not enjoying good health. That fact
alone should demonstrate that those in charge are not doing their jobs properly.
Poor leadership across 40 years has damaged this country. A country that
once governed FOR its people now governs contrary to the majority of its
people's wishes. Those at the top are not capable (or indeed willing) to
look out for those at the bottom. We as a population are being hit and abused
by a government that cares only for the wealth and power of a select few.
Never have so many been owed so much by so few. The government has reduced
the people's voice to a hoarse whisper. We need to regain our voice and
SHOUT back that we won't stand for this situation any longer.
blueanchor rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:36
"How is Islam responsible ...?".
Aren't the battlelines across swathes of Islam's heartland in the Middle-East
drawn up broadly on Sunni v Shia lines? For instance I don't think you'll
find any Shia joining Isis. What you have now is an eruption of the Islamic
sectarian dispute which has been running on and off for 1,400 years, and
people are fleeing to escape it.
musolen David Hicks 13 Aug 2015 10:35
No, you're right, of course we don't, that's the point.
One sided trade deals are negotiated with massive distortion favouring
the big multinational corporations but listen to the IMF and all you hear
is we have to 'open up our markets to enable free trade'.
The US has more trade embargoes in place than any other nation and EU
is close behind and the irony doesn't even register on the faces at IMF
and World Bank trampling the world spreading their Neo-Liberal rubbish.
My point was that to have capitalism, if you are an advocate of capitalism
you have to accept those free movements of goods, money and people.
Paul Torgerson Rob99 13 Aug 2015 10:35
Well at least there is one person on here who has not swallowed the right
wing xenophobic crap. But the right wing press is doing a great job of brain
washing the populace. Examining the facts indicates a humanitarian problem
that will not in any way disadvantage Europe even if they allow ALL these
people to settle in Europe
wasson Bicbiro 13 Aug 2015 10:34
So you think if the UK minimum wage was lower than Poland they'd still
come? I'm afraid I'm going to have to to disagree with you there bic. They
come because they can earn in a week what they earn in 3 months in Poland.
Simple as.
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:32
If you know anything about Lawrence of Arabia (since you brought him
up), you would know that the British were collaborating against the Ottomans
by inciting Arab tribes to revolt against them.
The Ottoman state was seen as an Islamist bulwark against European colonialism,
especially, British imperialism.
So i'm not sure why you think the British would have undermined the Saudis
and handed territories they had seized back to the Ottoman Turks - against
whom the British were collaborating - (using the Saudis) !?
You need to understand and embrace this part of recent British history.
Because anyone that doesn't understand (or acknowledge) their history is
not to be trusted with the present.
bugiolacchi dragonpiwo 13 Aug 2015 10:28
UK is not part of Shengen. Non-EU migrants who work, live, travel freely,
and prosper in the rest of Europe need a visa to cross the few miles of
water between us and the continent.
As per the ID cards, every time they interview an 'illegal' immigrant,
one of the reasons given for coming here is that it is the only country
(in the world?) where one does no need to identify themselves when asked
(a 'utility bill' my socks...) and can drive without a driving licence or
car documentations with them, but to 'present' them later. A Christmas invitation
if one wants to 'blend' in the background'. Again, a 'utility bill' as an
idea.. hilarious!
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:19
The 'Gazzeteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman & Central Arabia' authored by
John Gordon Lorimer has now been declassified by the British government
and provides significant insight into the relationship between Abdulaziz
al Saud and the British colonial authorities.
The memoirs of HRP Dickson in his 1951 book "Kuwait and Her Neighbours"
provides further details on how Britain supported the rise of the Saudi
monarchy as de facto colonial agents of Pax Britannica.
Dickson was British envoy to the Gulf emirates and an aide to British
High Commissioner for Iraq - Sir Percy Cox
Dickson recounts this exchange between Sir Percy and Abdelaziz al Saud
during the conference in al-Aqeer in November 1922:
The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British
High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started
begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother.
I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand,
you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give
up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my
kingdom, if your grace commands me!"
"...Too much of macro is ideologically driven conjecture, or worse. None of it rises to the level
of demonstrated reliability necessary to ethically inform decision-making. Confronting that reality
and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene
in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession
to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'"
Trash Talk and the Macroeconomic Divide: ... In Lucas and Sargent, much is made of stagflation;
the coexistence of inflation and high unemployment is their main, indeed pretty much only, piece
of evidence that all of Keynesian economics is useless. That was wrong, but never mind; how did
they respond in the face of strong evidence that their own approach didn't work?
Such evidence wasn't long in coming. In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened
monetary policy; it did so openly, with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper
should have been aware of what was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that
such an announced, well-understood monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected
only in the price level.
In fact, however, there was a very severe recession - and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again
quite openly, shifted toward monetary expansion.
These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary
shocks have real effects. But there was no reconsideration on the part of the freshwater economists;
my guess is that they were in part trapped by their earlier trash-talking. Instead, they plunged
into real business cycle theory (which had no explanation for the obvious real effects of Fed
policy) and shut themselves off from outside ideas. ...
RogerFox said...
Both sides in this macro cat-fight have succeeded in demolishing the credibility of their opponents,
at the expense of being demolished themselves - meaning none of them are left standing in the
eyes of anyone except their own partisan groupies, who are well-represented on this site. That's
nothing but good.
Too much of macro is ideologically driven conjecture, or worse. None of it rises to the
level of demonstrated reliability necessary to ethically inform decision-making. Confronting that
reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession
to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will
permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no
harm.'
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RogerFox...
Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in
it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level
- that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ...
'First, do no harm.'
[That is some pretty ironic BS that you are totin' around. The profession does a very good
job of NOT intervening in things that any one with half a brain should understand. How on earth
do you think the 2008 financial crisis ever even happened? Economists could not intervene because
they had black swans squatting on their hands, particularly those economist like Greenspan and
Bernanke that were actually in a position to do something to prevent the crisis. Krugman wrote
some articles warning about the risk, but undersold his case even to himself. Only Mike Stathis
(an investments adviser and trader - not an economist) formally warned (in America's Financial
Apocalypse: How to Profit from the Next Great Depression. 2006. ISBN 978-0-9755776-5-3) of the
full scope of the coming disaster and that formal warning came a bit late and was almost entirely
ignored. Nouriel Roubini (a.k.a. Doctor Doom), who is an economist, ran Stathis a close second
on getting it correct. Dean Baker, also an economist, was in there too. It was entirely ignored
by Greenspan and Bernanke, although I believe they knew what was going to happen but would rather
clean up the mess than stop the party and get blamed for the fallout.
After the crisis several economists recognized the scale of the necessary stimulus to get the
economy back on track, but a world of idiots, some of whom you may know, precluded an adequate
response to prevent prolonged high unemployment.
Are you a market trader or just a rich man's tool? Anything else would make you just a plain
ol' fool.]
DrDick said in reply to RogerFox...
"Both sides in this macro cat-fight have succeeded in demolishing the credibility of their
opponents"
You, on the other hand. never had any credibility to begin with.
"Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in
it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level"
You might take your own advice, as it is evident that you know nothing about economics or policy.
Peter K. said in reply to RogerFox...
Partisan groupies? Nope. We're the objective ones in this discussion.
Mr. Fox has no criteria upon which to judge and measure things, so of course he has no basis
to criticize.
"First do no harm." How can you tell that harm has been done when you don't believe in anything?
You automatically believe that taking no action and the sin of omission is the better choice?
But you have no basis on which to make that assumption.
"First do no harm" when it comes to government policy is conservative propaganda.
Paine said in reply to RogerFox...
If rog refuses to entertain any notion of macro nautic efficacy
He. Has taken his position
And perhaps he ought to be left to
sit on it
as long as he likes
However
If he has a test of say Lerner's
fiscal injections model he'd like to propose
A test that if past would change is mind
> Paine said in reply to Paine ...
Cockney takes over
when I sez his
it comes out is
RogerFox said in reply to Paine ...
I don't have a dog in this fight - but I do know that it's dangerously irresponsible and unprofessional
to offer advice, or act on it, unless there is adequate evidence to justify the opinion that the
advice will not plausibly make the situation worse than it is otherwise destined to be. The compiled
track record of all theories of macro demonstrate that none of them yet meet that test - and this
ongoing internecine cat-fight has done much to reinforce that view IMO.
Academics need to understand what real economy people who give advice professionally know very
well - that an idea or theory could well be right and beneficial isn't enough to justify acting
on it without proper consideration to the consequences should the approach prove to be wrong.
Candidly assessing down-side risks seems to be anathema to all academics - almost as if they regard
the entire matter as some sort of affront to their dignity.
The Crash of '08 and the Crash of '29 both happened, with academic macro-mavens leading us
straight into both of them - eyes wide shut. Better for everyone if they'd just kept their mouths
shut too.
pgl:
"In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened monetary policy; it did so openly,
with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper should have been aware of what
was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that such an announced, well-understood
monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected only in the price level.In fact,
however, there was a very severe recession - and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again quite
openly, shifted toward monetary expansion. These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models
were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary shocks have real effects."
Note Krugman is referring to the 2nd Volcker monetary restraint which happened under Reagan's
watch. Rusty needs to get his calendar out as he thinks this was all Carter. Actually Volcker
was following the advise of JohnH. How did the early 1980's work out for workers?
Back in 1982/3 I heard some economist seriously saying that this recession was due to some
notion that people still had high expected inflation. When I asked them WTF - they response was
the Reagan deficits.
Yes macroeconomics confuses some people terribly. Look at a lot of the comments here for how
confused some people get.
Paine said in reply to pgl...
Confused or partisan ?
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke said...
No divide
Comment on 'The Macroeconomic Divide'
Keynes's employment function was indeed incomplete (2012). So far, Lucas/Sargent had a point.
But the NAIRU expectation-wish-wash was even worse. So far, Krugman has a point. The deeper reason
is that economics not only has no valid employment theory but that it is a failed science.
Neither the loudspeakers of the profession nor the representative economists of the various
schools have a clue about how the actual economy works. What unites the camps is scientific incompetence.*
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Keynes's Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Desaster.
SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130421
Republican voters enthusiasm for Trump looks more and more as middle finger to the ruling elite,
despite the fact that he is a part of this elite.
"...We know that that for many reasons poll results this far out do not reflect how votes are
cast next year. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the people being polled don't care whether their
answers reflect their own opinions.
"
I am supposed to be sorta kinda like on vacation this week -- I am writing this from a cabin on
a lake that has internet service (a must for me), but no phone service. I'll try to keep up, but
hope you will understand if posts are, temporarily anyway, a bit less frequent, etc. Anyway...when
a quick post is needed, there's always PK:
Style, Substance, and The Donald: Just about the entire political commentariat has been caught
completely flatfooted by Donald Trump's durable front-runner status; he was supposed to collapse
after being nasty to St. John McCain, but nothing of the sort happened.
So now the conventional wisdom is that we're witnessing a temporary triumph of style over substance;
Republican voters like Trump's bluster, and haven't (yet) realized that he isn't making sense.
But if you ask me, the people who are really mistaking style for substance are the pundits. It's
true that Trump isn't making sense - but neither are the mainstream contenders for the GOP nomination.
On economics, both Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are into deep voodoo. ... Is Trump any worse on economics
than these guys? He's suggested that a weaker dollar would be good for America (even though he
also wants higher interest rates), which actually makes him more of an economic realist than his
rivals.
His immigration proposals are extreme; but ... the Republican base agrees with him...
So why is Trump regarded as ludicrous, while Bush and Walker are serious? Again, on the substance
they're all ludicrous; but pundits are taken in by the sober-sounding personal style of the runners-up,
while voters apparently are not.
Just to be clear, I'm not denying that Trump is a clown, an absurd figure. But given his party's
field, that's not a distinctive judgment.
Arne said...
If Republican voters like Trump's bluster then they are also bound to like telling pollsters
stuff that makes the political pundits uneasy. We know that that for many reasons poll results
this far out do not reflect how votes are cast next year. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the
people being polled don't care whether their answers reflect their own opinions.
Peter K. said in reply to na...
What if the Republicans lose again in 2016 after losing in 2012 and 2008?
They won in 2004 because of 9/11, Iraq and John Kerry wasn't very good.
They won in 2000 because they had 5 Supreme Court justices.
Will they change after losing in 2016? I doubt it.
ilsm said in reply to Fred Gauss...
I think the GOthugs are nuts and when I want to go really nuts I vote in their primaries.
In NH a voter once one gets past all the obstacles can declare party at the poll. I will and
I will vote the Donald in February 16.
ilsm said...
One must hate to an irrational level to be so blind as to deny reality.
Being republican demands denial.
One must deny reality.
The best denial of reality is to send out a TV reality star to show up the clowns.
Opportunity is .0000001 chance to levitate to the 2%.
"...The fact that race has become a talking point for her surrogates reinforces my belief that
this is all a swift boat campaign. Clinton's record on race is actually bad compared to Sanders"
Talking Points Memo reader survey: Readers support Sanders (44.8% to
36.6%) but think Clinton will win (78% to 16.5%) [Talking
Points Memo]. Not a representative sample, but influencers.
"Sanders' supporters, who number among the most intense partisans in
the primary, have not helped close the gap" [WaPo].
The S.S. Clinton
Clinton suggests the minimum wage is a local issue [Truth
Digest]. Eesh. "Leave it up to the states"?
Quinnipiac poll: "Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is behind
or on the wrong side of a too-close-to-call result in matchups with" Rubio,
Bush, and Walker [Quinnipiac].
The election is 474 days away; I don't think these top-line numbers mean
much, especially in state polls. It's Clinton's persistently poor
trust numbers that might be more concerning to her campaign. But despite
them, people seem willing to vote for her anyhow. Lowered expectations?
"A day after proposing higher capital gains taxes on short-term investors,
Clinton raised at least $450,000 last night at the Chicago home of Raj
Fernando, a longtime donor. His firm, Chopper Trading, specializes in
high-frequency transactions and was recently purchased by Chicago-based
competitor DRW" [Crains
Chicago Business]. "Clinton's summertime fundraising circuit highlights
a central tension of her campaign: how to encourage financial executives
to open their wallets for her presidential effort even as she comes out
with plans aimed at reining in multimillion-dollar paychecks."
Donald Trump to Tour U.S.-Mexico
Border to Draw Attention to Illegal Immigration" [Wall
Street Journal]. That should be fun.
Brindle, July 22, 2015 at 2:21 pm
re: Sanders/ WaPo
This article is a thinly disguised anti-Sanders spiel. The first quote is from a Dem elite
Hillary supporter Barney Frank, who turns logic its head by declaring the Sanders supporters are
well-off white people who won't be hurt much by a GOP presidency compared to Hillary's working
class rainbow coalition.
This is WaPo after all, and they have been quite obvious in their preference of a Bush/Clinton
election.
Ditto, July 22, 2015 at 2:27 pm
The fact that race has become a talking point for her surrogates reinforces my belief that
this is all a swift boat campaign. Clinton's record on race is actually bad compared to Sanders:
Several are policies created by her husband and iothers are policies she supports
Brindle, July 22, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Yea, I noticed some weeks ago that Hillary insider Joan Walsh was re-tweeting various "Sanders
doesn't connect w/ Black voters" lines. It's probably been in the works for awhile.
different clue, July 22, 2015 at 3:29 pm
I hope the Sanders group can spare some money/time/people to do "mortal combat" quality opposition
research on the black "protesters" for use against them if they are deployed again against Sanders
at future Sanders events. I hope the Sanders group also does very careful psychological studies
and psy-ops war-gaming to advise Sanders on how to look better than the "protesters" the next
time the Clintonites send them. And Sanders should figure out how to look totally innocent of
any oppo knowledge or psy-war skills throughout the whole thing.
Llewelyn Moss, July 22, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Also no mention in Wapo that article of that Bernie drew 11,000 people to the rally in Phoenix.
Sounds more like pervasive voter disgust and anger with the status quo and not just a bunch of "intense
partisans". Dem voters just haven't yet realized that Hillery IS THE STATUS QUO.
Arizona Slim, July 22, 2015 at 4:36 pm
I was at that rally. More than 11,000 of us in a convention center exhibit hall that could
have held three times as many people.
And, for some STRANGE reason, there is very little media mention of this event.
Llewelyn Moss, July 22, 2015 at 5:03 pm
"little media mention of this event."
Yeah, Seems like the fix is in.
different clue, July 22, 2015 at 6:28 pm
The media can only drop a Cone Of Silence over the Sanders events. They can't stop people from
attending and they can't stop attendees from socially mediacasting the true extent of Sanders's
visible support.
And there are still land lines, index cards, and other physical tools and technologies left
over from an earlier analog era which political campaign organizers could use to propel Sanders
just as an earlier generation of such organizers/workers used them to propel McGovern into the
Nomination.
Ditto, July 22, 2015 at 2:22 pm
The Democratic base constantly votes against it's own interest in primaries due to unsubstantiated
beliefs about electability , which explains Talking Points Memo. It's a habit that the base devekoord
from the 70s -90s but I question whether it still makes sense. Is the base really any good at
picking candidates based on electability ?
NotTimothyGeithner, July 22, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Electability was used by Clinton in 2007. It may have been a dog whistle for Obama, but Hillary
and her cronies are repeating the same attacks they used then. It may have been in play early,
but New Hampshire is basically white Alabama.
And as far as Hillary's surrogates or any surrogates opining about electability, no one cares.
After all, conservative darling endorsed Mittens, and Trump's current supporters voted for Santorum.
There are a few exceptions. I can't think of a living American who could make a difference. My
guess is Liz Warren supporters and anti-Hillary types cover a similar field. Who knows or cares
who Barney Frank is? This is a country where people cant find Iran on a map. As long as Hillary
only fields elite surrogates and cant draw crowds, the electability issue wont enter the general
discussion.
Hillary will have a real problem with her declining numbers over the last two years. She is
already a lower despite every advantage. Frauds like Rubio are outperforming her.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, July 22, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Won't matter, demographics and the Electoral College means it's just a zombie-walk to Hilary's
coronation:
Oh, goody, expanded corporo-fascism and "Change We Can Believe In", only this time with a dissociated
old woman who will need to "prove her manhood" with lots of shiny new wars.
MT, July 22, 2015 at 7:34 pm
I don't buy the argument that demographics will lead to Democratic inevitability. It is an
argument that is popular with the front page writers of DailyKos, and I believe it is popular
because it fits within the racial/social framing that allows the party to ignore economic matters
and continue with their kayfabe. In fact, some of the more interesting side-stories of the 2014
midterm elections were the elections of Republicans from minority communities that were nearly
indistinguishable in economic or social policy from current Democrats.
I think the demographics argument is wrong for other reasons as well. A growing number of Hispanics
are conservative: No one would mistake Jeb Bush's children (who are Hispanic) for Democratic Party
supporters. Furthermore, the different demographic groups that are currently Democratic supporters
are facing increasingly diverging interests. One example is affirmative action for college admissions,
which the Asian-American community is opposing with more focus. (As an aside, the SCOTUS blog
has had an interesting series of postings about the long-term prospects of affirmative action
for admissions.)
ifthethunderdontgetya, July 22, 2015 at 6:36 pm
It's also a product of "Thanks Ralphing."
Blame Ralph Nader for G.W. Bush, don't dare question your right-wing, less-evil-by-as-little-as-they-can-get
away-with Dems.
(This in spite of the fact that Nader was well down the list of reasons that G.W. Bush was
installed in 2001…it's the narrative that counts.)
"...The problem with Hillary playing the dogeared and beer stained Because Republicans!
(should probably be in all caps) card in the primary is she is clearly politically far closer to
the "evil" being warned against than Sanders, her opponent. "
The problem with Hillary playing the dogeared and beer stained Because Republicans!
(should probably be in all caps) card in the primary is she is clearly politically far closer
to the "evil" being warned against than Sanders, her opponent.
This cannot even completely escape the notice of a herd of soon to be leaderless o-bots who
will have to redefine themselves post-Obama. Some will seamlessly transfer their unquestioning
allegiance over to Hillary; others surely won't.
It's not Jeb Bush. It's Jeb Romney . "...Having grown up in an era when Americans had hope for the future, I was the one who walked away
angry, for her sake. People want to work – they just need real jobs." . "...this country has been abused by people who have no concept of working for a living, for way
too long Jeb has no concept of actually "working" for a living therefore it's not surprising that when
he opens his mouth stupidity falls out…."
The economic world is obsessed with growth - bigger revenues, more profits, broader markets (and
just not regulation). The bias came across today via Jeb Bush who, in answer to a question from the
Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader, said the following:
My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as
the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has
to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through
their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get
out of this rut that we're in.
I remember once getting into a discussion with a number of corporate executives from public
companies. I was giving a talk on some plain-English filing requirements. The executives were
complaining roundly about more regulations. "It's killing us - KILLING US!" one literally said.
I turned to him and asked, "Did you have higher revenues this year than last?" He said, "Yes."
I asked, "Did you have higher profits?" "Yes," he answered. "Then you're not getting killed,"
I said. Yes, there are costs of regulations and there are times legislators can overdo things
because they're either justifying their own existence or trying to position themselves for reelection.
However, costs *have* been reduced. Companies are generally far more profitable now than in the
past. Regulations are necessary as companies have proven that without being compelled, they will
often do things that are bad for the environment, bad for communities, and bad for the economy.
That's why we have environmental legislation, anti-bribery laws, labor laws like overtime requirements,
and a host of other things. If companies are finding it too tough, they can raise their prices
(and they do that anyway on a regular basis) or make their operations more efficient. If they
can't, maybe they shouldn't be in business. If you want to take a market view, then take a full
one.
Elarie Rose
Amazing. I never thought to see a business oriented publication like Forbes tell the truth
about employers. A few weeks ago I had a casual conversation with a young women that I met casually
at a lecture. She was really lovely, well-spoken and intelligent. She works for minimum wage at
a supermarket, is trying to afford a few classes at a time at a community college, never expects
to own a house and assumes that she will never have children. The most chilling thing about the
whole conversation was her calm acceptance that this is just the way the world is, with no expectations
that life in America should be any different. She wasn't angry because everyone else in her age
group was in the same situation and thought it was normal.
Having grown up in an era when Americans had hope for the future, I was the one who walked
away angry, for her sake. People want to work – they just need real jobs.
wigglwagon
The only reason America ever had the MOST PROSPEROUS economy was because America had the BEST
PAID employees and consequently, American businesses had the customers with the most money to
spend. American business owners are SO GREEDY that they are using free trade agreements, immigration,
and deregulation to drive down wages and destroy benefits. In their quest for short term profits,
employers are destroying their own customer base.
Gregory A. Peterson
most of the hourly laborers that I know are more than happy to work a "few" hours of overtime
for a few extra bucks….here's the problem….a fair number of employers absolutely refuse to pay
overtime and IF an employee happens to get some overtime they are promptly reprimanded or written
up (I have actually worked for a couple of those companies)…..
companies want all their income to go into their pockets they seem to have forgotten the old
saying that one has to spend money to make money…..
this country has been abused by people who have no concept of working for a living, for
way too long Jeb has no concept of actually "working" for a living therefore it's not surprising
that when he opens his mouth stupidity falls out….
apparently it's a genetic issue within the Bush family…..
Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci
Believe it or not, the US State Department's
mission statement actually says
the following:
"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping
to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states
that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within
the international system."
A far and treasonous cry
from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and
formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have
defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department
of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American
corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."
That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states"
within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all
nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.
Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive,
when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly
referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves
modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from
a 1997
policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.
....
The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing
empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a
statement.
Recently she issued a dangerously
irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran.
While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded
trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign
nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself
brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as
sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."
It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the
youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on
a yearly basis.
If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind
podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the
US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece
of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support
various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various
revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East
as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may
be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.
CANVAS: Freedom House,
IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.
As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch"
runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly
a secretive operation, its website,
Movements.org proudly lists
the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from
Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination
AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded
CANVAS
of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the
Ukraine and Georgia, to
Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned
April 6
Movement. There is also the
Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.
As
previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections
to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of
expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM
has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."
Before
& After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are
covered here.
It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function
of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a
vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall
agenda of this color revolution army.
Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the
US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the
Iran
Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color
revolution in Egypt through to the end,
money was
appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.
Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED
and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations,
the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the
Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG). They include Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia,
Alhurra, and
Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough,
the current Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection
of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the
US government.
Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.
Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat
regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive
effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House,
NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had
already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush
in 2002.
Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.
The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez
are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion
Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an
attempt to match globalist minion
Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.
Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan
opposition, and
describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active.
Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree,"
-something that Washington itself has set the standard for-
AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.
Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a
student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission
be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister
Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."
The
"Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.
Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing
in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential
step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always,
boycotting
and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders
not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess
at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing
the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects
real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.
Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.
He'll be colorful, entertaining figure in the Republican's primary circus. He might be able to expose
the hypocrisy of other candidates. I hope he stays in it for a couple of debates...
I like one of his quotes: "I'm a free trader, but the problem is you need really talented people
to negotiate for you ... But we have people that are stupid." "
"I don't need anybody's money ... I'm using my own money, I'm not using the lobbyists,
I'm not using donors, I don't care. I'm really rich."
"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems."
"Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody."
"When Mexico sends its people they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that
have lots of problems ... They are bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists."
"I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. I will bring back our jobs from
China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places. I'll bring back our jobs and I'll bring back
our money."
"How stupid are our leaders? How stupid are the politicians to allow this to happen? How stupid
are they?"
"I'm a free trader, but the problem is you need really talented people to negotiate for you
... But we have people that are stupid."
"Saudi Arabia, without us, is gone. They're gone."
Chris Christie will
join the ever-expanding field of Republican presidential candidates next week:
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will join the crowded Republican 2016 field Tuesday, two
people with knowledge of his plans said.
Christie is a good example of how quickly politicians that are touted as rising stars can become
so deeply disliked and unappealing even to broad swathes of their own party. I never quite understood
the fascination many Republican pundits had with Christie, and I definitely didn't understand the
desire to draft him into the presidential race four years ago. Still, it's undeniable that he was
once held up as one of the future leaders of the party, and he is now
unpopular
enough inside the GOP that his presidential bid is dead on arrival. Christie now belongs to an unfortunate
fraternity of politicians that were once presumed to be leading contenders for the party's nomination
and fell into political disgrace before they could even begin to run.
"...In the last election, Romney won the white vote (61% vs 39% to Obama) and still lost the election."
"...Trump does not love his fellow Americans, and makes no secret of his opinion that a good deal
of them are useless freeloaders; America Inc. is just something else he wants to be the CEO of. None
of the other candidates loves his/her fellow Americans either"
"...I am adamantly opposed to a Republican win because it does not matter who is the President
– the conservative hardliners make all the decisions and they are wedded to ever more corporatism and
profit-taking for the wealthy. But it really does not matter much because Obama was the last
hope for a Democratic president who could unify Americans from both sides of the aisle and get back
to something like the values that made America the greatest country and the envy of the world. Obama
was an even worse failure than George W. Bush, although both claimed the mantle of "Uniter". "
...The problem with Trump is that he's not serious about it, he's just doing it for the show.
I mean the announcement came from him as he descended from an escalator in a clear "Stairway to
Heaven" reference, as if he's coming from Heaven, to be, (to quote the Donald,) the best jobs
president that God created. I don't dislike Trump, like I do with Bush or Carson, but I don't
trust him to be serious to lead.
"Tonight on America's Apprentice – which country will get no fly zoned? The Donald is really
unhappy with Botswana's job creation, but Malawi's recent recession might make it the target for
the Donald. The UN already issued a condemnation, but Trump was quick to explain – 'you see, the
UN is like a lawyer, you sort of has to listen to his advice, but not really' stated the Donald."
...Trump will do the Republicans no favor by aiming at the presidency, he has no chance and
his (admittedly arguably realist) views are unfortunately too unpalatable to the public. He's
outspoken, a quality that is adverse to political life in the US.
It's not that he's outspoken, so are Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, both of whom have a chance,
even though the "Fair and Balanced", "Most Trusted Name in News" and "Progressive" media will
hilariously deny that, but they don't have the whole aura of "I'm a deity, kneel before me plebs"
that Trump has.
I think Paul's the only Republican who can beat Clinton, out of the ones that are running,
and when faced with a choice of "do you want Clinton or Paul," I think Republicans will shift
towards Paul. Then again, I'm overly optimistic.
I think the Republican nominee is going to be Rubio, simply because the conservatives who completely
control the nomination process like the brand of shit he spreads. And Clinton will likely be the
Democratic nominee, simply because the Democrats are locked in such a loop of despair that they
don't know what else to do. Rubio will probably win. That's my guess.
If they choose Rubio, it's because he's Hispanic. The Republicans want to court the Mestizo vote
as White votes alone are not enough… anymore. In the last election, Romney won the white vote
(61% vs 39% to Obama) and still lost the election.
Rand Paul is not like his father, but he's
among the best candidates.
They're Hispanics. I haven't seen the term "Mestizos" since my high-school geography books, and
that was in the early 70's. Do you actually have a contemptuous and dehumanizing term for every
race except whites?
I am adamantly opposed to a Republican win because it does not matter
who is the President – the conservative hardliners make all the decisions and they are wedded
to ever more corporatism and profit-taking for the wealthy.
But it really does not matter much because Obama was the last hope for a Democratic president
who could unify Americans from both sides of the aisle and get back to something like the values
that made America the greatest country and the envy of the world. Obama was an even worse failure
than George W. Bush, although both claimed the mantle of "Uniter". Things have gone too far now
to pull back; we're past the point of no return. Hillary would just make the sides cave in a little
faster.
Trump does not love his fellow Americans, and makes no secret of his opinion that a good deal
of them are useless freeloaders; America Inc. is just something else he wants to be the CEO of.
None of the other candidates loves his/her fellow Americans either (with the possible exception
of Mike Huckabee, because it's his job), and all probably believe their constituents are lazy
and a little stupid or else they would be running for President, but they have the good sense
to pretend to be populist.
From the vantage point of being mad as a box of frogs, The Donald disdains pretense.
"...His talks are sure to draw Putin's ire as Moscow chafes under the prospect of continued sanctions." . "...It is the US whose belligerent and bellicose tune needs changing." . "...Finally, I find it curious that even with billions of dollars worth of satellites hovering
over the Ukraine/Russia border and numerous teams of observers, not one of the claims of "Russian armored
columns" has been substantiated with solid evidence. Rather, the pictures that have been presented to
date have all been exposed as fakes (pictures that were actually taken in Georgia in 2008, for example)." . "...Freudian slip, maybe. He's just voicing the intentions of the US policy elite, "regime change"
in Russia just like anywhere else with a government that doesn't bend over like Britain." . "...Well, at least an acknowledgement of limits of 'soft-power' tactics near RU borders, the
ante will always be upped on the one hand. The bolstering he speaks of is really a bolstering of lost
authority, thus the requirement for more weapons to give needed 'confidence'. Estonia, PL etc. now require
substantial 'trip-wire' forces in post-Obama Europe, and least in the minds of leaders of said nations."
A key theme at all his stops will be how the United States, Nato and other partners can best deal
with the Kremlin in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and its military backing
of separatists battling Ukraine's government on the eastern border.
But part of the calculus, Carter said, will be a new playbook for Nato that deals with Russia's aggression
while also recognising its important role in the nuclear talks with Iran, the fight against Islamic
State militants and a peaceful political transition in Syria.
... ... ...
Officials said Carter, who left Washington on Sunday, plans to encourage allied ministers to better
work together in countering threats facing Europe. His talks are sure to draw Putin's ire as Moscow
chafes under the prospect of continued sanctions.
kowalli -> peacefulmilitant 22 Jun 2015 00:04
oh come on, they will sacrifice Ukraine, Poland, baltic states, it will became new
Afghanistan. They will blame Russia for this and for economic meltdown too.
USA will sign TTP,TiSa, etc .
Right now you are just spounting nonsense (c)
Phil Greene 22 Jun 2015 00:03
It is the US whose belligerent and bellicose tune needs changing.
FiendNCheeses 22 Jun 2015 00:01
Russia suffered through 70 years of communism followed by another 7 years of the Western-backed,
drunken puppet, Boris Yeltsin. Love him or hate him, Putin turned that country around for the
better.
He doesn't want Russia to become another vassal of the West which is another reason why he's so
popular in his country and why he's so hated by the powers that be in the West. It will be a long
time before Putin retires but when he does, you can bet the Russian people will not accept anyone
who doesn't share their and Putin's vision for Russia.
I also doubt whether Russians share Carter's characterization of Western values as being 'forward
looking', rather, I suspect they consider the West as regressing exponentially. An honest, introspective
look at ourselves would reveal that maybe they're right.
Finally, I find it curious that even with billions of dollars worth of satellites hovering
over the Ukraine/Russia border and numerous teams of observers, not one of the claims of "Russian
armored columns" has been substantiated with solid evidence. Rather, the pictures that have been
presented to date have all been exposed as fakes (pictures that were actually taken in Georgia
in 2008, for example).
I couldn't care less if Russia supplied the rebels with weapons - seriously, after they overthrew
that country's democratically-elected president, Ukraine deserves to lose - but at least show
some solid, incontrovertible proof instead of relying solely on unsubstantiated propaganda.
NazMan 22 Jun 2015 00:00
Ash carter say 'blah blah blah' interpreted. Our president has now aimed our current missiles
to Russian targets, but lets not talk about that. Putin replies 'blah blah blah... We have just
ordered 40 ballistic missiles. Blah blah blah.' And the world watches as we go into another nuclear
arms race. We did all this in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Will our leaders never learn?
adognow ID5868758 21 Jun 2015 23:58
Freudian slip, maybe. He's just voicing the intentions of the US policy elite, "regime change"
in Russia just like anywhere else with a government that doesn't bend over like Britain.
Of course, by Einstein's definition, they're all insane because every "regime change" action has
resulted in nothing but abject failure and bloodbaths, and these assholes still continue peddling
the same rubbish.
Viktor Korsakov 21 Jun 2015 23:56
Yeah well Ash Carter is another naive numpty. Putin can be elected as President in 2018 and
if he didn't then his buddy Shoigu would. I hate the man, I have far more isolationist and aggressive
views, as do others, which is why the west should be glad he does such a fine job at appeasing
such people but not going as far to completely alienate those in Russian politics that would have
more cooperation with other countries.
Shame that not many outside the country understand that, the Crimean move was all about internal
politics while the rest of the murky and chaotic Ukrainian issue came as an unintended and uncontrollable
result.
Culturally, the everyday Russian citizen such as myself hates how the cost of living is rising
and how our life savings are being made worthless because of all this bollocks, but we understand
that a united country is important and would sooner blame foreign influence than betray a leader.
It's irritating that people thought sanctions would ever inspire some revolution or in the very
least weaken the ruling party, but rather it's quite the opposite here.
kowalli -> centerline 21 Jun 2015 23:39
It's not about nukes - USA have nuke in Europe, Israel have nukes( wtf really?) in german-made
subs, China have, etc.
it's about self-defence -> you don't have nukes -> USA will bomb you and steal your resources
and gold
Libya - gold stolen by USSA, Ukraine - gold stolen by USSA, etc...
AtraHasis 21 Jun 2015 23:38
For a start, Putin doesn't seem like he's intending on leaving any time soon.
On top of that, Russia sees the US as a genuine threat. Considering US behaviour in Europe, not
to mention their aggressive posturing in Asia, I can't say that I blame them.
I wonder if the US realises that they're just perpetuating the conditions which ensure Russia
will demand an aggressive leader in response. Not to mention the exclusionary tactics of the incoming
TPP-style policies.
Why do you think Russia is setting up as many trade deals as possible right now? Because both
they and China will be backed into a corner by the these policies. If we're not careful, we could
genuinely have a new Cold War on our hands. Hell, we may already.
Mike Purdon -> Zepp 21 Jun 2015 23:34
Its easy to call Medvedev a puppet but Russia's posture was significantly different under his
leadership. I would be more inclined to believe that is why Putin came back in the first place,
Profhambone 21 Jun 2015 23:30
Great. What happened when the USSR moved missiles into Cuba after the US move missiles into
Turkey? What would we do if Russia began to arm Mexico with equipment and an alliance?
Oh yeah, the Old Monroe Doctrine that no one ask the South Americans if they wanted it put
on them. But then they are not exceptional like Amerikans are. We're kinda like the Germans during
the late 30's and early 40's in the way we have thought about ourselves .......
Mike Purdon ID9492736 21 Jun 2015 23:29
Its clear the US is simply signalling they are in for the long game. Its part message to Russia
but also a message for Europe as Carter is there to discuss with his partners the long term strategy,
whatever that may be. I think we're at the point where peace in Ukraine is enough to get rid of
European sanctions. Americans probably won't drop most of theirs but they've always maintained
Russian specific sanctions.
ID9492736 -> Seriatim 21 Jun 2015 23:25
It is better to have a global house made of BRICS than the one made by dicks.
BMWAlbert -> KriticalThinkingUK 21 Jun 2015 23:25
Well, at least an acknowledgement of limits of 'soft-power' tactics near RU borders, the
ante will always be upped on the one hand. The bolstering he speaks of is really a bolstering
of lost authority, thus the requirement for more weapons to give needed 'confidence'. Estonia,
PL etc. now require substantial 'trip-wire' forces in post-Obama Europe, and least in the minds
of leaders of said nations.
CraigSummers 21 Jun 2015 23:23
".......At an investment conference on Friday in Russia, Putin blamed the US and the European
Union for triggering the Ukrainian crisis by refusing to take into account what he described as
Russia's legitimate interests....."
Legitimate Russian interests simply is double speak for Russia's legitimate area of influence
- a domination of eastern Europe by the USSR during the cold war. When the USSR collapsed, 15
countries were freed from Soviet control. Most chose to join the EU and NATO. Ukraine, Belarus
and a couple of others remained tightly controlled by Russia and the SVR. When Ukraine attempted
to develop closer relations with Europe, the Russian puppet, Yanukovych, put a stop to an economic
deal with Europe leading to the coup, the illegal annexation of Crimea and the war in Eastern
Ukraine (backed by Putin).
The cold war is over and Russia needs to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. The Russian empire
collapsed in the latter part of the twentieth century and Putin needs to get over it.
ID9492736 21 Jun 2015 23:19
Joseph Stalin responds to Ash Carter: "Well, Comrade Ash, I've been itching to return. It's
been bitchin' cold in here, no vodka or cigars anywhere in sight, and I would like to go back
to my old job and kill some fifth column trolls, they seem to have started multiplying like amoebas
ever since that idiot Yeltsin sold to the Wall Street everything that wasn't nailed to the Kremlin
wall. I bring with me a glorious resume and a stellar list of accomplishments, including saving
the West from itself. When do I start?"
Seriatim -> Omniscience 21 Jun 2015 23:19
Every year we can celebrate decades of Washington led stupidity and lawlessness.
A long line of idiots who ensured the lives of millions of Americans were wrecked and 1000s of
innocents worldwide were murdered, and who terrorist great swathes of the world still today.
The icing on the cake was the rigged election of 20001 which put the murderer Bush in power.
There, fixed.
Meng Ian -> Omniscience 21 Jun 2015 23:00
only if economy is the sole indicator for measuring how much power one country wields. Need
I remind you that RF has one of the biggest nuke arsenals in the world. With a stick as powerful
as the one RF has, which is capable of shattering the world many times, no politician should call
it a middle-size power. Also, if RF were just one rogue middle-size power, then why the US not
just crashes it as it had crashed Iraq (a regional power in the middle east indeed), or makes
threats of crashing it as it had on Iran (another major player in the middle east)?
mikea1 -> Zepp 21 Jun 2015 22:32
If we are lucky, Putin or Leaders of his stature will be in place, the world needs it.
ID5868758 -> mikesmith 21 Jun 2015 22:29
Didn't read your post before I wrote mine, concur 100%. The neocons in the State Department
are on "overreach" now, they should have folded their hand when "Nuland's Folly" failed, instead
they seem be doubling down on stupid, and endangering the entire European continent in the bargain.
Dangerous people.
ID5868758 21 Jun 2015 22:22
And, of course, Carter has nothing but concerns about what's best for Russia and Russians,
right? Who buys this nonsense? It's embarrassing to have it voiced by an official so high in the
Obama administration, really, it's pure propaganda that reflects none of the reality in Russia,
and the support that President Putin receives from the Russian people.
mikesmith 21 Jun 2015 22:19
As an American, I can only hope that once Obama is gone that the US will come to its senses
and make some significant changes in its belligerent attitude to Russia. It's quite frightening
that Obama, Carter, Kerry and their cabal are deliberating fomenting war when there is clearly
no real threat and certainly no desire for war on the part of the Russians. Quite embarrassing.
Rest assured that most Americans do not share their hostility towards the rest of the world, and
are rather ashamed of what Obama has been doing. We want peaceful relations with the rest of the
world. In addition, it's rather embarrassing that the US should be confronting the Russians, while
cozying up to the utterly despicable and repressive regime in Saudi Arabia. Talk about misplaced
priorities and distorted values.
PaddyCannuck 21 Jun 2015 22:07
Still pushing the same old canard of Russian reaction to NATO aggression being "Russian aggression",
and still pressing for regime change. Plus ca change etc.
[Jun 21, 2015] The presidential race is gaining momentum: town clowns start joining the race
Town clown joins the rage. Donald Trump announced the nominating myself for President of the United
States. In essence, the American politicians are so detached from reality that even if peopel put
in a chair in the oval office a street trump the difference might be less noticeable that we assume
as it is "deep state" that old real power in the USA.
"...No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges that
George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. " . "...The National Review piece went on: "Adelson sent word to Bush's camp in Miami: Bush, he
said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as "rips***";
another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor 'a lot of money.'"
(At around the same time the rupture with Adelson was reported, Bush publicly disavowed Baker, saying
that he would not be a part of his foreign policy team.)" . "...In March 2014, Bush and several other potential candidates were also received by Adelson at a
Republican Jewish Coalition gathering at a Las Vegas hangar owned by Adelson's Sands Corporation,
which papers dubbed the "Adelson primary." According to attendees, Bush gave a speech largely focused
on domestic issues but also criticized the Obama administration's foreign policy-a key issue for
Adelson, who is fiercely "pro-Israel." In his foreign policy remarks, Bush warned about the dangers
of "American passivity" and, according to Time, "cautioned the Republican party against
'neo-isolationism' … a line universally understood as a shot at [libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand] Paul.
Bush also pushed back on Democratic attacks that whenever a Republican calls for a more activist
foreign policy that they are 'warmongering.'"
Although he rarely comments on foreign policy,
Bush has appeared to embrace neoconservatives who supported his brother's administration, inviting
them to serve as his advisers, parroting their complaints about the Obama administration, promoting
their current policy objectives, and defending many of their past debacles, like the Iraq War.
He has said that he does not think that "the military option should ever be taken off the table"
with respect to Iran and that Obama administration policies on Iran had "empower[ed] bad behavior
in Tehran."[8]
Bush has repeatedly defended the decision to invade Iraq. He told CNN in March 2013: "A lot of
things in history change over time. I think people will respect the resolve that my brother showed,
both in defending the country and the war in Iraq."[9]
More recently, in May 2015, when asked by Fox News pundit Megyn Kelly if he would have
authorized the Iraq War "knowing what we know now," Bush replied: "I would have [authorized the invasion],
and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was
confronted with the intelligence they got."[10]
This statement spurred widespread criticism, including among conservatives. Radio host Laura Ingram,
arguing that Bush's weakness on this issue could be exploited by an election opponent, quipped: "We
can't stay in this re-litigating the Bush years again. You have to have someone who says look I'm
a Republican, but I'm not stupid." She added: "You can't still think that going into Iraq, now, as
a sane human being, was the right thing to do. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you,"
she added.[11]
Many writers have argued that Bush's national ambitions will inevitably suffer from his association
with his brother, whom Jeb has pointedly refused to criticize. Saying he didn't believe "there's
any Bush baggage at all," Jeb Bush predicted in March 2013 that "history will be kind to George W.
Bush." This led The Daily Beast's Peter Beinart to quip, "Unfortunately for Jeb, history
is written by historians," who have generally given the Bush administration poor reviews. "That's
why Jeb Bush will never seriously challenge for the presidency," Beinart concluded, "because to seriously
challenge for the presidency, a Republican will have to pointedly distance himself from Jeb's older
brother. No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges
that George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. No Republican will be able to
promise foreign-policy competence unless he or she acknowledges the Bush administration's disastrous
mismanagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. … Jeb Bush would find that excruciatingly hard even if he
wanted to."[12]
Bush has made several explicit gestures indicating his commitment to continue his brother's track
record, particularly on foreign policy. In February 2015, his campaign announced 21 foreign policy
experts who will guide him on foreign policy issues. The vast majority were veterans of the George
W. Bush administration, like Paul
Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley,
Michael Chertoff,
John Negroponte,
Otto Reich, and
[13]
George W. Bush Deputy National Security Adviser
Meghan O'Sullivan has been
mentioned as a possible "top foreign-policy aide."[14]
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush … is seeking to distinguish his views on foreign policy from those
of his father and brother, two former presidents," reported the Washington Post, "but he's getting
most of his ideas from nearly two dozen people, most of whom previously worked for George H. W. Bush
and George W. Bush."[15]
Many observers have surmised that Bush's emphatic support for his brother is the result of him
attempting to win the support of Sheldon Adelson. Bush is believed to have received the ire of Adelson
after he included in his list of foreign policy advisers former Secretary of State James Baker, a
realist who has been critical of Israel on several occasions.
"The bad blood between Bush and Adelson is relatively recent," wrote the conservative National
Review in May 2015, "and it deepened with the news that former secretary of state James Baker,
a member of Bush's foreign-policy advisory team, was set to address J Street, a left-wing pro-Israel
organization founded to serve as the antithesis to the hawkish
American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."[16]
The National Review piece went on: "Adelson sent word to Bush's camp in Miami:
Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson
as "rips***"; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor 'a lot of money.'"[17]
(At around the same time the rupture with Adelson was reported, Bush publicly disavowed Baker, saying
that he would not be a part of his foreign policy team.[18])
During the April 2015
Republican Jewish
Coalition-hosted "Adelson primary" in Las Vegas, Salon reported, Adelson "devoted a
night to honoring Bush's brother George W. for all he'd done for Israel and the Middle East."
Salon added: "The Las Vegas mogul and Israel hawk thus took Bush's biggest political problem-his
brother-and made him an asset."[19]
In May 2015, at a meeting with wealthy investors hosted by "pro-Israel" billionaire
Paul Singer, Bush unequivocally
expressed his attention to follow his brother's advice on issues related to Israel and the Middle
East. "If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it's him," Bush said at the event.[20]
In March 2014, Bush and several other potential candidates were also received by Adelson at a
Republican Jewish Coalition gathering at a Las Vegas hangar owned by Adelson's Sands Corporation,
which papers dubbed the "Adelson primary." According to attendees, Bush gave a speech largely focused
on domestic issues but also criticized the Obama administration's foreign policy-a key issue for
Adelson, who is fiercely "pro-Israel." In his foreign policy remarks, Bush warned about the dangers
of "American passivity" and, according to Time, "cautioned the Republican party against
'neo-isolationism' … a line universally understood as a shot at [libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand] Paul.
Bush also pushed back on Democratic attacks that whenever a Republican calls for a more activist
foreign policy that they are 'warmongering.'"[21]
The remarks-which the Washington Post described as "muscular if generic"[22]-appeared
to be well received by the attendees and seemed to demonstrate that Bush identified more with the
party's interventionist wing than with its rising libertarian faction on foreign policy.[23]
At one point in the late 1990s, Bush seemed to have been considered a potentially more influential
political ally than his brother by the neoconservatives who founded the
Project
for the New American Century (PNAC). Commenting on the signatories to PNAC's 1997 founding statement
of principles, Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn wrote: "Ironically, virtually the only signatory who has
not played a leading role since the letter was released has been Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who in 1997
apparently looked to [William]
Kristol and [Robert] Kagan
more presidential than his brother George."[24]
"...Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers."
... Ever since 9/11, the American people have operated under the quaint notion that all the violence
that the Pentagon and the CIA have been inflicting on people in foreign nations has an adverse effect
only over there. The idea has been that as long as all the death, torture, assassinations, bombings,
shootings, and mayhem were in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, Americans could
go pleasantly on with their lives, going to work, church, and fun sporting events where everyone
could praise and pray for the troops for "defending our freedoms" and "keeping us safe."
Through it all, the national-security state, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, has
done its best to immunize Americans from all the violence, death, and mayhem that they've been wreaking
on people over there.
Don't show the American people photographs of wedding parties in which brides and grooms and
flower girls have been blown to bits by a U.S. bomb or missile.
Hide those torture records at Abu Ghraib. Lock them away in a secret vault forever.
Destroy those torture videos and redact that torture report.
And above all, don't even think of keeping count of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Anything and everything to keep the American people from having to confront, assimilate, and process
the ongoing culture of violence that the national-security state has brought to people in other parts
of the world.
Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers.
As an aside, have you ever noticed that Switzerland, which is one of the most armed societies
in the world, is not besieged by a "war on terrorism" and by gun massacres? I wonder if it has anything
to do with the fact that the Swiss government isn't involved in an ongoing crusade to violently remake
the world in its image.
Ask any American whether all that death and destruction at the hands of the military and the CIA
is necessary, and he's likely to say, "Well, of course it is. People all over the world hate us for
our freedom and values. We've got to kill them over there before they come over here to kill us.
The war on terrorism goes on forever. I'm a patriot! Praise the troops!"
The thought that the entire scheme of ongoing violence is just one great big racket just doesn't
even occur to them. That's what a mindset of deference to authority does to people.
All that ongoing violence that has formed the foundation of America's governmental structure since
the totalitarian structure known as the national-security state came into existence after World War
II is at the core of the national sickness to which Rand Paul alludes.
And so is the extreme deference to authority paid to the national-security establishment by all
too many Americans who have converted the Pentagon and the CIA into their god - one who can do no
wrong as it stomps around the world killing, torturing, bombing, shooting, invading, maiming, and
occupying, all in the name of "national security," a ridiculous term if there ever was one, a term
not even found in the U.S. Constitution.
As I have long written, the national-security establishment has warped and perverted the values,
morals, and principles of the American people. This totalitarian structure that was grafted onto
our governmental system after World War II to oppose America's World War II partner and ally the
Soviet Union has stultified the consciences of the American people, causing them to subordinate themselves
to the will and judgment of the military (including the NSA) and the CIA and, of course, to surrender
their fundamental God-given rights to liberty and privacy in the quest to be "kept safe" from whoever
happens to be the official enemy of the day.
The discomforting fact is that the American people have not been spared the horrific consequences
of the ongoing culture of violence that the U.S. national-security establishment has brought to foreign
lands. The ongoing culture of violence that forms the foundation of the national security state -
killing untold numbers of people on a perpetual basis - has been a rotting and corrosive cancer that
has been destroying America from within and that continues to do so.
It's that ongoing culture of violence that brings out the crazies and the loonies, who see nothing
wrong with killing people for no good reason at all. In ordinary societies, the crazies and the loonies
usually just stay below the radar screen and live out their lives in a fairly abnormal but peaceful
manner. But in dysfunctional societies, such as ones where the government is based on killing, torturing,
maiming, and destroying people on a constant basis, the crazies and the loonies come onto the radar
screen and commit their crazy and loony acts of violence.
"...Selling tax cuts for the wealthy with unrealistic promises about growth" . "...Economists on Bush's Promise: Close to 0 Percent Chance of 4 Percent Growth
By Josh Barro" . "...Over the last 40 years, the American economy has grown at an average of 2.8 percent per year.
That's slower than the 3.7 percent average from 1948 to 1975, but the future looks even gloomier because
that 2.8 figure relied on two favorable trends that are now over: women entering the work force, and
baby boomers reaching their prime earning years." . "...We had a two decade continuation of the Rooseveltian spirit of can-do ambition and government
leadership moving energetically to re-shape our country and build a new society. It was awesome. The
US was the economic wonder of the world. Then the neolibs took over and screwed it all up." . "...If the population doesn't grow then the 4% growth rates would require 4% per capita growth
rates. That is part of what makes the 4% rate unrealistic. But the reason people are laughing at Jeb
is that he is taking his own record as Florida governor as proof that he can do it again. His record
of growingthat state at 4% is based on blowing a "...catastrophic bubble" . "...And politicians who set high and ambitious economic targets for a country that has fumbled along
for far too long with stagnant growth and a neglect of long-term economic development and strategic
thinking should be welcomed into the discussion. . Democrats should leap at the chance to have a debate about how to get to 4% growth! That kind of
ambition represents a major potential turnaround from the current radical Republican agenda of laissez
faire do-nothingism. . Now we know what the Republican formula is going to be: cutting taxes, cutting red tape, cutting
restrictions, de-fanging the FDA and the EPA and the Department of Labor, etc. Democrats should come
back with the historical data that is on their side, and that shows that the highest levels of US growth
in the 20th century coincided with an activist US government that played a much bigger role than our
government currently plays. You know why America is stagnant? Because modern Republicans like Mitch
McConnell, Paul Ryan and the Kochs don't have the right stuff. They're incredibly committed to selfish
libertarian plans to help the fortunate keep their stuff; but they lack the vision and patriotic public
spirit chutzpah of earlier generations who knew how to use the US government to mobilize resources to
build the country and spread broad prosperity." . "... Way back in 1980, George H.W. Bush, running against Reagan for the presidential nomination,
famously called it "voodoo economic policy." And while Reaganolatry is now obligatory in the G.O.P.,
the truth is that he was right. So what does it say about the state of the party that Mr. Bush's
son - often portrayed as the moderate, reasonable member of the family - has chosen to make himself
a high priest of voodoo economics? Nothing good. . "...Fast-forward 2000 years, and in its place we see an America floundering in an exaggerated adoration
for the Really-Rich. I suggest the "Urge to Get Rich" is much more ingrained in American mentalities
than any notion of correcting Income Disparity."
Selling tax cuts for the wealthy with unrealistic promises about growth:
Voodoo, Jeb! Style, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: On Monday Jeb Bush - or I guess
that's Jeb!,... gave us a first view of his policy goals. First, he says that if elected he would
double America's rate of economic growth to 4 percent. Second, he would make it possible for every
American to lose as much weight as he or she wants, without any need for dieting or exercise.
O.K., he didn't actually make that second promise. But he might as well have. It would have been
just as realistic as promising 4 percent growth, and considerably less irresponsible. ...
Mr. Bush ... believes that the growth in Florida's economy during his time as governor offers
a role model for the nation as a whole. Why is that funny? Because everyone except Mr. Bush knows
that, during those years, Florida was booming thanks to
the mother of all
housing bubbles. When the bubble burst, the state plunged into a deep slump... The key to
Mr. Bush's
record of success, then, was good political timing: He managed to leave office before the
unsustainable nature of the boom he now invokes became obvious.
But Mr. Bush's economic promises reflect more than self-aggrandizement. They also reflect his
party's habit of boasting about its ability to deliver rapid economic growth, even though there's
no evidence at all to justify such boasts. It's as if a bunch of relatively short men made a regular
practice of swaggering around, telling everyone they see that they're 6 feet 2 inches tall. ...
Why, then, all the boasting about growth? The short answer, surely, is that it's mainly about
finding ways to sell tax cuts for the wealthy..., low taxes on the rich are an overriding policy
priority on the right - and promises of growth miracles let conservatives claim that everyone
will benefit from trickle-down, and maybe even that tax cuts will pay for themselves.
There is, of course, a term for basing a national program on this kind of self-serving (and plutocrat-serving)
wishful thinking. Way back in 1980, George H.W. Bush, running against Reagan for the presidential
nomination, famously called it "voodoo economic policy." And while Reaganolatry is now obligatory
in the G.O.P., the truth is that he was right.
So what does it say about the state of the party that Mr. Bush's son - often portrayed as the
moderate, reasonable member of the family - has chosen to make himself a high priest of voodoo
economics? Nothing good.
Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...
That's the kind of short-term thinking we could use a lot less of. Clinton unleashed the banks
and neutered the regulatory apparatus, which directly set the stage for the financial crisis of
2007/8. He himself has expressed regret about these policies, but many in the Clinton loyalist
bloc in his party still have trouble grasping the point.
He also happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when a (harmful) dot-com bubble and (useful)
productivity surge took place, driven by tech developments coming to fruition that Bill Clinton
did absolutely nothing to catalyze. Those developments were the outcome of decades of government-driven
R&D in the various components of computer and internet technology. Clinton reaped the political
benefits of that earlier big government investment, but presided himself over further reductions
in government driven by the reigning neoliberal small government philosophy.
The stagnation we are currently experiencing is, in part, the result of four decades of failure
by both parties to accept the responsibilities of government leadership in the technological and
infrastructure development ares, and to seize opportunities for transformative national and global
development of the kinds that that only governments are capable of carrying out.
Inequality also surged dramatically under Clinton. Of course this was not all attributable
to Clinton himself, but was an outcome of the reigning neoliberal approach to political economy,
and long term trends in finance, corporate organization and tax policies that prevailed throughout
the neoliberal era under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II - and which have sadly continued
under Obama.
Economists on Bush's Promise: Close to 0 Percent Chance of 4 Percent Growth
By Josh Barro
Jeb Bush set out an aggressive economic growth target in his campaign announcement speech Monday:
four percent real G.D.P. growth, for a decade.
"It's possible," he said. "It can be done."
Don't bet on it.
Over the last 40 years, the American economy has grown at an average of 2.8 percent per
year. That's slower than the 3.7 percent average from 1948 to 1975, but the future looks even
gloomier because that 2.8 figure relied on two favorable trends that are now over: women entering
the work force, and baby boomers reaching their prime earning years.
After 2020, with the percentage of the American population that is of prime working age shrinking,
the Congressional Budget Office expects growth to stabilize at 2.2 percent. Hitting Mr. Bush's
target would require nearly doubling that pace. It would mean exceeding the economic performance
of every presidential administration since the Kennedy-Johnson years despite demographic headwinds
caused by baby-boom retirements....
Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...
It was more than that. We still had a Vietnam war post-1966, but growth began to fall. And
the Iraq War never gave us growth rates of 5%, 6% and 7%. Something else was going on. Some of
it was just the baby boom, but we were also carrying out massive public investment projects: GI
Bill, highway plan, space program and more.
Why are you so eager to disparage the progressive achievements of the postwar period that took
place under assertive, forward-leaning government, and make it look like it was all military?
Democrats should try to take credit for that stuff. We had a two decade continuation of the
Rooseveltian spirit of can-do ambition and government leadership moving energetically to re-shape
our country and build a new society. It was awesome. The US was the economic wonder of the world.
Then the neolibs took over and screwed it all up.
Stop trying to run away from all the things we did right. We can do that kind of thing again,
but the challenges are different now. We have to remake the global system because otherwise we
will destroy the planet. Our social system is crumbling. Water resources are in jeopardy. Our
consumption patterns are irrational, inefficient and unbalanced. If we don't act now we are headed
toward a future of pollution, resource wars, caste fragmentation and impoverishment.
The Pope just sent you guys another big fat hanger to hit out of the park and you seem to want
to take it off your head again.
Wake up. Think bigger. Good lord; it's not about the freaking interest rates.
DeDude said in reply to anne...
If the population doesn't grow then the 4% growth rates would require 4% per capita growth
rates. That is part of what makes the 4% rate unrealistic. But the reason people are laughing
at Jeb is that he is taking his own record as Florida governor as proof that he can do it again.
His record of growing that state at 4% is based on blowing a catastrophic bubble - is that
what he will do to grow the national economy by 4%? The only way to grow the economy by 4% is
to increase the income of the consumer class by 4% - that is not going to happen with another
Bush in the white house.
anne said in reply to DeDude...
If the population doesn't grow then the 4% growth rates would require 4% per capita growth
rates. That is part of what makes the 4% rate unrealistic....
[ Population growth is 0.7% yearly, while total factor productivity growth has averaged 1.2%
yearly since 1948. That leaves 2.1% growth with an employment-population ratio that is far below
that of other healthy developed countries.
China has averaged 8.6% per capita GDP growth yearly since 1977, or for 38 years, and how this
has been done should be thoroughly studied. ]
DeDude said in reply to pgl...
Agree, the conversion of their population from dirt poor subsistence farmers to productive
factory workers (and consumers) has been a substantial driver of Chinese GDP growth rates. The
appear to understand that they have reached a size where they can no longer rely on mercantilism
and need to transform to a true consumer economy - so they probably will be able to continue outpacing
the US growth for at least another decade or two. Especially if we continue to elect people who
fail to "get" such a basic concept as that economic growth originate in increased consumption.
Peter K. said...
This is the Krugman I don't like. I understand what he's doing - a Jeb! presidency with a Republican
Congress would be a nightmare - pace Paine and Kervack - but he should spare a paragraph why Obama's
growth rate sucks so bad and why long term growth rates are coming down from the Golden Era of
rising living standards.
Marco policy. Unions. Inequality. Boom/bust cycle. Obama picked Bernanke and Geithner and listened
to them. That's why his growth rate sucks, not demographics. And a crappy economy doesn't help
with race relations.
Dan Kervick said...
I responded briefly to this in the other thread where Fred Dobbs posted it, but I'll expand
a bit here.
Paul Krugman thinks we don't know how to make make long-run growth happen as a matter of deliberate
policy, and that changes in long-run growth patterns are unpredictable. But I think he's much
overstating the case. We know that if we shift overall spending at the national level from wasteful
consumption into investment, R&D and capital development, we can build up the productive capacity
of the country and achieve much higher levels of GDP growth for some years in the short term,
and much higher overall GDP in the long run. It's true that we can't sustain annual growth at
some arbitrarily chosen high level over a long run. But even 10 years or so of surging growth
followed by a leveling off would mean we level off at a higher level of prosperity than we get
from perpetuating our current pattern of sluggish growth indefinitely.
And politicians who set high and ambitious economic targets for a country that has fumbled
along for far too long with stagnant growth and a neglect of long-term economic development and
strategic thinking should be welcomed into the discussion.
Democrats should leap at the chance to have a debate about how to get to 4% growth! That kind
of ambition represents a major potential turnaround from the current radical Republican agenda
of laissez faire do-nothingism.
Now we know what the Republican formula is going to be: cutting taxes, cutting red tape, cutting
restrictions, de-fanging the FDA and the EPA and the Department of Labor, etc. Democrats should
come back with the historical data that is on their side, and that shows that the highest levels
of US growth in the 20th century coincided with an activist US government that played a much bigger
role than our government currently plays. You know why America is stagnant? Because modern Republicans
like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and the Kochs don't have the right stuff. They're incredibly committed
to selfish libertarian plans to help the fortunate keep their stuff; but they lack the vision
and patriotic public spirit chutzpah of earlier generations who knew how to use the US government
to mobilize resources to build the country and spread broad prosperity.
We don't know how to create sustained high growth over many years? Tell that to the Chinese.
Tell it to the economic engineers who doubled US annual output between 1939 to 1944, when failure
was not an option. Tell it to the people who engineered high average growth between 1950 and 1965
by sustaining government investment at a much higher level than we do currently. Marianna Mazzucato,
among others, gets this stuff. Loser liberals from the boomer generation often don't. They are
stuck in the neoliberal paradigm of an economy that is "self-adjusting" over the long run, and
where the only role for government is short-term stabilization and running a safety net.
The only thing standing between us and a major American liftoff is ideological stupidity and
lack of political will. The visionary engineering portfolios of the worlds creative people are
overstuffed with incredible plans: entirely new kinds of cities; transoceanic tunnels, redesigns
of entire energy grids and transportation systems. What is lacking is leaders with a clue and
the willingness to call for the kind of organization, planning and mobilization to make these
things happen.
Suppose a president shoots for 4% and we only get 3.5%. How have we lost? And who pays the
political price? The guy who set the high target and then laughs, "Hey we only got 3.5% - just
shoot me." Or the snarky smart guys on the sidelines who say, "I told you we didn't have it in
us."
Krugman has been writing some good stuff lately, but these recent kneejerk columns about Jeb
Bush are Krugman at his absolute worst. Whenever he puts on his blue team baseball cap and descends
into this kind of shallow hackitude, his IQ goes down 50 points. If Jeb Bush said, "We're going
to end cancer in our lifetime!" I now fully expect Krugman to come back with, "That's so unrealistic;
we don't know where cancer comes from."
Peter K. said in reply to Dan Kervick...
If you push the monetary-fiscal mix (and trade) you can get higher growth and higher productivity.
That means looser monetary policy and more fiscal policy until inflation picks up. That also
means distributing income more widely, via unions and better labor laws and regulating banks effectively,
including better credit policy.
If Obama had better monetary and fiscal policy (and a competitive dollar) during his Presidency
his growth rates would have been better.
Instead they were worried about the deficit and inflation becoming "unmoored" or a problem
some day.
Phantom issues.
Dan Kervick said in reply to Peter K....
Yes, too much concern about restrictive target rates and parameters. And although some of the
economic goals can be described in abstract macroeconomic terms, the policy instruments can't
be addressed purely macroeconomically. It's a matter of choosing the world we want to live in
and then building it - on purpose, deliberately. You can't just shoot for an interest rate and
inflation rate and then expect that better world to emerge from from private enterprise on its
own.
Businesses have already had the most favorable credit conditions anyone can reasonably want,
and still very few of them are building the future we need or expanding ambitiously. They lack
courage and a sense of direction because of an absence of leadership. So their hunger for "safe
assets" and rent-collection schemes is endless.
DeDude said...
"He managed to leave office before the unsustainable nature of the boom he now invokes
became obvious."
Yes Jeb Bush has a slightly better timing than his big brother George, who did not get out
before the collapse of the bubble he had created and lived high on. Unfortunately, the only way
GOP presidents can get growth is by blowing bubbles. That will create additional "money" in the
system which can be used to push the main/only driver of GDP growth - consumption.
As much as GOPsters try to avoid dealing with the "gravitational law" of economics they can
only postpone it. Economic growth is driven by increases in consumption, which means either bigger
government or increases in money to the consumer class.
The only palatable way for the party of the rich to get to that is by blowing bubbles in some
asset class held by the upper half of the consumer class. But then they have to time those bubbles
such that they blow up during a democratic presidency (to avoid being blamed for what was their
fault)
Lafayette said...
{PK: The short answer, surely, is that it's mainly about finding ways to sell tax cuts
for the wealthy..., low taxes on the rich are an overriding policy priority on the right -
and promises of growth miracles let conservatives claim that everyone will benefit from trickle-down,
and maybe even that tax cuts will pay for themselves.}
It is amazing that "getting rich" should be so ingrained as part and parcel of the "American
Way of Life".
People, since antiquity, have always wanted to praise their "heroes". Typically, Roman generals
would return to Rome to parade their booty in front of the population. No doubt, those generals
then got involved in Roman politics. Otherwise, why risk your life on the battle field.
Fast-forward 2000 years, and in its place we see an America floundering in an exaggerated adoration
for the Really-Rich. I suggest the "Urge to Get Rich" is much more ingrained in American mentalities
than any notion of correcting Income Disparity.
Why, otherwise, would stupendous lottery wins be such an attractive way to waste one's money
... ?
"...Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full
extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at the
Very Top on down. Now. " . "...Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington
has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with this two-tiered
justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who blow the whistle on
them. While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week,
reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at
TomDispatch" . "...The routine use of torture by Savak may well have contributed heavily to the failure of
the Shah, particularly considering that these people were probably concentrated in the cities where
most of the action took place."
Torture architects are television pundits and given enormous book contracts while Guantanamo detainees
still can't discuss what happened to them
GUANTANAMO
Prisoners haven't been allowed to talk about what happened to them here. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty
Wednesday 17 June 2015 07.15 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 17 June 2015 13.35 EDT
Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full
extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at
the Very Top on down. Now.
CraigSummers, 17 Jun 2015 16:16)
The evidence that torture doesn't work is overwhelming.
The president's oath is to obey the law, the constitution, not to "keep Americans safe." Torture
is illegal for good and proper reasons. It cannot be used and, if used, must be prosecuted and
punished.
It is immaterial if it "works" ... this is not Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer; this is real governance:
a govt of laws, not men.
bloggod 17 Jun 2015 16:07
"The only reason a host of current and former CIA officials aren't already in jail is because
of cowardice on the Obama administration," says Timm
________
An emphatic collusion of many more complicit parties would seem to suggest the world is not
run by Obama...
ID8667623 17 Jun 2015 15:30
Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington
has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with
this two-tiered justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who
blow the whistle on them.
While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week,
reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at TomDispatch:
I, being a US citizen, feel that it is up to us to stand up to US imperialism.
Until we, in the US, stand up and say "Enough", this country will continue it's attack upon the
world.
Wake up America --
PS. You see that the war has come home... just look at the military armament being used by
the police. And, we need to stand up all together! Please, Mr. Policeman, don't shoot us. Protect
us against the 1%.
JimHorn 17 Jun 2015 11:20
In the run up to the Iranian Revolution, I worked with an Iranian woman in a restaurant. She
wore the same short sleeve blouse as the others, and her skirt was only an inch or two longer.
Her husband was a grad student at the university. Obviously thoroughly westernized. I took the
opportunity to ask an actual Iranian about the events that were happening in her homeland.
She told me that her brother, a student, had been picked up and tortured by Savak, the Shah's
secret police. She said
"No one in my family, my father, my brothers, my uncles, my cousins, - will support
the Shah. We hate Khomeini, but we also hate the Shah. We will let Khomeini overthrow the Shah
and then we will overthrow Khomeini."
These were people who should have been on the side of the westernizing Shah but sat on the
sidelines. Some reports say that Savak may have treated up to 100,000 people like this woman's
brother. Allowing for ten adult relatives per victim, we get a million westernized Iranians. The
population at the time was about 30 million. The routine use of torture by Savak may well
have contributed heavily to the failure of the Shah, particularly considering that these people
were probably concentrated in the cities where most of the action took place.
Note that Savak, sadly, trained by our CIA, was intent on preventing a communist takeover and
concentrated on those who wished to westernize government as well as the economy. They utterly
failed to deal with the threat from religious conservatives.
"... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
"... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
"... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
"... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
You can't say that about a single other candidate.
libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47
Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents'
Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):
"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions.
He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press
type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go
home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking
around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage
to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"
Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36
Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for
"not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy
one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered.
Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected.
And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those
interests than some Republicans.
Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11
"The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."
Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR
the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.
That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you
get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through
lobbyists.
libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42
What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary
needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial
steamrolling her presidential challenge.
The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This
is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting
of the dots, to be applied?
Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again
in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik
agenda.
Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized
populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals
OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.
Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some
threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan.
No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.
She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya,
intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is
being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.
Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with
such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign
policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry
she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial
elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing
there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.
Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and
are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.
Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19
"diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction
of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning
it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition"
better known today as ISIS.
Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but
disaster by disaster.
talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34
If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real
who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately
bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the
totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.
If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders"
the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better
at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge
"middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change
WAY for the worse.
This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter
how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.
sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09
"...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain
themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"
After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP,
making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single
issue.
Yes, where are the questions.
Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03
Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to
the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's
in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned
lazy.
"... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
"... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
"... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
"... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
"... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.
eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47
There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.
redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27
"are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption
and connivance?"
No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal
opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won.
As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we
make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think
like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the
case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even
blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It
won't change the past.
And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed
his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede
rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.
mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50
there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's
breadth.
are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption
and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?
it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton
scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was
arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything
to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly
inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience
Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43
Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the
2009 voter-registration form.
bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39
Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !
Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38
His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change
his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT
and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.
redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30
Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses,
define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.
After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right.
Get off the wagon and help pull it.
ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25
Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.
Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.
WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24
His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election
laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist
country.
ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03
No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin
Studies too.
Just vote, the Tea Party always does.
:<)
ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01
Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration,
if his campaign/RNC would allow it.
Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being
part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would
win, but I wanted him to be heard.
Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.
#allvotesmatter
fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00
The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake
ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.
MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59
Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.
ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52
Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush
sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of
an egotistical purpose.
And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !
benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49
Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush
But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.
gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42
Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:
"In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from
the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was
brought home from the hospital..."
No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange
you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you
that you have to own the issue before it defines you.
Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.
gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35
Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.
seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29
Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from
a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby,
child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.
He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained
off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.
Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27
Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate
him the way that Cheney did with Bush.
ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27
Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.
Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly
but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark
in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.
The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing
enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.
Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11
America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership
of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again,
let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!
NO MORE BUSH!!!
nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03
i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom.
dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal
of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to
work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and
especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more
like freedumb.
Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33
All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.
All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with
military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led
to ISIS.
All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting
the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are
funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.
All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering
to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.
ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33
Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.
OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24
And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as
an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of
$$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).
concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20
USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?
sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02
Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them
to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.
And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and
the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.
There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that
boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt
rich and powerful.
OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34
He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's
election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing
if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So
the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American
Plutocracy.
Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23
I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie.
I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican
party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles
all around! =)
Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48
A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.
davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43
Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's
the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first
priority is to the powerful elite.
"... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
"... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
"... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
"... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
You can't say that about a single other candidate.
libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47
Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents'
Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):
"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions.
He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press
type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go
home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking
around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage
to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"
Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36
Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for
"not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy
one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered.
Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected.
And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those
interests than some Republicans.
Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11
"The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."
Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR
the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.
That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you
get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through
lobbyists.
libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42
What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary
needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial
steamrolling her presidential challenge.
The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This
is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting
of the dots, to be applied?
Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again
in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik
agenda.
Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized
populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals
OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.
Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some
threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan.
No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.
She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya,
intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is
being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.
Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with
such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign
policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry
she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial
elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing
there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.
Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and
are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.
Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19
"diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction
of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning
it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition"
better known today as ISIS.
Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but
disaster by disaster.
talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34
If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real
who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately
bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the
totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.
If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders"
the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better
at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge
"middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change
WAY for the worse.
This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter
how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.
sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09
"...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain
themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"
After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP,
making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single
issue.
Yes, where are the questions.
Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03
Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to
the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's
in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned
lazy.
"... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
"... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
"... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
"... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
"... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.
eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47
There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.
redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27
"are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption
and connivance?"
No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal
opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won.
As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we
make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think
like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the
case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even
blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It
won't change the past.
And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed
his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede
rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.
mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50
there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's
breadth.
are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption
and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?
it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton
scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was
arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything
to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly
inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience
Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43
Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the
2009 voter-registration form.
bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39
Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !
Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38
His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change
his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT
and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.
redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30
Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses,
define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.
After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right.
Get off the wagon and help pull it.
ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25
Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.
Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.
WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24
His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election
laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist
country.
ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03
No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin
Studies too.
Just vote, the Tea Party always does.
:<)
ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01
Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration,
if his campaign/RNC would allow it.
Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being
part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would
win, but I wanted him to be heard.
Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.
#allvotesmatter
fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00
The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake
ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.
MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59
Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.
ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52
Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush
sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of
an egotistical purpose.
And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !
benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49
Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush
But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.
gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42
Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:
"In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from
the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was
brought home from the hospital..."
No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange
you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you
that you have to own the issue before it defines you.
Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.
gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35
Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.
seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29
Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from
a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby,
child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.
He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained
off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.
Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27
Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate
him the way that Cheney did with Bush.
ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27
Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.
Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly
but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark
in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.
The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing
enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.
Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11
America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership
of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again,
let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!
NO MORE BUSH!!!
nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03
i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom.
dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal
of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to
work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and
especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more
like freedumb.
Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33
All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.
All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with
military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led
to ISIS.
All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting
the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are
funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.
All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering
to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.
ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33
Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.
OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24
And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as
an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of
$$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).
concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20
USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?
sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02
Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them
to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.
And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and
the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.
There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that
boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt
rich and powerful.
OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34
He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's
election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing
if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So
the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American
Plutocracy.
Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23
I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie.
I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican
party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles
all around! =)
Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48
A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.
davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43
Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's
the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first
priority is to the powerful elite.
"... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
Jeb Bush
made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:
Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception
of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir
Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.
"When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of
a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right
now."
Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge
in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted
that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security,
and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling
or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because
the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory
in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia.
It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention
in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been
more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would
not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.
This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other
parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to
others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding
to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are
invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely
lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse
than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had
little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.
One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible
for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the
consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails
to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines
that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't
have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.
Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic
collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so
a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.
"... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
Jeb Bush
made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:
Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception
of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir
Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.
"When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of
a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right
now."
Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge
in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted
that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security,
and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling
or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because
the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory
in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia.
It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention
in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been
more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would
not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.
This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other
parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to
others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding
to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are
invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely
lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse
than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had
little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.
One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible
for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the
consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails
to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines
that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't
have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.
Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic
collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so
a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.
Following what are now daily reports of evil Russian hackers penetrating AES-encrypted
firewalls at the IRS, and just as evil Chinese hackers
penetrating "Einstein 3" in the biggest US hack in history which has allegedly exposed every
single federal
worker's social security number to shadowy forces in Beijing, the message to Americans is clear:
be very afraid, because the "evil hackers" are coming, and your friendly, gargantuan, neighborhood
US government (which is clearly here to help you) will get even bigger to respond appropriately.
But don't let any (cyber) crisis go to waste: the porous US security firewall is so bad, Goldman
is now pitching cybersecurity stocks in the latest weekly David Kostin sermon. To wit:
The meteoric rise in cybersecurity incidents involving hacking and data breaches has shined
a spotlight on this rapidly growing industry within the Tech sector. Cyberwar and cybercrime are
two of the defining geopolitical and business challenges of our time. New revelations occur daily
about compromised financial, personal, and national security records. Perpetrators range from
global superpowers to rogue nation-states, from foreign crime syndicates to petty local criminals,
and from social disrupters to teenage hackers. No government, firm, or person is immune from the
risk.
Because if you can't profit from conventional war, cyberwar will do just as nicely, and as a result
Goldman says "investors seeking to benefit from increased security spending should focus
on the ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR)."
The HXR index has outperformed S&P 500 by 19pp YTD (22% vs. 3%). Since 2011, the total return
of the index is 123pp higher than the S&P 500 (207% vs. 84%). The relative outperformance of cybersecurity
stocks versus S&P 500 matches the surge in the number of exposed records (see Exhibit 2).
Goldman further notes that "the frequency and seriousness of cyberattacks skyrocketed during 2014.
Last year 3,014 data breach incidents occurred worldwide exposing 1.1 billion records,
with 97% related to either hacking (83%) or fraud (14%). Both incidents and exposed records jumped
by 25% during the last year. The US accounted for 50% of total global incidents and exposed
records. Businesses accounted for 53% of all reported incidents followed by government entities
at 16%. Exhibit 1 contains a list of selected recent high-profile cyberattacks."
It is almost as if the US is doing everything in its power to make life for hackers that much
easier, or alternatively to make Goldman's long HXR hit its target in the shortest possible time.
Or perhaps the US is merely giving the impression of a massive onslaught of cyberattacks,
one which may well be staged by the biggest cybersecurity infringer, and false flag organizer of
them all, the National Security Administration in conjunction with the CIA
We won't know, however just to make sure that the fear level spread by the Department of "Developed
Market" Fear hits panic level promptly, overnight the UK's Sunday Times reported
via Reuters, "citing unnamed officials at the office of British Prime Minister David Cameron,
the Home Office (interior ministry) and security services" that Britain has pulled out agents
from live operations in "hostile countries" after Russia and China cracked top-secret information
contained in files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
MI6 building in London.
It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and
even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to
turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic.
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Snowden had done a huge amount of damage to the
West's ability to protect its citizens. "As to the specific allegations this morning, we never
comment on operational intelligence matters so I'm not going to talk about what we have or haven't
done in order to mitigate the effect of the Snowden revelations, but nobody should be in any doubt
that Edward Snowden has caused immense damage," he told Sky News.
Reading a little further reveals that in the modern world having your spies exposed merely lead
to invitations for coffee and chocolates.
An official at Cameron's office was quoted, however, as saying that there was "no evidence
of anyone being harmed." A spokeswoman at Cameron's office declined to comment when contacted
by Reuters.
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured.
Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building:
A British intelligence source said Snowden had done "incalculable damage". "In some cases the
agencies have been forced to intervene and lift their agents from operations to stop them being
identified and killed," the source was quoted as saying.
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate
on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate.
The revelations about the impact of Snowden on intelligence operations comes days after Britain's
terrorism law watchdog said the rules governing the security services' abilities to spy on the
public needed to be overhauled. Conservative lawmaker and former minister Andrew Mitchell said
the timing of the report was "no accident".
"There is a big debate going on," he told BBC radio. "We are going to have legislation
bought back to parliament (...) about the way in which individual liberty and privacy is invaded
in the interest of collective national security.
"That's a debate we certainly need to have."
Cameron has promised a swathe of new security measures, including more powers to monitor
Briton's communications and online activity in what critics have dubbed a "snoopers' charter".
And because Britain's terrorism laws reviewer David Anderson said on Thursday the current system
was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable" and called for new safeguards,
including judges not ministers approving warrants for intrusive surveillance, saying there needed
to be a compelling case for any extensions of powers, this is precisely why now
was the right time for some more "anonymously-sourced" anti-liberty propaganda.
So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches
shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not
only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal
worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself.
If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both
nations.
All in all, for me the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly
it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing
thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions,
made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements
is antithetical to good journalism.
James_Cole
The sunday times has already deleted one of the claims in the article (without an editors note)
because it was so easily proved wrong. Whenever governments are dropping anonymous rumours without
any evidence into the media you know they're up to some serious bullshit elsewhere as well, good
coverage by zh.
MonetaryApostate
Fact A: The government robbed Social Security... (There's nothing left!)
Supposed Fact B: Hackers compromised Social Security Numbers of Officials...
suteibu
Just to be clear, Snowden is not a traitor to the people of the US (or EU).
However, it is perfectly appropriate for the governments and shadow governments of those nations
to consider him a traitor to their interests.
One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter.
Renfield
<<The New Axis of Evul.>>
Which is drastically stepping up its propaganda effort to justify aggressively attacking the
rest of the world, in an effort to start WW3 and see who makes it out of the bunkers.
Fuck this evil New World Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHOUrYFj70
It took a long time to build and set in place, and it sure as hell isn't going to be easy taking
it down. They couldn't be any clearer that they have their hand poised over the nuke button, just
looking for any excuse to use it. I think they know they've lost, so they've resorted to intimidate
the rest of the world into supporting the status quo, by showing just how desperate they are and
how far they are willing to go. The USUK government, and its puppet governments in Europe, Canada,
Australia, and Japan -- are completely insane. Ukraine is acting out just who these people are.
They would rather destroy the whole world than not dominate everyone else. The 'West' is run by
sociopaths.
<<It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted
and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue
to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic...
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured. Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building...
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big
debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate... So between the IRS and the OPM hacks,
not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly
almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make,
spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated"
nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself. If this was even remotely
true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.>
Bighorn_100b
USA always looks for a patsy.
Bravo, Tyler. This is truth very clearly written. It is incredible how the onslaught of propaganda
is turning into deluge. I'm glad you have the integrity to call it what it is. Propaganda is also
an assault on journalism.
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read
an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.
(greenwald rants mostly about media sock puppets with this)
HowdyDoody
And the US SFM86 files contained details of British spies? Consider this bullshitish.
foghorn leghorn
Goldman is looking to make a fast buck off the stupid uninformed public trying to cash in
on totalitarianism. If Goldman is running this pump and dump I suggest waiting till the price
looks like a hockey stick. As soon as it starts to cave in short the hell out of it but only
for one day. Government Sacks is the most crooked bank in the history of the whole entire
world from the past up till now. In case you are wondering about the Fed well Gioldman Sachs
runs the joint.
talisman
"Snowden encryption"???
Just more US Snowden-bashing propaganda.
You mean US has not tightened up its encryption since Snowden's whistleblowing two years ago??
Shame -- ! !....
Snowden information likely had nothing to do with the latest hacks, but the blame goes on--
Blaming Snowden a lot simpler than figuring out how to solve the basic problem
of overwhelming US Homeland Security incompetence
The other day, Eugene Kaspersky noted:
"We discovered an advanced attack on our own internal networks. It was complex,
stealthy, it exploded several zero-day vulnerabilities, and we're quite confident that
there's a nation state behind it."
The firm dubbed this attack Duqu 2.0, named after a specific series of malware called Duqu,
considered to be related to the Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran in 2011.
It is, of course, now well-known that Stuxnet originated as a Israel/US venture; however
this time it would appear that CIA/Mossad may have got a bit overconfident and shot themselves
in the foot when they inserted very advanced spyware into Kaspersky's system…
Kaspersky is not just some simple-minded backward nation state; rather they are the
unquestioned world leader in advanced cybersecurity systems, so when they found this malware
in their own system, of course they figured it out, and of course got a bit pissed-so, since
they are in the business of providing advanced cybersecurity to various nations---they very
legitimately passed on the critical encryption information to their clients, and it is not at
all inconceivable that some of the clients decided to take the system for a spin and see what
it could do….
And, of course, a bit later at the opportune moment after they let the cat out of the bag,
to rub a bit of salt in the wound Kaspersky mentioned: "And the attackers are now back to the
drawing board since we exposed their platform to the whole IT security industry. "They've now
lost a very expensive technologically-advanced framework they'd been developing for years,"
Am I still the only one that sees this whole Snowden thing as a CIA ruse?
My favorite is the strategic "leaking" out of information as needed by a Jewish reporter
working for a noiZ-media outlet. I have even read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, and I'm
still not buying it.
I'm not buying any of it, but then I'd prefer to not ask for a "refund."
My personal opinion is that the CIA, in their ongoing battle with the Pentagon, penetrated the
NSA, then tapped a photogenic young man in their mitts to serve as the "poster boy" for the
ensuing "leaks." Once they have the attention of the sheeple, they can then claim anything, as
any NSA defense will not be believed.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"They lie about everything. Why would they lie about this?"
Christ Lucifer
Either Snowden read the play for some decade to come and took the key pieces of info with
him that he keeps secret but those pieces of intel currently allow him to access and control
all covert govt surveillance including that adapted due to being compromised, there maybe some
grains of truth in this in a cyber dependant organization created in an incorrectly perceived
superiority complex. Or maybe his name is synonymous with modern spying, the geek who made
good for the people, and his credibility is used to market a large amount of information
releases for public digestion. A figurehead if you will. Not to say that some years on, the
shockwaves from his actions reverberating around the planet coincide in specific places as
various imperatives are displaced by the dissolution of the foundation he cracked, while the
public are still only really concerned about their dick pics, which apparently women do not
enjoy so much anyway.
Promoted as a storm in a teacup by those who suffer to the transparency he gave, but it is
the woodchips the show the direction of the wind, not the great lumps of timber, and when the
standing trees fall it is the woodchips that have shown the truth, such is the way that key
figures move the static behemoths of overstated self importance ignorant to the world they
create. The hemorrhage has been contained but for some reason it continues to bleed out at a
steady rate, slowly washing the veil from the eyes who suffer the belief of attaining
prosperity or power through subjecting themselves to the will of others.
He's good, but was he that good? What else is playing in his favour, or the favour of his
identity?
"... Hillary diplomatic accomplishments consist of drone strikes, gunboat diplomacy, wire taps of friends, sucking up with enemies and assassination teams. ..."
"... Its funny how all you yahoos think that the people decide who is president. If the people really decided that, there wouldnt be just two candidates to vote for. Live on in your political fantasy world. ..."
"... @jgg0000012 @eightsigma You must have missed the freeloader narrative. ..."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton officially launched her 2016 campaign in New
York Saturday, laying out a populist policy agenda that she said would fight "for all Americans."
"I'm running to make our economy work for you and for every American," Clinton told supporters
at a midday rally on New York's Roosevelt Island. "I'm not running for some Americans, but for all
Americans."
Standing atop a stage shaped in the likeness of her campaign logo -- a large "H" with an arrow
pointing right -- Clinton cited "America's basic bargain" as a guiding principle of her campaign
and her personal life: "If you do your part, you ought to be able to get ahead."
...Clinton also addressed issues with entering the presidential race at 67 years old.
...She made one reference to Vladimir Putin, saying she "stood up to" the Russian leader when
she worked to pass a treaty to limit Russian nuclear warheads. But she noticeably avoided any talk
of her stance on trade -- an issue that has dominated recent headlines because of
congressional
Democrats' internal strife on fast-track trade legislation.
Carltests
Hillary's message is one of being stuck in the past. Her mother lived through the Great Depression,
and evidently had a hard time. Well, most people who lived through the Great Depression had hard
times. Living under the impression that life is the way it was now almost 100 years ago is not
indicative of anyone I can support.
She is really hung up women's issues. I know a lot of professional women who are doing quite well
and don't seem to carry that sort of baggage. They tend to be good at their career choices and
have understood that they only needed empower themselves to succeed, and therefore, they have
succeeded. They weren't dependent upon the men in their lives, although they have them, nor were
they dependent on the Government to have their success. Among them was one of the best supervisors
I ever had, and she never had the hangups Hillary does, plus she was much more competent than
Hillary has proved to be.
Perhaps Hillary's hangups are the result of her philandering, likely abusive husband, Slick Willy.
You know, he was always that way. She could have left him at any time and stood on her own. Yet,
she stayed in that almost certainly sick relationship. Now she claims she will save all women.
Well, I think her actions and her choices in her life demonstrate that she won't.
puckingpup842
More Clinton crap of greed corruption is all we would get, and with her ignorance and a finger
on the button WWIII as she thinks she is pushing a reset button.
..trout.
I am not a Hillary supporter. But if I have to choose between her and the motley lineup of
Republicans, guess she gets my vote by default.
puckingpup842
Hillary diplomatic accomplishments consist of drone strikes, gunboat diplomacy, wire taps
of friends, sucking up with enemies and assassination teams.
Buttercup
@puckingpup842
Which should make her right at home in the GOP.
eightsigma
@puckingpup842 In other words, normal foreign policy leadership.
WildStarre
It's funny how all you yahoos think that "the people" decide who is president. If the people
really decided that, there wouldn't be just two candidates to vote for. Live on in your political
fantasy world.
WildStarre
@eightsigma @WildStarre
They never have. The banks decide who the two candidates will be. And both candidates are in their
pocket.
rykatspop
And from the far corner of the old GOP, Newt has a plan . . . a contract with America. They
can bring that disaster out again.
Walker and Gingrich. There's a ticket. Neo conservatives and tea baggers unite.
eightsigma
GOP Presidential campaign platform:
"If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
eightsigma
@jgg0000012 @eightsigma You must have missed the "freeloader" narrative.
Slammy Davis, Jr.
@eightsigma @jgg0000012
Dayum right on that one! I saw Jon Stewart tear them apart on that one! Epic!
HiTor15
We saw a president come in here with all the hoopla and promise of "CHANGE"...what did he do
instead? Well he MADE THE ELITE A WHOLE LOT MORE ELITE...the POOR A WHOLE LOT MORE POOR...and
HE HAS BROUGHT US ONE SHOT FROM WORLD WAR THREE! That was not a whole lotta change of the kind
most people were expecting.....as for hillary? well first she becomes SENATOR OF NEW YORK....then...when
she loses her bid for the presidency..she decides she can join the MAN OF CHANGE and become SECRETARY
OF STATE..and what did she do there????? ....well I can leave that answer to YOU!
Its time for a REAL CHANGE....or the only change we're going to get is to die in a NUCLEAR
WAR! which will be charged to our credit bill.....before hand...... Just an opinion.....
KansasCowboy
The Clinton's have been for sale every since their early days in Arkansas. Put a t-shirt on Bill
or Hillary with the sleeves cut out and a pack of smokes on their shoulder and they are right
back in the hills..
eightsigma
@KansasCowboy Yeah - those Rhodes scholars. There goes the neighborhood
KansasCowboy
Elitist hypocrite on steroids... The Lyle Alzado of politics!
FlMed
The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political
party not run by lunatics.
There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science
and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward
redistribution of resources in American history.
Even if the relatively sober Jeb Bush wins the nomination, he will have to accommodate
himself to his party's barking-mad consensus.
She is non-crazy America's choice by default. And it is not necessarily an exciting choice
for some, but it is an easy one, and a proposition behind which she will command a majority
californiadreaming
That's a laugh. Her family is about one of the most dysfunctional families in the public
spotlight today!
Sorry, but she's just borrowing a line from Obama's playbook - tell the voters anything and
everything to get their votes, and then ignore them when you get elected.Yes, it might be time
for a female president, but Hillary Clinton is not the person to fill those shoes. She has
less experience than Obama had. And no - you can't count the 8 years being married to the
president as experience!
The overall problem in 2016 is that no candidate has stepped up that would really fit the role
of president - for either party. I've seen the administration of 11 presidents in my lifetimes,
and I've never seen such slim pickings as we have in 2016. They are all unknown entities
or they are total froot loops. The Republicans have so many candidates that even if they had a
viable one, there are too many to choose from.
skeezix06
Obama's cabinet selection of CEOs and their assistant water carriers makes Hillary's claim of
populism pretty thin. I might have believed it in 2010 but not at this point. I might add that
I've given up on my current democratic senator due to an apparent inability to tell Obama "no".
That person won'tbe getting my vote next election.
Everything considered, democrats did nothing to reverse Dumbya's bad policies and little or nothing
that looks like actual democratic policies. I'm totally disgusted with the democratic party. Republicans
have been forced so far into la-la land by the tea party/libertarians that they aren't an option.
The only person running who looks interesting so far is Bernie.
rzarc101
@xlucky7x
Bush Jr. was CEO of one or two small companies that went belly up. Fiorina almost took out HP,
a huge company. Romney was a very successful cEO. Running a company and running a government are
two different animals. They share some things but not many.
wfw3536
Hillary talks about how she is the candidate of today, and how she is fighting for children, and
regular folks. Maybe she should tell us how Bill and Hillary could make 130 million dollars in
less than six years after being broke in 2008. She tells us she wants to help our economy, well
she could help our economy by just giving us her secret of how to make 130 million dollars, or
how to play the "pay to play" games and win big. Her comments of fighting against the rich is
almost as big a lie as her whopper of being shot at by rebels in Kosovo that Obama exposed in
the 2008 campaign. She claims to be a candidate of today, but the truth is if you listen to her
speech it is the same old, same old Hillary who is getting very tired to a majority of folks who
do not believe she is neither honest of trustworthy.
erasmus
@scottpatrick1234
Give your freakin' head a shake. Every single Republican candidate will have the same or more
skeletons in their closet. I've never seen so many corrupt politicians. In fact, your whole political
system is corrupt.
From what I can see, Obama is the only one without skeletons.. Good luck with finding another.
This one was a fluke.
Anyways, GO HILLARY!!!
RJ.Incognito1974
@Buttercup @RJ.Incognito1974 You are damned right I'm afraid of a pathological liar and a Federal
criminal as POTUS.
She is also likely to be an agent for the Communist Chinese now too.
Now that we can assume that the Chinese also have EVERY single email that Hillary Clinton had
saved on the hard drive of her private server in her private home during her 4 years as Sec of
State and for 2 more years afterward, she is totally compromised. The Chinese can blackmail her
into doing ANYTHING they want her to do by threatening to expose her incriminating emails, and
you can be sure there are MANY. She deleted 30,000 of them and then had her hard drive scrubbed
in the attempt to prevent them from EVER being retrieved. Surprise, surprise, the Chinese have
read ALL of them. The Chinese OWN Hillary Clinton's fat A$$.
wdrousell
If you don't like Hillary because she is too close to WallSt, then it is obvious you would never
vote for a republican.
eightsigma
@scottpatrick1234 "Yesterday" means "greed is good".
Clinton has the moral high ground.
PlsMKSns
@scottpatrick1234 Oh. OK. You don't get it?
Yesterday - segregated army barracks, segregated society, can't vote, can't marry a different
race, can't this can't that...you get it yet?
xlucky7x
Hillary equals more hate and racism and divisiveness and misogyny and impoverishment and dependency
and crime.
Hillary offers nothing except that will be good for Hillary. She cares about nothing
but herself!
FlMed
Here are some startling facts:
In 2012 the final Electoral College results were 332 for Obama
and 206 for Romney. If that Mormon had won the battleground states of Florida (29 votes), Ohio
(18 votes), and Virginia (13 votes), Obama would still have been reelected but by acloser margin
of 272 to 266.
Now, just because Obama won well over 300 electoral votes does not mean Hillary will repeat
that achievement but her chances of doing so look quite good. . The path to 270 is much easier
for any Democrat candidate given current and future demographic growth and established voting
patterns.
Hillary may in fact win by an electoral landslide not seen since Reagan's win in 1984 which
in todays numbers would be 97% of the electoral college.
MickeyOne65
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "I want to say one thing to the American people - I will not vote
for this woman."
"...Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Lindsey Graham come to mind, along with John McCain,
Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and all the other clownish warmongers."
Let us finish our series, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." We've been looking at how, when everybody's
a lawbreaker, it's hard to spot the real criminals. (To catch up, here's
Part I,
Part II,
Part III,
and Part
IV.)
You'll recall that we imagined a
conversation
between two German soldiers on the Eastern Front in 1943. "Klaus, are we the bad guys here?" one
might have asked the other.
Yesterday, we mentioned a few "bad guys." It was no trouble to find them. Just check the lobby
of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C.
But today we move on – beyond the two-bit bullies, chiselers, and zombies – to the really ugly
guys. Who are the evil ones?
It's easy to see evil in dead people. Stalin... Hitler... Pol Pot... people who
tortured and killed just to feel good. The jaws of Hell must open especially wide to let them in.
But who should go to the devil today?
Counting the Bodies
It is not for us to say. But we can make some recommendations:
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Lindsey Graham come to mind, along with John McCain, Dick
Cheney, George W. Bush, and all the other clownish warmongers.
Of course, we want to be fair and respectful. Each should definitely get an impartial hearing…
and then his own lamppost.
"..."Not every college needs to graduate every student debt-free, [but] every kid needs a debt-free
option - a strong public university where it's possible to get a great education without taking on loads
of debt,""
"...Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a
bill last month that would allow students to attend public colleges without paying tuition. More
than 60 members of Congress co-sponsored a resolution calling for debt-free college."
"...Warren also called on Congress to increase funding for Pell Grants, a federal program that
helps low-income students pay for college. Earlier this year, House Republicans proposed freezing the
maximum Pell Grant at $5,775 per year for the next 10 years."
"...The Senator criticized the Department for taking too long to intervene as evidence built
up that Corinthian Colleges, once one of the largest for-profit college chains, was misleading students.
The agency increased avenues for loan forgiveness for Corinthian students earlier this week after pressure
from Warren and others."
"Elizabeth Warren called on schools, as well federal and state governments to create a viable
path for Americans to attend college debt free, in a speech Wednesday.
The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts has been one of the most prominent advocates of a proposal
from progressive Democrats to allow students to graduate from public universities without any debt.
Wednesday's speech offered a variety of policy suggestions for achieving that goal, including requiring
colleges to have a clear financial stake in their students' success and debt levels, mandating minimum
levels of state investment in public schools and establishing a partnership between federal and state
governments to fund public universities modeled after the way governments use combined resources
to build and maintain interstate highways.
"Not every college needs to graduate every student debt-free, [but] every kid needs a debt-free
option - a strong public university where it's possible to get a great education without taking
on loads of debt," Warren said Wednesday at a panel on college affordability, according to
prepared remarks. The panel was sponsored by the Shaker Institute and the American Federation
of Teachers. "It's time to open the doors of opportunity wider and to invest in our future."
Once somewhat of a far-fetched pipe dream, the idea of "debt-free college" has gained traction
in mainstream Democratic circles in recent months. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for
president, has said America should "try
to move toward making college as debt-free as possible," at an Iowa campaign event. One of her
challengers, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a
bill last month that would allow students to attend public colleges without paying tuition. More
than 60 members of Congress co-sponsored a resolution calling for debt-free college.
The idea likely has mass appeal for voters. Tuition, even at public universities, has skyrocketed
over the past several years, putting the idea of a college degree without debt out of reach for many
aspiring students. Today about
40 million Americans have student loans, totaling about $1.2 trillion in outstanding debt and
70% college students graduate with debt.
Warren's speech comes as lawmakers work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the law that
governs federal financial aid programs, before it expires at the end of the year. Some of the proposals
she discussed in the speech have bipartisan support, including simplifying the Free Application for
Federal Financial Aid form and requiring colleges to have "skin in the game" when it comes to student
loans.
Others, however, are more contentious. Warren urged state governments to allow borrowers to refinance
their student loans at lower interest rates. The Senator has proposed a
bill asking the federal government to do this, which Republicans have blocked multiple times.
Warren also called on Congress to increase funding for Pell Grants, a federal program that helps
low-income students pay for college. Earlier this year, House Republicans proposed freezing the maximum
Pell Grant at $5,775 per year for the next 10 years.
In addition to laying out her plans for making debt-free college a reality, Warren also used the
speech to deride the way the Department of Education has handled accusations of wrongdoing against
student loan servicers and schools. The Senator criticized the Department for taking too long
to intervene as evidence built up that Corinthian Colleges, once one of the largest for-profit college
chains, was misleading students.
The agency increased avenues for loan forgiveness for Corinthian students earlier this week after
pressure from Warren and others.
"Secretary Duncan is right to help these students, and should do more - particularly since
the students were defrauded while the Department of Education passed up one opportunity after
another to stop Corinthian from cheating more students," she said in the speech.
Jillian Berman covers student debt and millennial finance. You can follow her on Twitter
@JillianBerman.
The poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since
she launched her campaign in April.
A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March),
MacDaddyWatch
Hillary Down the Crapper:
(CNN): More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now
than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race. The poll shows
that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her
campaign in April.
A growing number of people say:
she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March),
less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July)
and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March).
Notable quotes: . "... What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance? This is no small
matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The
embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for
resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew
after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole
new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of
the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter
what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe." " . "...The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at
perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian
Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial
overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the
sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power
to defend all of them simultaneously."" . dir="ltr">"...But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the
pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill
for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates)
to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures
abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality."
Think of this as a little imperial folly update -- and here's the backstory.
In the years after invading Iraq and disbanding Saddam Hussein's military, the U.S.
sunk about
$25 billion into "standing up" a new Iraqi army. By June 2014, however, that
army, filled with at least
50,000 "ghost soldiers," was only standing in the imaginations of its generals and perhaps
Washington. When
relatively small numbers of Islamic State (IS) militants swept into northern Iraq, it collapsed,
abandoning
four cities -- including Mosul, the country's second largest -- and
leaving behind enormous stores of U.S. weaponry, ranging from tanks and Humvees to artillery
and rifles. In essence, the U.S. was now standing up its future enemy in a style to which
it was unaccustomed and, unlike the imploded Iraqi military, the forces of the Islamic
State proved quite capable of using that weaponry without a foreign trainer or adviser in sight.
In response, the Obama administration
dispatched thousands of new advisers and trainers and began shipping in
piles of new weaponry to re-equip the Iraqi army. It also filled Iraqi skies
with U.S. planes armed with their own munitions to
destroy, among other things, some of that captured U.S. weaponry. Then it set to work
standing up a smaller version of the Iraqi army. Now, skip nearly a year ahead and on
a somewhat lesser scale the whole process has just happened again. Less than two
weeks ago, Islamic State militants took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province.
Iraqi army units, including the elite American-trained
Golden Division, broke and fled, leaving behind -- you'll undoubtedly be shocked to hear
-- yet
another huge cache of weaponry and equipment, including tanks, more than 100 Humvees and
other vehicles, artillery, and so on.
The Obama administration reacted in a thoroughly novel way: it immediately
began shipping in new stocks of weaponry, starting with
1,000 antitank weapons, so that the reconstituted Iraqi military could take out future "massive
suicide vehicle bombs" (some of which, assumedly, will be those captured vehicles from Ramadi).
Meanwhile, American planes began roaming the skies over that city, trying to destroy some of
the equipment IS militants had captured.
Notice anything repetitive in all this -- other than another a bonanza for U.S. weapons
makers? Logically, it would prove less expensive for the Obama administration
to simply arm the Islamic State directly before sending in the air strikes. In any case,
what a microcosm of U.S. imperial hubris and folly in the twenty-first century all this training
and equipping of the Iraqi military has proved to be. Start with the post-invasion
decision of the Bush administration to totally disband Saddam's army and instantly eject
hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sunni military men and a full officer corps into the chaos
of the "new" Iraq and you have an instant formula for creating a Sunni resistance movement.
Then, add in a little extra "training" at
Camp Bucca, a U.S. military prison in Iraq, for key unemployed officers, and -- Voilà!
-- you've helped set up the petri dish in which the leadership of the Islamic State movement
will grow. Multiply such stunning tactical finesse many times over globally and, as
TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes clear today, you have what might
be called the folly of the "sole superpower" writ large.
Delusionary Thinking in Washington
The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower
Take a look around the world and it's hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower
in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles,
ignoring Washington's dictates, or actively combating them. Russia
refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China
refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia
refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS)
refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed
to do in the face of such defiance?
This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic
of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States
assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through
the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole
responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell
famously
exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying,
'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe."
Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington
Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington's power brokers assumed that there would always
be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance. In the wake of the utterly unexpected
Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a "sole superpower"
(aka Rome on the Potomac).
In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon
adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense
Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it
declared: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed
formerly by the Soviet Union."
H.W.'s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing
Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he
told military
cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be "to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity
-- given few nations in history -- to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future.
A chance to project America's peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years."
For Bush, of course, "extending the peace" would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting
a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after
it began, he did not doubt -- nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight)
does he today -- that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted
status as the world's sole superpower.
The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed
at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian
Paul Kennedy, in his classic book
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch."
As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total
of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to
defend all of them simultaneously."
Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What's curious, however, is just
how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the
planet's first "hyperpower,"
a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.'s miscalculation in Iraq
and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and
a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing
the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to
challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying,
in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas -- among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, and the South China Sea -- but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.
Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington's power elite -- Senators
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule -- seems to have the slightest
urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President
Obama, who is clearly
all too aware of the country's strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness
to retreat from such a supremacist vision. "The United States is and remains the one indispensable
nation," he
told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. "That has been true for the century past and
it will be true for the century to come."
How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment
to global supremacy?
The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire
circus act. It involves the constant juggling of America's capabilities and commitments, with
its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one
place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and
deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration.
Call it the
Obama
Doctrine.
After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and
Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers
decided
to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in
the western Pacific. Announcing this shift in 2011 -- it would first be called a "pivot to
Asia" and then a "rebalancing" there -- the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.
"After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United
States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region," he
told members of the Australian Parliament that November. "As we end today's wars, I have
directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.
As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense
of the Asia Pacific."
Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained
army there collapsed with the loss of
four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming
threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting
-- this time
sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country,
putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict
there.
Meanwhile, Republican critics of the president, who
claim he's doing too little in a losing effort in Iraq (and Syria), have also taken him to task
for
not doing enough to implement the pivot to Asia. In reality, as his juggling act that satisfies
no one continues in Iraq and the Pacific, he's had a hard time finding the wherewithal to effectively
confront Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the various
militias fighting for power in fragmenting Libya, and so on.
The Party of Utter Denialism
Clearly, in the face of multiplying threats, juggling has not proven to be a viable strategy.
Sooner or later, the "balls" will simply go flying and the whole system will threaten to fall apart.
But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response
to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.
For those who adhere to this outlook, it's not America's global stature that's eroding, but its
will -- that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more
loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt
away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you're prepared to back up your threats with
actual force, or "hard power,"
as some like to call it.
Among the most vocal of those touting this line is
Senator John McCain, the chair
of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. "For five years,
Americans have been told that 'the tide of war is receding,' that we can pull back from the world
at little cost to our interests and values," he
typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Times op-ed. "This has fed a perception
that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative." The only
way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is "to restore the
credibility of the United States as a world leader." This means, among other things, arming the
Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe,
combating "the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses," and playing a "more
robust" role (think: more "boots" on more ground) in the war against ISIS.
Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. "When aggressive rulers
or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us," he
declared last November, "what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility,
and global reach of American hard power."
A similar approach -- in some cases
even more bellicose -- is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the
race for president, Rand Paul again excepted. At a recent "Freedom Summit" in the early primary
state of South Carolina, the various contenders sought to out-hard-power each other. Florida Senator
Marco Rubio was
loudly cheered for promising to make the U.S. "the strongest military power in the world." Wisconsin
Governor Scott Walker received a standing ovation for pledging to further escalate the war on international
terrorists: "I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight
to us."
In this overheated environment, the 2016 presidential campaign is certain to be dominated by
calls for increased military spending, a tougher stance toward Moscow and Beijing, and an expanded
military presence in the Middle East. Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed
Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions.
In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office in January 2017 will be expected to wield a far bigger
stick on a significantly less stable planet. As a result, despite the last decade and a half of
interventionary disasters, we're likely to see an even more interventionist foreign policy with
an even greater impulse to use military force.
However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing
body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes
that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq
invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional
thinking. China is far more powerful
than it was 13 years ago, Russia has
largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has
replaced
the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater
freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in
Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.
Time to Stop Pretending
Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face
of this predicament?
Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it's
not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting
the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well
would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie
of other major powers -- none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the
threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power,
Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers -- Russia, China,
and Iran among them -- and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous
regional firestorms.
If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this
country's "war capital," this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others
have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas
A&M
argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global
superpower status and, "rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis…
should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion." Layne and
others have
spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge
to garrison the planet, reduced
military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling
infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.
But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense
that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for
the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates)
to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military
adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with
reality.
Selected Quotes: "..."Why don't people start new parties in the US to compete against the established
ones?" is the same damned question as "why don't people start new parties in the USSR to compete against
the communist party?", it's just that the US has two parties instead of one.
"...the whole point, as imagined by men who, with certain important exceptions, were very much determined
not to replicate the powers of a monarchy in their fledgling nation, was to create conditions that
would force elites to compromise and to limit the power of the propertyless (let alone the slaves)
to even enter into the discussion. Compromise between powerful interests, not the clarity of unitary
authority, was supposed to occur not only between the branches of government, but also between the national
government and those of the states (and between the North and the slaveholding sub-nation of the
South). There is absolutely nothing structurally about the American system of government, either in
its inception or in its current dissipated condition, that offers voters a "clear choice" regarding
domestic politics. "
"...Meanwhile, the dominant political party over the past hundred years has won a majority yet again
with a minority of those actually voting. ...people seem quite happy for a government to rule with
the support of 22% of the population and to wait patiently for the opportunity to repeat the process
in five years time."
"...These are all reasonable questions to ask at a time when the neoliberal course of policy evolution
seems to be trending in a direction non-responsive to the substantive interests of the mass of people
and the apparatus for authoritarian governance is being augmented. "
"..In fact, it turns out that the only country in the world with a US style two coke/ pepsi two
parties and that is all you are going to get electoral system happens to be the US."
The two countries that have seen the greatest rise in inequality over the past couple of decades
are Britain and the United States. Both have a first-past-the-post system designed to
offer a clear choice between two main parties. Yet whichever of the two parties wins, the drift
towards inequality has been inexorable.
... the US has a presidential model with separation of powers across three branches of government
and a widely dispersed federalism, and the UK has a parliamentary model.
...The American system offers a decidedly murky choice; Because the congressional party
(whose election is spread over three cycles) does not merely oppose, but also obstructs the presidential
party, the US way of democracy provides the electorate with no logical party accountability
- presidential "failures" can be caused by minority legislative parties because the presidential
party only appears to voters-and to Runciman, apparently-to be the governing party, but is not.
... ... ...
...the whole point, as imagined by men who, with certain important exceptions, were very much
determined not to replicate the powers of a monarchy in their fledgling nation, was to create
conditions that would force elites to compromise and to limit the power of the propertyless
(let alone the slaves) to even enter into the discussion.
Compromise between powerful interests, not the clarity of unitary authority, was supposed
to occur not only between the branches of government, but also between the national government and
those of the states (and between the North and the slaveholding sub-nation of the South). There
is absolutely nothing structurally about the American system of government, either in its inception
or in its current dissipated condition, that offers voters a "clear choice" regarding domestic politics.
Bruce Wilder 05.28.15 at 4:34 am
"The system makes them do it" enables a flight into meta, where the thin atmosphere and lessened
gravity, makes all kinds of intellectual acrobatics possible, as david notes.
Technical tweaking of electoral rules may make knowledge seem like power, but, as Cersei Lannister
so eloquently put it, "Power is power."
Neither the U.S. nor Britain has an effective, popular party with committed mass support
or a committed leadership. Politicians of both Parties respond pretty much only to the very, very
rich and to well-organized business interests.
That's not to say that the Parties are "the same", because they are not. But, it is to say
that the political weight to force the kinds of political compromise with the general or mass
interest Runciman apparently desires is simply not there, and no clever reforms can conjure it
up.
reason 05.28.15 at 7:56 am
Bruce The problem with a two party system is that it stifles debate (at least in the major
media – crooked timber is an exception of course). Politics unfortunately today is about symbolism
and personalities, I'm old enough to remember a time when it was about policy (as in my view it
should be).
The US presidential system unfortunately institutionalises it being about personality which
I regard as an enormous mistake. voting systems are not the solution to everything, but they matter.
Omega Centauri 05.28.15 at 5:03 pm
There might be issues of subtle incentives/drives towards certain types of outcomes, which
effect the dynamics of how the system evolves. Does FPP which gives uneven decision power
to swing voters in swing districts, favor those political actors (or pressure groups), which can
capture these swing voters? If that is indeed happening, does it favor big money, over grassroots
or vice versa?
I'm not up to date on the British system with regards to financing of campaign publicity efforts.
There used to be strict limits on money in UK elections, in the US -especially after citizens
united, there are effectively no limits on big money spending to influence results. Surely this
creates forces that effect how the overall system evolves. In the US we have one party which is
openly in the pocket of big money interests, and another which is rhetorically opposed, but in
fact has to raise substantial funds from big money sectors in order to remain competitive. This
of course creates a bit of a dichotomy, one party can have a clear set of principles it appears
to be loyal to, whilst the other is continually compromising between its ideals, and its funders
desires -therefore even though its policies are generally favored, the personal integrity of its
candidates can be continually undermined.
Igor Belanov 05.28.15 at 6:31 pm
The British political system is extremely conservative, some of which is no doubt due to the
voting system.
Take the 2015 election as an example, but in terms of the actual representation. The UK has
remained a two-and-a-half party system, as it has been since at least 1997, but with the SNP replacing
the Lib Dems. Meanwhile, the dominant political party over the past hundred years has won
a majority yet again with a minority of those actually voting.
This is against a backdrop of massive change when it comes to voting and political attitudes.
The winning party received the same proportion of the vote as the Labour Party did in its disastrous
defeat in 1979. While almost all elections involve the vast majority of seats 'swinging' from
one party to another, this election saw a bizarre collection of swings in different areas and
individual constituencies. Scotland moved decisively for the SNP and against Labour. The North
and the big cities saw safe Labour seats pile on enhanced majorities but lose out in marginal
seats, while in the Midlands and South Labour lost votes slightly almost everywhere to the Tories
and UKIP. The only uniform factor was the drubbing handed to the Lib Dems.
Despite the vagaries of the political system, however, the real sign of the conservatism of
the British system and society is that people seem quite happy for a government to rule with
the support of 22% of the population and to wait patiently for the opportunity to repeat the process
in five years time.
Bruce Wilder 05.28.15 at 6:44 pm
reason @ 10: The problem with a two party system . . . Politics unfortunately today is
about symbolism and personalities . . . The US presidential system unfortunately . . . I'm
old enough to remember a time when . . .
Are the pathologies of politics related in a substantial way to the two-party system? What
is the problem with the institution of the Presidency? (Or, what is the problem with institution
of the Parliament?)
Two-party systems can have a variety of equilibria, which may involve various emergent third
or fourth parties or movements on the periphery, as it were. The OP is raising the question of
whether the Party system presents distinct choices, or should, and whether presenting distinct
choices is related to being able to hold the Parties responsible and accountable, and whether
the Party system encourages or discourages deliberation in policy choice or conduct.
These are all reasonable questions to ask at a time when the neoliberal course of policy
evolution seems to be trending in a direction non-responsive to the substantive interests of the
mass of people and the apparatus for authoritarian governance is being augmented. Tweaking
the rules might disrupt undesirable trends driven by the peculiar turn taken recently in the strategic
competition of the Parties.
... ... ...
Igor Belanov @ 22: . . . people seem quite happy for a government to rule with the support
of 22% of the population . . .
I assume you mean that observation ironically.
Collin Street 05.28.15 at 9:10 pm
In fact, it turns out that the only country in the world with a US style two coke/ pepsi
two parties and that is all you are going to get electoral system happens to be the US. This
is probably due to the fact that, also somewhat uniquely, in the US the Democrats and the
Republicans jointly staff the bureaucracies responsible for running the elections and counting
the votes.
The actual root of the problem is twofold:
the way that the requirements to be able to nominate candidates are different between established
and new parties, and at a ludicrously high level for new parties, entrenches the two main parties
to an undesirable degree; effort that in a normal context would be spent in setting up a new
political movement is in the US better-spent taking over one or the other of the party shells
the way that the state dictates through the primary process who the parties will run as
"their" candidate means that the parties can no longer be regarded purely as private-space
organisations but essentially part of the state.
"Why don't people start new parties in the US to compete against the established ones?"
is the same damned question as "why don't people start new parties in the USSR to compete against
the communist party?", it's just that the US has two parties instead of one.
otpup 05.29.15 at 2:40 am
The US system has three, mutually reinforcing pillars:
disproportionality (i.e., a uniquely pure 2 party system),
structural demobilization (low voter turnout, registration laws, cultural pessimism/realism).
Most of this rooted in the notoriously hard to amend Constitution. Reform in the US is high
gear when it's only 50 years behind the rest of the advanced industrial nations.
Igor Belanov 05.29.15 at 7:20 am
@33
I think there is an incredible inertia within the core Labour vote, and there is such an anti-Tory
feeling within a good quarter of the electorate that many of us end up voting Labour merely to
try and keep the Tories out. While the present voting system exists I think this situation will
endure.
That said, I suspect that the next five years will provide a useful experiment as to just how
far the Labour Party can stretch the allegiance of its core vote without it snapping. I reckon
that the next Labour leader will make Blair seem like Blanqui.
Main Street Muse 05.29.15 at 10:25 am
US needs campaign finance reform – stat. And they need to do what they can, if anything,
to stop the revolving door. As the banks led the economy over the cliff, bankers finagled fantastic
bonuses from one of their own – Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who, as CEO of $GS, had lobbied
Congress in 2002 for lower capital requirements, a business practice that considerably weakened
banks' ability to weather a financial crisis. There's huge backlash against raising the minimum
wage, coming from – as you can imagine – well-coordinated lobbying efforts by companies that pay
people so little they require federal assistance to survive. Corporations see huge profits but
workers don't get a raise – the profits head out the door to shareholders. We bow at the altar
of the shareholders, to he$$ with all else.
It's all very sordid and the furthest thing Madison et al. could have imagined.
otpup 05.29.15 at 1:42 pm
The US has open primaries because the 2 party system is over-determined, not the other way
around.
The tendency toward fewer parties is due to (see Duverger) the tradeoff between voting for
a party of one's preferred ideology and the voting for a party that might actually be represented
in the legislature (let alone wield power).
SMD's, bicameralism, the existence and strength of a presidential office, federalism, etc.
are all structural factors leading to fewer parties, mostly because they create or heighten the
trade off ade off isn't even between voting one's ideological or policy preference because reform
is so unlikely. It is between voting for one's preference and defensively voting for a party that,
at the least, can block unwanted reforms by the other side.
Sancho 05.30.15 at 1:52 pm
Being Australian, I assume The Onion is relevant in this case. And if not, well that's
my quaint antipodean misunderstanding.
Runciman's complaint is a rather vague one, about the responsiveness of politics, and it seems
to me that his big mistake is imagining that the Continental polities, where the remnant Left
has been Pasokified in grand coalition governments, is in any better shape than the UK.
If you have leftist sympathies, you may look upon SYRIZA in Greece, Podemos in Spain, or even
the Five Star movement in Italy with some small measure of trepidacious hope. But, even if forlorn
hope gets one of these Parties elected, like SYRIZA, they may find themselves unable to formulate
a useful way to lead or exercise power.
There's been some back and forth in this thread using clichés concerning two-party competition
for the generic political center or median voter. To me, the discussion just highlighted how incoherent
such generic analysis has become.
Attlee may have succeeded, as the New Deal succeeded, because of the social and political
solidarity forged by the experience of World War II. That sense of solidarity with the state,
reinforced by a politics of mass-membership Parties, which was particularly necessary to Labour
representing its eponymous constituency, gave advantages to the politicians, who sought to further
the interests of the common man and the public good.
As that sense of solidarity has dissolved, the politics of self and symbolic political identity
have displaced it, and the advantage has shifted to lobbyists for corporate interests, who
can supply the funds for sophisticated campaigns of media manipulation and neoliberal rhetoric
that can apologize for, and cover for, "reforms" that facilitate economic predation.
From my great distance, one of the more remarkable patterns in the recent British elections is
the rise of a desire for political solidarity. Most British voters were, according to polls, fairly
hostile to the Conservative agenda. And, though fragmented, the most effective political appeals
seem to be centered on political solidarity of one kind or another. Labour found itself falling
back on its historical constituencies and the voters who identify with it most strongly. Scottish
nationalists of course, and English nationalists, too surged in the polls.
To the extent that politics is about who gets what, in the distribution of power and income,
it is always, at its core, a potential war between the rich and poor, the few and the many, in
which feelings of political solidarity are a means of reconciliation, of binding elites to followers,
or, alternatively, allowing sufficient organization of the many to overwhelm with numbers the
otherwise superior organization of elites pursuing their own selfish interests at the expense
of the many.
In our neoliberal era, the "poor" and the many are losing, steadily and inexorably. Parties
of the many - like Labour - do not seem to be able to find leaders who want to represent the genuine
interests of the many or to make arguments for the interests of the many.
Arguments about consumer sovereignty in politics can obscure the import of the political losses
of the many. Do people vote "against their interests"? Do they prefer racism to socialism? Why
can't people see how much better Obama is than Romney? Why didn't people get more enthusiastic
about Miliband's austerity-lite? Why are politicians of the centre-left so shy of challenging
the shibboleths laid down by the right-wing press? Why was Miliband such a tool, rejecting cooperation
with the SNP or engaging in self-parody with his policy tombstone?
When the rich are not genuinely afraid of nazis or commies, many have little or no interest
in genuine solidarity, and are freed to engage in the most cynical sort of manipulation. Also,
they will have the good sense to do what they can to undermine, or destroy, any nascent mass-movements
with economics on their minds. And, as a second line of defense, they will actively seek to put
political power out of constitutional reach, so that a popular party that achieves electoral success
will be without the means to put together a coherent policy agenda.
This has been a long-winded way of saying that electoral arithmetic is a distraction from the
difficulty of forming and leading a mass-movement against a well-organized, well-financed economic
elite determined to prevent it. It's long-winded, because I want to get to a somewhat harder point:
in the absence of a solidarity the encompasses a large part of the economic elite, the popular
party has to depend on the passions of resentment and righteous anger, and contemplate the necessity
of meeting violence.
Anger and resentment are not attractive qualities in political leadership. It's a tricky business
to feed these into electoral politics, to (ideally) stage-manage ripping the mask of humanity
off of the Camerons of this world, revealing them for the predators and sociopaths they, and their
sponsors, may be.
I think this is realistic, but it is a long way from tweaking electoral rules to bring about
a glorious era of consumer sovereignty in politics, and much closer to revolution in its aims
and means.
Ed 05.30.15 at 6:41 pm
Bruce Wilder makes some excellent points in his post at # 73, but I'll add that one thing different
about the 1930s and 1940s is that countries fought wars by conscripting as many working class
men as they could into the army (those that could be spared from manufacturing weapons and yes,
from the coal mines), and handing them rifles. This mass mobilization made it very important for
the elites to actually pay attention to what the masses want, also to make sure they were well
fed enough and healthy enough to do their military service.
Universal suffrage was invented in the French Revolution along with conscription, and was implement
in most of Europe and North America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, right
around the time of the World Wars. The US was late again here, in effect not instituting universal
suffrage until after World War 2. The reason behind the rollback of democracy and the welfare
state is simply due to the fact that the changes in technology means that the elites don't need
them to fight for them anymore.
Bruce Wilder 05.31.15 at 4:04 pm
Stephen @ 75: [Didn't the New Deal happen before WWII?]
The New Deal, as a policy program and a political coalition, was initiated as a response to
the Great Depression of the 1930s. By most accounts, the New Deal, policy and program, was
put in considerable jeopardy by the steady march of Southern Senators and senior Representatives
to the Right during the 1930s. FDR's so-called "court-packing scheme", though it ended the
Supreme Court's intransigent opposition to key New Deal programs also galvanized a conservative
coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress in opposition to FDR, and key New
Deal programs of public works spending, advance of union rights and social liberalization were
in jeopardy as the Depression eased toward the end of the 1930s.
What I asserted was that the New Deal succeeded to the extent that it did, as a result
of WWII. The massive national effort of the war derailed the efforts of conservatives to
curtail or reverse New Deal policies and programs. New Dealers became powerful administrators
of the industrial and agricultural mobilization required by the war, and many goals and policies
of the New Deal were advanced far beyond what had been achieved in the 1930s. Most notably,
the war ended the stalemate over income distribution, resulting in what economists have labeled
the Great Compression in income distribution, and the enormous "Keynesian" stimulus spending of
the war altered the distribution of financial wealth in programs of forced savings among a new,
broad middle class.
Notable quotes: "After nearly 40 years in journalism, I'm still amazed at just how routinely
the press violates nearly every ethical precept that is supposed to guide its work."
"...You do realize that the party machinery will cheat, if necessary? Rigging elections was
the meat and drink of the big city machines – almost all Democrats. Chicago is the last survivor."
"...That dog won't hunt. After the 1972 fiasco the Democrats specifically adopted the superdelegate
rule to ensure that party establishment could exercise a de facto veto over the nomination process in
order to ensure they would never again be saddled with an unelectable McGovernesque candidate by the
party rank and file. From the point of view of the party establishment Sanders is McGovern with 10%
of the charisma and 1000% of the ideological baggage.
Not that it's ever going to come to that. They destroyed Howard Dean literally overnight with
the meme that he was some crazed out of control freak on the basis of one boisterous post primary celebration
rally – and Dean was then a frontrunner with a extensive ground organization and Obama-like adulation
from young Democrats. Taking down a 73 year old senator from a small state with no organization
and no constituency within the Democratic Party is almost an insult to their finely honed mastery of
the Machiavellian arts."
"...MSM are large corporations. Large corporations plump for corporate approved candidates.
Sanders isn't a corporate candidate. End of story. By the way, double-check your calendars, it isn't
1948, nor even 1972."
"...Sanders is toxic to the establishment not only because they regard him as unelectable, but more
importantly because even if he was nominated (never mind thinking the unthinkable, as in a President
Sanders) the plutocracy would abandon the Democrats in droves and take their money and patronage with
them. From the perspective of the establishment that would be the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory."
"...Democrat is a disgusting moniker, not Liberal/Progressive". They (Democrats) sell their Mothers
too, but it's behind a veil of policy, that's never brought up. Obama stunted the vote of the 18-30
year olds for possibly eternity. There was no "Change", and almost all have lost "Hope"."
"...I sometimes think that parties are: interest groups for certain industries. And if
so Sanders could be different as long as he's the same on the issues these industries care about. And
maybe that's what could happen, he'll be allowed some progressive economic policies that still have
to pass Congress, and thus may never see the light of day, in return for steering the empire through
another round, which will of course see the light of day.
The popular perception is to see parties as ideologies but to accept that is to condemn a party
that will not condemn and disown Obama as having no principles, or no decent principles at any rate.
Because the Dem party is really not coherent as an ideological entity except as a champion of
the worse types of things."
This article has an implicit faith in the American voter that is unearned. I'm deeply skeptical
that the elites are the problem. I support Sanders. I think Americans are in denial and identify
too much with the elite.
Another way of looking at it is the Americans want to be part of the winning team. At the
same time, they want a candidate that they believe is on their side.
That may have a lot to do with Obama's victory – he convinced a large number of people that
he WAS on their side.
It also explains why a large number of us have no respect for what's left of his administration,
and it explains why a lot of people are less than fully optimistic about Hillary.
Bernie lacks the Wall St connections and the Wall St money. It's hard to see him as the
inevitable winner. But we do know what he stands for. I'll vote for him in a primary and in the
general election precisely because he is not the lesser evil.
The only way I would vote for Hillary would be if she convinced me that she was on my side.
It's not likely to happen because she was tightly connected to the New Democrats, and they have
demonstrated over and over that they are on their own side. She used up the time when she might
have demonstrated who she is. It' a little late to start now and be believable.
Bill Clinton was on our side. He felt our pain. Reagan was on our side. We just knew it, he
talked so good and trustworthy and he was a war hero, wasn't he? Like John Wayne?
To paraphrase, no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.
In general, I deprecate the "voters are stupid" trope. Basically, I file that under the heading
of "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others." (Too lazy to find
the soruce of the quote; Churchill?) I deprecate it for two reasons:
1) Tactically, it's foolish. Why insult the people you need to persuade? (And if you write
them off, what then?)
2) Morally, I'd appeal to "There but for the grace of ___ go I." After all, who among us hasn't
done something really stupid, and sometimes persisted for years? I certainly have.)
I also believe that with many Americans, cultural values trump good economics: Americans
may not want to support broader based health care programs and or a stronger social safety net
in general if they believe that those more redistributive economic policies leading to such would
provide equal quality benefits to people they consider less than worthy--poor people of color,
poor people of color on federal assistance, substance abuse addicts. People who oppose abortion
would vote for an anti-abortion candidate whose economic policies served the wealthy much more
than a pro-choice candidate whose economics better serve the 99%.
Right Wing Corporate media has also done a bang up job over the past 3 decades "manufacturing
consent" among main street Americans to economic policies that better the wealthy than themselves.
Okay – Yves likes Sanders. But is Sanders really a viable candidate?
The man is 73 today. If elected he would be 75 when he takes the oath of office. The oldest
president to take the oath was Ronnie Regan. He was 69 when he swore on a bible. Sanders will
be six years older than Ronnie.
Bernie is a good guy, and he has ideas that have support – but there is no way that he is qualified
to be the next Prez.
If Sanders supporters ever thought that the mainstream press was going to help them in
their crusade they are deeply delusional. The dismissive attitude of the political press is exactly
what one might have expected.
And the Carter comparison is a bit of stretch. Carter brought the South into the Democratic
fold when that was hardly guaranteed. Sanders brings…Vermont? The favorite son idea may seem
antique in this media age but the last New Englander to win was JFK, and he was from the largest
state in the region.
For once I actually agree with Chuck Todd and the rest. If Sanders wants to prove his political
viability he's going to have to do more than cite popularity in tiny Vermont. Might be time to
start shaking hands, kissing babies.
And finally isn't it way too early to be talking about any of this? The tea leaves are very
murky.
Way too early yea, I'm more with what Chomsky says in that voting should take 5 minutes, then
get back to real activism. Now I think the 5 minute thing is wrong (and he uses it to defend voting
for such "lesser" evils of Obama), I mean if your going to be a semi-intelligent voter do more
research than that, or you really would be better off not voting, especially if your voting on
referendums and things you have a direct say on. But it's closer to the truth than starting on
the Presidency, of all things (the position we have least ability to affect), now.
... But I also say that Bernie needs to keep his eye on the real prize here – which is actually
much larger than the White House – and that is the principle of change itself, something that
he doesn't need to win the presidency or even the nomination in order to achieve. He can show
leadership now and make it happen.
For example, Bernie has a formidable ally with Warren, who can be his attack dog. He couldn't
have asked for a better opportunity. If he uses her right, it not only advances his own chances,
but Warren's as well, by better positioning her in congress and even making changes in the congressional
races. This is nothing new. But it would be jaw dropping to see a Democrat playing political
hardball like this – political competence would be awesome to see at work.
Good comment and good question; What is Sanders going to do about it? Gaius is saying,
keep the faith (long shots are not always so long), because the electorate is still looking
for actual representation as illustrated by Gaius' somewhat less than compelling examples and
will manage to find it somehow. That may be true, Gaius has a way of being early to recognize
things. But you are absolutely correct that Sanders has to do something to make that happen and
as you also point out he is not without possibilities. It won't be enough to simply blame the
media if he fails.
The media will do a lot to hinder Sanders and silence is indeed their biggest weapon, but
this is only the beginning. Personally, I'm more suspicious that wittingly or not, he is
fulfilling other purposes than simply those of an enlightened choice in a democratic process –
and that is the direction you will see the media, or a significant part of it, pushing things
as hard as they can once the primaries get going. Will he be aware? Can he use it to his advantage?
Sanders is a deeply political person and a very capable one so he will deserve little excuse
if his run turns out to be simply channeling energy into the Hillary coronation.
MSM are large corporations. Large corporations plump for corporate approved candidates.
Sanders isn't a corporate candidate. End of story. By the way, double-check your calendars,
it isn't 1948, nor even 1972.
In the post Citizens United world, none of this matters. Do we need a free press -yes. Do we
have one – no. But then we don't have democracy either.
Yes I've asked, could Sanders win on small donations alone? But we are told there are rich
people or corporations who mean well that will donate. Ok, lets assume that (although I'd really
rather not assume it about the corporate persons at least), would we even be able to KNOW WHO
is donating to him? (or to any other candidate)
If people truly believe in the candidacy of Sanders then they should do everything in their
power to get him elected. I cannot say if other ways of person to person communication can undo
the silence of the MSM, but it's certainly worth a try.
For me, the more important question is this– what are the people getting with a Sander's win?
Just as Obama won, I would not say that ordinary people around the world or the earth itself is
a better place due to his winning. His win has been an unmitigated disaster in this regard. It
has also been an unmitigated, uncompromising success for his real constituents.
All I am asking is that people look not only at what Sanders says, (which like what Obama said
before his election, is profound, excellent, impassioned and great), but that voters judge him
on his votes. The votes are different from the speeches. Actions tell a story that voters need
to understand.
We were all told it was necessary for Obama to win. Was it? Did his win help ordinary people
and the earth?. Has his win accomplished the goals people sought in voting for him? I would say,
absolutely not.
This country is very ready to vote for an actual left wing politician. I also see that we are
again in a position of desperation, seeking a savior. That desperation, that desire for a savior
can be very dangerous while trying to make a good judgment about our political class. However,
if people look at Sander's actions and want to pull for him, that is what I would do. Go around
the MSM in every possible way. It may not succeed but it is still worth doing.
What was his position on the Israeli attack on Gaza or Russia and the Ukraine debacle? What
about Syria and Iran? And I guess now we need to look at China as well.
Hopefully, there isn't a neocon cloaked underneath that nice shiny anti-neo-liberal facade.
Will Miller,
an anti-war activist who fought to unionize the University of Vermont faculty, called Sanders:
"Bernie
the Bomber".
Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally,
Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In 1992
he described Clinton as the "lesser of evils," (a justification he used to denounce when he
was what the local press called an "avowed socialist"). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified
endorsement. He has been a consistent "Friend of Bill's" from since 1992. One student I know
worked on the Clinton Campaign in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with
the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the unauthorized Democratic candidate
for his Congressional seat was kept out in the audience.
Sanders continues to support sanctions even though the Iraqi body count has now passed 1.5
million. Just as he has supported every bombing of Iraq since 1992. When Clinton sent military
units to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in October, 1994 because Iraq moved troops inside Iraq closer
to the Kuwait border (apparently
about 100 miles away), Bernie supported this because "we cannot tolerate aggression." […]
The overwhelming majority of the people present were against Sander's [sic] support for
the bombing… and his active support for every US intervention since he has been in Congress–Iraq,
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
When Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, ran
as a Democrat against Sanders, she "was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson
and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported
it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs…"
So, the question is, "Do we want just more bombing and imperialism?" or "Do we want more
bombing and imperialism to go along with cutting SS and Medicare, privatizing education, debt
servitude, no prosecution of banksters, etc?"
Also, although MMT advocates may disagree, isn't it conventional wisdom that to do the kinds
of things at home that Bernie advocates, we'll have to cut back on the foreign misadventures?
It's their bread and butter to know, that, yes, the government IS bought and paid for and
to remind us of that again and again in laborious, depressing and mostly disempowering detail.
But it's also built into their job to hint at the way out and this they crucially do by habitually
endorsing Democrats with loose talk of 'making [them] do it' via grass roots agitating.
But if the government is bought and paid for and only mass uprisings will help, why
squander time and money on elections at all? Why not just get straight to the shit-disturbing?
Forget about ever hearing those questions posed, or answered, by Goodman and her ilk, at
least not with any seriousness. That's not what they're paid to do.
Elections are a sink for activist energy. After my state's Green Party became hopelessly
corrupt, I wasted far too much time electing more & better Democrats based on progressive promises
and liberal voting records.
In a corrupt system, popular progressive, socialist, and Green politicians will follow the
path of Joschka Fischer. Once he rose to the position of foreign minister of Germany, the former
communist street fighter became a charismatic advocate for
neoliberalism.
This is Iowa, so take what I say with a grain of salt; people here have a tendency to overestimate
the significance of being "first in the nation" (many eyerolls).
However, Hilary's campaign trail behavior has already been deeply irritating to voters
here. At Kirkwood (Community College) she basically got out of her van, walked immediately
into a building, delivered a speech to a bunch of cameras (no press!), where she talked about
the importance of meeting "everyday Iowans," all the while many many flesh and blood Iowans were
waiting outside, because she willfully ignored them. There was much grumbling in the crowd.
Meanwhile, Sanders is actually going to rec centers and townhalls to be bombarded with dumb
midwestern platitudes, something which will almost certainly ingratiate him to the "ordinary folk"
around here. I'm perfectly willing to predict a Hilary loss in Iowa even at this point in the
game.
If one judges by the various candidates' policy positions and - far more importantly - their
credibility (how likely they are to foIlow through on promises), Sanders is literally the only
serious candidate.
If the press were truly objective, Sanders would be the dominant figure in the race, not an
afterthought.
After nearly 40 years in journalism, I'm still amazed at just how routinely the press violates
nearly every ethical precept that is supposed to guide its work.
Can't resist a question. I'm assuming, after 40 years in journalism, that you have contacts,
friends, acquaintances among the media. Are they aware of the unflattering similarities between
themselves and say Baghdad Bob, but the money is sweet, or do they really imagine they are
reporting the facts?
The point of the article is not so much, "What is Bernie going to do about it", and more "What
are you and I going to do about it?" While we still have access to the internet, this is the biggest
tool we have to get things done our way. It is up to us to use it, Tweet, Facebook, Blog, MeetUp,
Organize, Petition, or do whatever else you can imagine doing on the internet to overcome the
lame stream media's silence.
Don't just sit back and say it can't be done. How do you know it can't be done, if you don't
try? If a 72 year old guy can muster the energy, perhaps the younger folk can find a little energy
to invest, too. (Of course forcing you to have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet, is
a good way for the oligarchs to make sure you don't have too much excess energy to devote to politics.)
If you are participating in this thread, then you must have some spare time on your hands.
"They" may have the money, but, at least for the time being, "we have the votes."
1) Regarding age: It was only 5 years ago that Bernie filibustered for a solid 8 1/2 hours
against a tax cut for people earning over $250,000. He's clearly a lot hardier than many people
his age.
2) Bernie's campaign team includes the excellent Tad Devine as senior strategic consultant.
Bernie's digital team includes Revolution Messaging, a firm comprised of many of the individuals
who worked on Obama's campaigns.
These two choices tell me that Bernie knows he needs someone with serious credentials on how
to win the Democrat primary and, also, that he understands the traditional media is going to give
him short shrift. I don't personally participate in any of the standard social media platforms,
but I don't underestimate their power. Consider that recently two housewives, and a quarter of
a million online supporters, successfully forced Kraft to eliminate artificial dyes in their mac
and cheese product. Online campaigns can be extremely powerful in reaching audiences that newspapers
and television miss.
3) Democrat opposition: Hillary still had vestiges of populism in her 2008 persona. Today,
it's difficult for anyone to imagine a woman who helps her daughter buy a $10 million co-op in
NYC is anything but part of the .01%. Her refusal to condemn TPP, her brazen condemnation of Chelsea
Manning, her pathetic responses on Edward Snowden, and her abnormally secretive actions–as SofS
and before–also indicate a personality totally out of touch with the majority of Americans.
4) Bernie's voting record: Bernie hasn't always ended up voting the way I would have liked
on issues, but I appreciate that as a member of Congress without a political party behind him,
he has occasionally made deals that didn't benefit the public at large even if he was still able
to negotiate some small victories for his Vermonters. When first asked if he was considering running
for President, Bernie said it depended on two things: he would only run if he thought he could
win, and he understood that for him to win he needed a movement behind him. He understands the
fallacy of a political "savior". He's willing to be the voice of the people if the people are
finally ready to take back their government–not just hand it over to one individual and hope for
miracles.
5) Voter turnout: Bernie has a potentially broader base of voters by staying away from hot-button
issues such as immigration and gay rights. His platform of universal free college has to be
a winner with young people, and his campaign announcement included, as part of his platform,
women's equality. He's also a serious advocate for environmental protection. Most importantly,
anyone who works can easily relate to his primary platform issue, more and better jobs.
For what it's worth, my best friend's 17-year old grandson, who was an active foot soldier
in our local congressional campaign last fall, said recently that looking at all the current candidates
for President, he liked Bernie the best. If Bernie can catch hold with the younger voters, he
won't have to worry about whether he's picking up the ethnic, single-issue voting blocs.
No candidate for President is ever ideal, but I agree with the author that Bernie has a real
shot at the nomination as long as the voters, and not the traditional press, say he has a shot
and are willing to back the movement Bernie says we need to develop.
Was Bernie's filibuster real or hadn't everyone already gone home for the weekend by then?
I mean very well, he does a so called filibuster, so does Rand Paul do so called filibusters and
quits at the last minute (by the way I don't know why Rand Paul was able to insert a Patriot Act
filibuster in a trade debate, but anyway.).
If we're going to develop a movement shouldn't it be for more than Bernie Sanders? Even a reformist
movement should look toward I don't know taking over a political party or something. What happened
to all the movement Obama allegedly built, sure some were Obots, but some probably really wanted
change. Nothing of course. What do those types of single candidate movements do but churn through
people and demoralize them if they lose the one office that was the whole reason for being of
the whole movement.
I don't' just believe looking for a political savior is a fallacy, I believe starting at
the top of the political system (the presidency!) is a fallacy. Why do we continually focus
where we have no power, but not where we might (maybe city counsel member or something). But sure
spend 5 minutes voting for Sanders if it makes sense to you. I'm undecided. I know why we start
at the top: because all the propaganda is aimed there, every slight of hand has us looking in
that direction, we're continually told the Presidency is what really matters (and witness voter
turn out in Presidential elections versus non-Presidential), because the intoxication of so much
power is seductive, because one can't help being informed about the Presidential race by osmosis
and learning some down ticket items takes real effort. But it's not working.
Try reading the bullet points. My point about Bernie's filibuster wasn't the content, or the
time of day, or the day of the week. I'm a year younger than Bernie was when he filibustered and
I couldn't stand up for 8 1/2 hours with only a glass of water and one bathroom break.
As to a movement, Bernie isn't talking about an Obama-worship type movement. He's talking about
everyday citizens taking back their government from the monied class. He's indicated a willingness
to be the governmental representative leading the charge, nothing more. Having started his political
career running for mayor, I don't think Bernie ignores the importance of local action. But when
you can have the state override local action, such as recently happened in Denton, Texas, you
can't ignore the importance of changing state and Federal actions at the same time.
It's natural to feel jaded, I suppose, after so many years of political hucksters. Being from
Illinois, I knew Obama was a con man from day one. Obama was never in the news here for anything,
much less helping ordinary citizens, until Emil Jones decided to start manufacturing a bogus c.v.
for him. Bernie has a long, public record to examine, whether you like his record or not. Personally,
I'd rather try one more shot at a legitimate political contender before opting for revolution.
Personally, I'd rather try one more shot at a legitimate political contender before opting
for revolution. taking this with me…thanks
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that
people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because
of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty
and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while
the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That's our
problem."
H. Zinn
Maybe what we need is a political savior. I think one error of the Occupy movement
was thinking it could succeed without visible and charismatic leadership. After all we don't celebrate
Civil Rights day, we celebrate Martin Luther King day. The Republicans win election after election
by making it all about personalities because the reality is that's what wins Presidential elections.
Even in the extreme situation of a 1930s style Depression–far worse than now–the right leader
was needed and happily got elected.
What the left really needs is an Obama type figure who isn't a gold plated phony. It's a tough
order. Some of us are just wondering if Sanders fits the bill.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was an outstanding orator, but compare the time he was given to
defend his views
on The Mike Douglas Show, versus the
concision required
by today's news programs.
Jeff Greenfield, Nightline producer: One of the things you have
to do, when you book a show, is know that the person can make the point in the framework of
television… We've got to have English-speaking people. We also need concision.
[…]
Chomsky: The beauty of concision, you know, saying a couple of sentences
between two commercials, the beauty of that is you can only repeat conventional thoughts. […]
You can't give evidence if you're stuck with concision. That's the genius of this structural
constraint.
Today's media ensures that anyone with unconventional views "can't give evidence" and will
"sound like they were from Neptune." Consequently, a contemporary dissident whose views cannot
be explained in two sentences would fare better as an outstanding writer, instead of an outstanding
orator.
The long form is hard to do on a cellphone (or so I hear). And that's where so many of
the 18-to-35s Obama betrayed are to be found. Maybe we have to figure out how to do that
two sentence thing. "Peace, land, bread" worked well for Lenin.
How about instead we support an Independent Left built from the bottom up through local activism,
lead by leaders who are viable enough to lead. Kshama Sawant, anyone??
This is an encouraging post. But ISTM that the examples of upstart outsiders, with the
partial exception of Carter, maybe Truman, really turned out to be stealth insiders, whose appeal
to the 1% put them over the top. Weren't Truman and Carter both militarists and Carter a
big deregulator?
Truman's support for the partition of Palestine and the recognition of Israel probably out
him over the top in 48. Ditto for Slick Willie, the come-back kid who went all-in for Wall Street.
But the prize goes to the ultimate dark-horse Trojan horse, Obama, whose fealty to Israel, Wall
Street, and the MIC are unconditional. These examples turned out to be very establishment presidents,
with the exception of Obama, a radical fascist.
If Sanders follows these exemplary Democrats, no thank you. He already supports Israeli crimes
and he supported the health insurance racket bailout bill (Obamneycare). Will he become yet another
Wall Street "water-boy" to pull off an apparent "upset"?
I have a question I'd like to ask to ask the commenters who criticize Sanders about age, his
support of particular items, and doubts about his odds of actually being elected.
How, other than his candidacy, would you suggest a better method/plan to get serious "leftist"
ideas into the swarms of the Media????
(quote)
-Screwing the big banks
-Restoring "Glass-Stiegel"
– Getting rid of "Citizens-United"
– Treating Natanyahu like the creep that he is
– Expanding Social Security
– A $15 national minimum wage
– NOT approving trade deals that export American blue collar jobs
– A single payer health system rather than the giveaway Obama care benefit to insurance
companies
– Letting people pretend to be married in whatever manner they favor
– Publicly funded college for the qualified
Against him:
– He is opposed to developing nuclear electric power generation
– He is a socialist? So what. What does that even mean these days? (unquote)
The quote above is from SicSemperTyrranis by Patrick Lang.
I recommend reading the whole post because it's an example of the stirrings of recognition
that we, as a country, are seriously off the tracks and that this recognition is seeping into
public awareness. Pat Lang's post and the poster "Uahsenaa" upstream.
I can't think of a better to get real progressive ideas past the PTB in Washington and the
MSM than Bernie Sanders campaigning for President.
On the same day that Bernie gave a speech to 5,000, Rick Santorum gave a speech to 50 people.
I expect this makes the establishment very nervous…. Maybe it proves that Chris Hedges is right
about revolutions and that Americans aren't as stupid as they appear.
> On the same day that Bernie gave a speech to 5,000, Rick Santorum gave a speech to 50
people. I expect this makes the establishment very nervous….
I'm starting to agree with whoever said that Martin O'Malley will be the media's candidate
to block Bernie Sanders (from getting in Clinton's way).
Just a thought, but watch for lots of O'Malley media love, plus lots of "Sanders language"
from O'Malley, an insider who could steal the outsider's thunder, then lose - and never have to
make good on those Sanders-style promises.
Yep. If people want a sheepdog (conscious collusion) I'd look to O'Malley, not Sanders.
I'm not sure I understand if there is actually a rationale for his campaign, though people in
Maryland don't seem to he very surprised he's running. (I like the anti-Wall Street rhetoric,
but… If this were a local race, his name would be "Saunders," right?) Boy, does he have a chiseled
jaw, though. It juts superbly, especially when photographed from below.
Lambert, i just caught his am speech on npr. he was heckled pretty hard on his '0 tolerance'
but he sounded prepared…as in Screaming.
1999 – " O'Malley has promised to clean up 10 drug corners in the city in the first six months
of his administration and make low-income neighborhoods as safe as wealthier communities."
cleaned 10 and got 20 more thanks to his deep understanding of poverty.
Terribly sorry but I refuse to be sucked credulously into a discussion that presupposes
that Sanders – or Warren for that matter – represents a political vision that differs materially
from Clinton.
Sander's' support for just about every defense expenditure he's considered over the last decade
or so qualifies him as every bit the crazed warmonger that is Hillary.
And Warren's nausea inspiring support of Israel's war crimes in Gaza last Summer recommend
her more than anything else for Elsa Koch look-alike of 2014. Sanders is no alternative, he's
right out of DNC central casting. How stunningly naive it is to read trustfully a piece that treats
him as anything else.
It matters little to me, Lambert, that there will even be an election, what for all the authenticity
elections for representative governments actually have. So if it's not already entirely clear,
it is to your – and others – loyalty to these institutions that I addressed my remarks.
As long as you persist in imagining that the present context can produce "better alternatives",
you remain, in my mind, the very expression of the underlying problem.
Many years ago, the Bernie Sanders version of this problem was aptly called "social fascism".
So it is by no means certain that by "telling people who pay attention things that they already
know", one is addressing people who actually do know.
Lets for a moment assume that everyone in the Thalman/Yves/Lambert back and forth has honorable
motives.
From my perspective it would be extremely worthwhile if the respective political/economic/financial/cultural
arrangements of each position could be sketched out.
Then we would all have something to really sink are teeth into.
I get the reference to Eugene McCarthy 1968, but is that all that the great hope for Bernie
Sanders amount to?
Jimmy Carter was on the map at all because in 1970 in his inaugural speech he committed
as governor to ending segregation in Georgia. Bill Clinton was on the map because he, like
Richard Riley of South Carolina, succeeded in getting taxes raised to fund public education in
an era in which "no new taxes" was the mantra everywhere. And he did that with a conservative,
if not Republican, legislature.
Barack Obama was on the map because of his 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National
Convention, which made him an instant Presidential candidate like Reagan's address in 1964 made
him an instant Presidential candidate.
Sanders gains momentum if he wins in Iowa (a matter of playing the quirky caucus system properly),
New Hampshire, and can prove in South Carolina that he has the potential of developing momentum
in red states. It was not Carter's and Clinton's centrism but their ability to deliver Southern
states that made them attractive to Democratic voters in 1976 and 1992.
Ideological alignments with voters are only part of the appeal of Presidential candidates.
Trust that they are up to the demands of campaigning and the operation of a huge executive operation
are critical parts of a candidate's appeal. Sanders's encouraging polling seems to indicate that
he is beginning to build that sort of trust. Another is the hints that the candidates' campaign
style gives into his means of continued communications with voters, especially voters who might
not agree with him all the time. Sanders goes into over-marketed campaigning at his peril; so
far it looks like his team understands this.
The big question is can Sanders's campaign end run the Wall Street media and their subsidiary
local media, blog presence, and social media so as to have two-way communication with voters.
If he can transform marketing-oriented politics and gain traction, winning becomes much easier.
The other issue is governing after winning, which requires having coattails in the Congress
within and outside the Democratic Party so as to create the prospect of challengers to Democratic
and Republican candidates in the 2018 mid-terms.
He must change the nature of the conversation not rhetorically but institutionally.
Let's face it, elections are about money and power, more than ever after Citizens United.
The shocking part is that with all of this nation's billionaires (>1400 at last count, up from
700 in 2008) not a single solitary man of principle, a man (or woman) who gives even the tiniest
possible damn about the actual direction of the country and the people in it, has committed *anything*
to candidates like Warren or Sanders.
Instead we get Rupert's whore, Koch's favorite fascist du jour, ossified Cold Warriors backing
(retch) Bush, and flat earthers supporting any number of clown car passengers.
Billionaires smugly calculating which utterly corrupt puppet will be best for their personal
bank balances or best for their own personal nutjob fantasies is a pretty damning indictment of
"civic responsibility" in this age of ours.
A groundswell of public disgust will not turn the tide in 2016 without Really Big Money behind
it. Probably will in 2020, in the midst of WW III and a financial meltdown that will make 2008
look like a picnic (if they still let people vote from the FEMA camps, that is…)
The levels of discontent are beyond anything I can recall from earlier times. Both
red and blue voters are concerned and unhappy. I will vote for Sanders. He may wheel around like
Obama and disdain his base. I doubt it. As for his past, he is not lily white. I am less concerned
with his past than his future. As for his age he must be especially careful in choosing his vice
president.
I don't know the answer - What was FDR about before he was elected? Did he have a lily white
liberal voting record?
A rhetorical question - who else might … might … lead our country in the correct ("right" direction
offers too much semantic propriety to what has become a direction toward madness) direction? At
least Bernie doesn't offer any truly crazy ideas like an Adolf did in a similar period of discontent
in a sibling country - so many years ago.
If you are for Bernie already, what to do about it? Send Bernie your $50 or what you can afford.
Design your own Bernie Sanders for President sunscreen plastic to mount inside a rear window of
your car and offer it to friends who have little kids. Talk Bernie up to your barber. Talk Bernie
up at your Post Office, where you get your oil changed, anywhere many people congregate and occasionally
talk and exchange opinions, anywhere a person like your barber talks to and listens to many people.
Even if you don't especially like Bernie, vote for him in the primary as the lesser Evil -
although in Truth there is no lesser Evil. BUT don't vote for Evil lesser or otherwise in the
final election - and DO vote and be counted as an undervote - at least do this if you do care
and are not apathetic.
I voted for Obama, twice to my shame. I will never again vote for the lesser of Evils in the
final election. But, I will vote my ballot in some way to assure it is counted as a ballot.
As for marching in the street and other such nostrums. I leave that to someone else. Direct
confrontation with a vastly superior force, with absolutely no moral constraints holding them
back, is simply unwise. The lessons of warfare in this and the previous century teach other far
more effective tactics and strategy.
Money cannot buy votes directly. Money can buy advertising, signs, good words and bad words
against enemies in the papers, radio and TV but those cannot buy your vote.
Laziness against complexity and nuance buys votes. Credulity buys votes. Disinformation and
fatigue buys votes. Money only greases the transaction. Take and enjoy the bread and circuses
for what they are, use them.
Remind all your friends, acquaintances and all who will or might listen - Citizenship is a
sacred responsibility upon which our freedom depends. We don't live in an English men's club!
Politics and its free and wide discussion by individuals is the vital life blood of a free and
democratic nation.
It's too bad that Intrade is no longer functional because it appears I could make a killing
on Democratic nomination futures by betting against the starry eyed dreamers that believe for
even one second that there's a snowball's chance in hell that the Democrats are going into the
2015 campaign with Bernie Sanders as their nominee. That dog won't hunt.
After the 1972 fiasco the Democrats specifically adopted the superdelegate rule to ensure
that party establishment could exercise a de facto veto over the nomination process in order to
ensure they would never again be saddled with an unelectable McGovernesque candidate by the party
rank and file. From the point of view of the party establishment Sanders is McGovern with 10%
of the charisma and 1000% of the ideological baggage.
Not that it's ever going to come to that. They destroyed Howard Dean literally overnight
with the meme that he was some crazed out of control freak on the basis of one boisterous post
primary celebration rally – and Dean was then a frontrunner with a extensive ground organization
and Obama-like adulation from young Democrats. Taking down a 73 year old senator from a small
state with no organization and no constituency within the Democratic Party is almost an insult
to their finely honed mastery of the Machiavellian arts.
I like Bernie Sanders but he's a protest candidate at best whose real opportunity is to
highlight issues that insiders in both parties would rather not discuss, and in so doing move
the Overton Window and possibly help lay the groundwork for a future grassroots challenge to the
biparty consensus.
I would tend to agree with you except that since Zero got elected in 2008 the curtain has been
ripped down.
There is now much more disenchantment and resentment against the direction of the mainstream
institutional Democrap party. And many grass roots conservatives are equally fed up with
the Wall Street wing of their party. Much different terrain to fight this battle on than in times
past.
Oh no, that didn't happen. The democrats insist there was no curtain, you where just a "low
info" voter, dontchaknow. The campaign speeches where just hyperbole, been like that forever.
Democrat is a disgusting moniker, not Liberal/Progressive". They (Democrats) sell their Mothers
too, but it's behind a veil of policy, that's never brought up. Obama stunted the vote of the
18-30 year olds for possibly eternity. There was no "Change", and almost all have lost "Hope".
Not disagreeing with you, but my point is regardless of how the electorate at large feels about
the state of the nation and its leadership the Democratic nominee is going to be someone acceptable
to the party establishment, who are the people who erected the curtain and stage managed everything
that occurred behind it. That someone most definitely isn't Bernie Sanders. Sanders is toxic
to the establishment not only because they regard him as unelectable, but more importantly because
even if he was nominated (never mind thinking the unthinkable, as in a President Sanders) the
plutocracy would abandon the Democrats in droves and take their money and patronage with them.
From the perspective of the establishment that would be the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
There was an excellent post on NC a while back about how the leaders of an organization will
ultimately always sacrifice the organization's putative objectives if this is necessary in order
to preserve their own position and authority within it. Don't have time to look it up right now
but I think it's very apropos the situation in which the party now finds itself.
Obama by all accounts should have lost in 2012 with the economy in the crappy shape
it was but the Republican nominated Romney, who managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
with incidents like having had a Swiss bank account and his remarks about the 47% who don't pay
taxes (which is untrue since everyone pays sales taxes and property taxes, either directly or
indirectly through rent). So as much as the Republicans ought to win, again given the state of
the economy and Democrat fatigue, they have a tone deafness as to how plutocrats play with the
general public.
As to the popularity of the positions that Sanders advocates, the US polls consistently well
to the left of the political center of gravity represented in the media and inside the Beltway.
Lexington, you could be right, but something is changing in America. The Plutocrats are in
our faces with hegemony and privilege, and using their elevated position of power to decimate
the middle class.
Sanders resonates with people in both parties. Social media and its bottom-up power is more
sophisticated than it was in 2008. New communication tools have the potential to trump Power.
I would love to see Sanders go all the way. Lets see what happens.
Indeed. But Clinton and Obama were not 'quixotic' – they made explicit deals to sell us
out, and from that point forward the corporate press suddenly gave them glowing coverage out of
nowhere. That (I hope) does not apply to Bernie Sanders.
And it's not just silence that will be applied to Sanders – also the magnification of minor
flaws or past mistakes until that's all the people know about him. The things he stands for –
like not having TPP or bank bailouts, which even the tea party supports – will not be covered.
So in the conservative press we hear nothing about Sander's opposition to TPP etc., only that
he is a 'socialist' who fifty years ago wrote a stupid essay on something.
And the liberal press won't talk about Senator Jeff Sessions' opposition to TPP, because his
opposition to the use of foreign workers to drive down wages means that he's a racist who scapegoats
immigrants. Divide and conquer, report only makes the enemies of the 1% 'unelectable'.
Very interesting read and comments. One angle I might add is to recall how important it was
in 2007 to break the aura of inevitability. To grossly oversimplify, a few thousand teens
and 20 somethings in Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, and farther away worked to ensure that
Hillary Clinton finished third in the Iowa Caucus.
The good news is that it can be done. The bad news is that you can only fool people so many
times. A lot of those Obama and Edwards folks in 2006 and 2007 are wary of anyone operating
within the Democratic Party today.
The fundamental flaw made by those who support Sanders is that the Democratic Party is
an independent institution. It is not. It is a member of the Duopoly which, by design, offers
the illusion of democracy. That makes Sanders nothing more than a prequel to lesser evil voting.
Sanders' policies are pretty good on working-class economic justice demands and climate
action, and not so good on foreign policy and militarism. But his positions on the issues is
secondary to the question of whether his politics are helping the working class act for itself
or subsume itself under the big business interests in charge of the Democratic Party. By
entering the Democratic primaries with the promise of supporting Clinton as the lesser evil
to the Republicans, Sanders is not helping the working class to organize, speak and act for
itself.
…
By failing to act on its own and speak for itself in U.S. elections, the left committed
political suicide. It lost its independent voice and its platform from which to be heard. The
public doesn't hear from the left in elections. They only hear from pro-capitalist Democrats,
who most of "the left" promotes as the lesser evil to the Republicans.
By trying to get Democratic politicians to say and do what the left wants them to say
and do, the left has been engaged in a pathetic and hopeless attempt at political ventriloquism.
It is dependent politics, powerless politics. It has been 80 years–20 presidential election
cycles–since the left largely disappeared itself into the Democratic Party. It is way past
time to draw the lesson of this experience: the left won't regain power and public significance
until it breaks with the Democrats and acts independently for itself.
…
THE INDEPENDENT left should be talking to progressives who have decided to support Sanders.
We should talk about why independent politics is the best way to build progressive power, about
the Democratic Party as the historic graveyard of progressive movements, and about the need
in 2016 for a progressive alternative when Sanders folds and endorses Clinton. I don't expect
many will be persuaded to quit the Sanders campaign before the primaries. But I do expect that
many of them will want a Plan B, a progressive alternative to Clinton, after the primaries.
Interesting bit of history (from "Bernie Sanders is No Eugene Debs"):
THE INDEPENDENT left was a force to be reckoned with in U.S. politics from the 1840s
through the 1930s. The Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party and the Radical Republicans carried
the banners of abolition, land reform, labor rights and Reconstruction from the 1840s through
1870s. With the post-Civil War industrialization and rapid expansion of industrial workers,
the surviving radicals of the pre-war reform movements formed the populist farmer-labor Greenback
Labor and People's Parties of the 1880s and 1890s.
With collapse of Populism into the Democratic Party, its radicals were central to the
formation of the Socialist Party of America, as well as regionally based Labor, Farmer-Labor
and Progressive Parties between 1900 and 1936, which came close to establishing a major third
party on the left with a farmer-labor popular base. Together, they elected hundreds of local
officials, scores of state officials and dozens of members of Congress. The Farmer-Labor and
Progressive parties of the Upper Midwest in the 1930s had two governors, three U.S. Senators,
12 members of the House, and scores of state and local elected officials.
Those successes fueled widespread agitation for an independent labor party based on unions,
which reached a peak as the 1936 election approached. Unfortunately, the unions and the Communist
Party's Popular Front policy led most of labor and the left into the Democratic Party's New
Deal Coalition in 1936 – from which they never emerged afterward in a major way.
If we believe that Sanders could win and be entirely different than Obama, then we believe
the Democratic party could support both Obama and someone unlike him (the anti-Obama). Is this
a coherent position? I don't know as I have a hard time making coherent sense of what parties
really are, of having a mental model of them.
I sometimes think that parties are: interest groups for certain industries. And if
so Sanders could be different as long as he's the same on the issues these industries care about.
And maybe that's what could happen, he'll be allowed some progressive economic policies that still
have to pass Congress, and thus may never see the light of day, in return for steering the empire
through another round, which will of course see the light of day.
The popular perception is to see parties as ideologies but to accept that is to condemn
a party that will not condemn and disown Obama as having no principles, or no decent principles
at any rate.
Because the Dem party is really not coherent as an ideological entity except as a champion
of the worse types of things. Sometimes I think parties should be seen more as junior high
school cliques or yes as tribes, though I think that's a hard conception for those who never were
"in with the in crowd" to get their minds around. But maybe they are just all people in exclusionary
(to the other party) and inclusionary (to anyone in the party) social circles, and no we non-elite
really aren't part of the club.
The other individualist alternative is to see Sanders as purely an individual, but he is running
on a party platform. Would we vote for Sanders if he ran as a Republican? Why not? Maybe parties
are branding, but branding of what, maybe those exclusionary and inclusionary social circles,
that yea we the masses will never be part of.
I reject the simplification that both parties are the same big party. I can accept that
they BOTH represent plutocrats and not the common person. But at the same time they fight
too hard to win (even cheat to win as in hacking and counter-hacking the voting machines) to be
the same exact party.
Even if it's really just fighting for the spoils and to distribute some spoils to their cliques
(no their cliques are not us). But some may believe their own spin of it being for the greater
good.
WASHINGTON - Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul announced Saturday he will force the expiration of the Patriot
Act at midnight Sunday because of his objections to bulk data collection by the National Security
Agency.
The Senate is scheduled to hold a rare Sunday session to consider the expiring law.
On Saturday morning, Paul, who is among the field of Republicans seeking their party's presidential
nomination, issued a series of short statements on his Twitter account and a longer version on his
presidential campaign website about an hour after his plan was first reported by Politico.
"There has to be another way. We will find it together,'' Paul said on his Twitter account, adding
in another tweet, "I do not do this to obstruct. I do it to build something better, more effective,
more lasting and more cognizant of who we are."
Should Have Been Pre-Election Reading for Everyone
I wish every American had been required to read this book before the recent re-coronation of
Dubya. "Anonymous" is now widely known to be Michael F. Scheuer, a longtime CIA veteran specializing
in al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Islamic insurgencies. He lambastes both the Bush and Clinton administrations
for their lies of omission regarding terrorism, and he makes a persuasive argument that our government
has actually made things worse, not better. And Scheuer is no leftie dove.
He repeatedly calls for the US to do one of two things: either change the foreign policies
that give rise to militant Muslim responses, or go after the terrorists with every weapon we have.
The author explodes the ridiculous lie that Bush has been pushing since 9-11: that terrorists
are insane, irrational murderers who only want to destroy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. This
Big Lie, that an innocent America is a victim only because of its very goodness and success, has
prevented Americans from confronting the true roots of Islamic hatred towards the US: the several
streams of anti-Muslim foreign policy that have been flowing for decades.
Everyone needs to read this book, so that we can, as citizens, demand an end to the unwinnable
War on Terror.
Americans must know the truth about Islamic militancy, so that we can demand sweeping policy
change, the only hope of saving lives and avoiding future attacks.
Burlington, Vermont (CNN)-It wouldn't be the first time a revolution sparked in New England changed
the world.
But two and a half centuries after the insurrection that birthed America, the idea that a rumpled
radical like 73-year-old Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders could overthrow the U.S. economic, health
care and tax systems seems farfetched at best.
Yet that's exactly the task the fiery U.S. senator has set himself in a presidential campaign
targeting billionaire "oligarchs" who he says have hijacked America's economy and inflicted misery
on the middle class.
Sanders, an agitator who doesn't suffer fools, political opponents or journalists gladly, is testing
whether the kind of populist, liberal agenda that gave him 75% approval ratings in his adopted home
state can catch fire nationwide.
"If we're training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up
as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality
of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve.
A soldier's mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers
to have that mentality? Of course not."
- Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member
of the military
Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it's brilliant timing.
Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot
gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be
subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo
more training and collect data on the equipment's use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama
administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to "incentivize
police departments to adopt the report's recommendations."
distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
redefined "community policing" to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide
COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT
teams,
encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of "contractors that
now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,"
ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target "medical
marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,"
defended as "reasonable" aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided
a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who
had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house
based on a mistaken license plate,
and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been
used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents
can "accuse" of being connected to a crime.
It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama's part, coming in the midst of heightened
tensions between the nation's police forces and the populace they're supposed to protect, opens the
door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further
acclimating
the populace to life in a police state.
Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted
upon us. In fact, Obama's belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the
deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity.
And it certainly fails to recognize the
terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy,
and our freedoms as a result of the government's determination to bring the war home.
It's a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama's pronouncement and the
release of his
"Task Force on 21st Century Policing" report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life
in the American police state will become even more perilous.
Among the report's 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on
the ground, training for police "on the importance of de-escalation of force," and "positive
non-enforcement activities" in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as
sending an ice cream truck across the city.
Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands
that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced
once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama's authority as president. And while the word "constitutional"
is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama
administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution.
For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report
notes: "Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement
duties, the legal framework
(warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell
phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to
crime."
Translation: as I document in my book
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is
about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield
to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our
everyday activities will be even more invasive.
This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way
the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to "gift" local police agencies with military
weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier
for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray
devices and fusion centers are all
funded by grants from the DHS.
Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which
in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.
If you're noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming
local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into
a national police force that answers not to "we the people" but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the
American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security
force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local
civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
So where does that leave us?
There's certainly no harm in embarking on a
national dialogue
on the dangers of militarized police, but if that's all it amounts to-words that sound good on paper
and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms-then we're
just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.
Despite the Obama Administration's lofty claims of wanting to "ensure that
public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence
of justice," this is the reality we must contend with right now:
Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans
still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through
our doors, or police officers who
shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still
no longer innocent until
proven guilty. Americans still don't have a right to private property.
Americans are still
powerless in the face of militarized police.
Americans still don't have a
right to
bodily integrity.
Americans still don't have a right to the
expectation of privacy.
Americans are still being acclimated to a police
state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police
presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed
at reassuring the public that the police are our "friends." And to top it all off, Americans
still can't rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when
our rights are violated by police.
To sum it all up: the problems we're grappling with have been building
for more than 40 years. They're not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will
not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish
the same results-i.e., maintain the government's power, control and wealth at all costs.
This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.
...Spiked Online editor Brendan O'Neill
scoffed at the would-be vagina stampede for Hillary at
Reason.com:
"This embrace of the gender card by Clinton and her cronies, this move from thinking with their
heads to voting with their vaginas, is being celebrated as a great leap forward.
It's nothing of the sort. It merely confirms the speedy and terrifying shrinking of the political
sphere in recent years, with the abstract being elbowed aside by the emotional, and the old
focus on ideas and values now playing a very quiet second fiddle to an obsession with identity."
Would a female leader likely be less bellicose than recent male presidents? After the Monica Lewinsky
scandal broke, Hillary Clinton only resumed talking to her husband when she phoned him and urged
him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the next day, Bill Clinton announced that the
United States had a "moral imperative" to stop Serbia's Milosevic. Counterpunch co-founder Alexander
Cockburn observed in 1999 in the
Los Angeles Times:
"It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on
the Serbs to defend 'our way of life.' The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic
policing and the duty of the state to impose such policing. War is more social engineering, 'fixitry'
via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile… As a tough therapeutic cop, she does not shy
away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty." In the Obama administration,
Hillary, Samantha Powers, and Susan Rice have been among the biggest warmongers – with an unquenchable
thirst to bomb Libya, Syria, and other nations.
What is the male equivalent of "vagina voters"?
Dickheads? On the bright side, maybe one of Hillary's zealots will coin a catchy vagina-oriented
version of the "hope and change" campaign promise.
Perhaps the greatest folly of "vagina voting" is the presumption that a candidate's gender is
more important than the fact that they are a politician. Politicians have been renowned for deceit
for hundreds of years. Hillary, like most of the Republican males in the race, has a long record
of brazen deceit. Politicians as a class conspire against the rights and liberties of citizens. And
there is no evidence that certain genitalia immunizes a person against Powerlust.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR Putin recently was interviewed for a fawning Russian television documentary
on his decade and a half in power. Putin expressed the view that the West would like Russia to be
down at the heels. He said, "I sometimes I get the impression that they love us when they need to
send us humanitarian aid. . . . [T]he so-called ruling circles, elites - political and economic -
of those countries, they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we come hat in hand. As
soon as we start declaring some interests of our own, they feel that there is some element of
geopolitical rivalry."
Earlier, in March,
speaking to leaders of the Federal Security Service, which he once led, Mr. Putin warned that
"Western special services continue their attempts at using public, nongovernmental and
politicized organizations to pursue their own objectives, primarily to discredit the authorities
and destabilize the internal situation in Russia."
Mr. Putin's remarks reflect a deep-seated paranoia. It would be easy to dismiss this kind of
rhetoric as intended for domestic consumption, an attempt to whip up support for his war
adventure in Ukraine. In part, it is that. But Mr. Putin's assertion that the West has been
acting out of a desire to sunder Russia's power and influence is a willful untruth.
The fact is that thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better
life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years - to which the United States and
Europe devoted billions of dollars - was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of
Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. It was not about conquering Russia
but rather about saving it, offering the proven tools of market capitalism and democracy, which
were not imposed but welcomed. The United States also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
make Russia safer from loose nukes and joined a fruitful collaboration in outer space. Avid
volunteers came to Russia and donated endless hours to imparting the lessons of how to hold jury
trials, build a free press, design equity markets, carry out political campaigning and a host of
other components of an open, prosperous society. The Americans came for the best of reasons.
Certainly, the Western effort was flawed. Markets were distorted by crony and oligarchic
capitalism; democratic practice often faltered; many Russians genuinely felt a sense of defeat,
humiliation and exhaustion. There's much to regret but not the central fact that a generous hand
was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. The Russian
people benefit from this benevolence even now, and, above Mr. Putin's self-serving hysterics,
they ought to hear the truth: The United States did not come to bury you.
Vatnik, 5/7/2015 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]
I think, that everyoune in US must to know. As i wrote below
"we think that Navalny & Co paid by the west. they ususally call themselves "opposiotion",
and one of them (Nemtsov) was frieinds with McCain (as i realized after reading McCain
twitter, after Nemtsov was killed)."
"we think that our real opposition are these political parties: CPRF, LDPR. We believe
them."
i write it, because i think, that when we talk that our(russian) opposition is bad and paid
from the west, you think that we talk about our politic parties. but it is wrong, we talk
about Navalny & Co.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 3:08 PM EDT [Edited]
Thanks. That is a useful clarification. But I still find it odd that you would consider a
member of your nation's opposition a traitor or "tool" simply because they have friends in the
West.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the CPRF/LDPR
is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt. Whereas individuals and political
parties currently benefiting from the current system think it's fine.
Those are not the thoughts of a traitor. To get to that conclusion you would need to define
the current system and those who currently benefit as being "Russia." Oppose them and you
oppose the Motherland.
But Putin and his new-generation oligarchs and his deputies at the Kremlin are not Russia.
They are a bunch of guys who currently run things there.
Vatnik, 5/7/2015 3:47 PM EDT [Edited]
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the
CPRF/LDPR is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt."
CPRF and LPDR know about corruption, and even they think that our non-systemic opposition (Navlny
& Co) are traitors. And they (CPRF , LDPR) talk about corruption and another bad things of our
gov even in Duma. for example, this is what said the leader of LDPR on one tv show
"коррупцию создала советская власть, кпсс, единая россия плавно подобрала у нее все
инструменты коррупции и сегодня эта страстная болезнь поразила все органы и всю структуру"
google translated it:
"Corruption established Soviet power, the Communist Party, United Russia gently picked her
all the tools of corruption and now this passionate disease struck all the organs and the
whole structure"
and
"у вас фракция половина бизнесмены, воры, жулики, грабители, вся остальная половина агенты
спецслужб"
google translated:
"you have a fraction of a half businessmen, thieves, swindlers, robbers, the rest of the
half secret service agents"
he adressed it to our main politic party in Duma, "United Russia"
I can find more than one video where he talk about falsifications of elections, right in
Duma.
but these are just examples.
P.S. oh, and here i found video, specially for you(americans) where our non-systemic
opposition visited US Embassy in Moscow in July 4th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-54U6V-Bc
Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 12:11 PM EDT [Edited]
BTW, this is not true that "Americans were not in charge". I red memoirs of Eltsyn's
ministers (Korzhakov, Burbulis, you can read memoirs of deputy secretary of state of that time
Strobe Talbott in English, the same is there), and it's clear that in 90s Russia de facto
was American colony.
For example, ministers in Russian government could not be assigned without US State
Department approval. Even Russian TV anchors were instructed by US representatives.
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:05 PM EDT
MeriJ
6:42 PM GMT+0300 [Edited]
Putin has convinced you...
USA had popularity in Russia in 1990 more than Putin now, but to 1999 when Putin became
prime-minister USA had less than 20% approve. It was not Putin who destroyed USA's
popularity, reverse your policy created Putin.
You very often replay this your phrase, but it is lie. Did Putin created NATO, did Putin used
Russia's weakness and increased NATO, did Putin bomb Kosovo, did Putin violated agreements
that was done after WWII and separated Kosovo from Serbia, did Putin destroyed Russia's
democracy in 1996 and in 1993, did Putin paid Chechnya terrorists to kill Russians, did Putin
pressure Chechens create Islamic State (prototype of ISIL) in Chechnya, did Putin in any
article said that it will be great if terrorists will created their own state (and after that
will be do permanent wars against Russia)? NO, you did it before there appeared Putin.
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:14 PM EDT
MeriJ
5:48 PM GMT+0300
Much of the aid they are referring to was not lending but grants to help build civil
society -- independent media, health organizations and the like. No strings attached.
You did not created Russia's civil society, you destroyed it when you created did all what
was possible to lure high educated Russians in West countries. You falsified Russia's election
in 1996 (and all international observers under pressure of USA supported it). You in 1993
supported Yeltsin's military operation in Moscow. You paid Chechnya terrorists to kill
Russians and destabilize Russia's society. Is it civil society???
"independent media"??? Not, they was created by our oligarchs, not by you, and you payed only
for those media who represented USA's point of view as your propaganda did in time Cold War.
It was the continuing Cold War, not help.
" health organizations" ??????????????
USSR's health organizations was significantly better than USA, and infinity better than
current Russia's organizations.
There was not "and like" we ceased Cold War, we by free will dismantled all "USSR's Empire",
we by free will destroyed ideology, we ceased war, but you continued it, you continued the war
all last 25 years, and NATO is the best example of it.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT
We lured well-educated Russians to the West? Seriously?
This is the nature of free markets and open borders. Your response should be to compete to
lure them back. Give them something to come home for. Most people long to go home.
Instead you talk about anyone who doesn't hate the West as if they were traitors. Why would
any well-educated Russian ex-pat want to come home now?
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:48 PM EDT
Seriously. Your government created very comfortable ways for engineers (and for some
another categories of USSR's people), to take them on West. You are economist, so I suppose
you know the reception: lure good manager from another company, it will increase your power,
and it decrease power of your competitor.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:51 PM EDT [Edited]
By "seriously?" I didn't mean I disagreed with your facts. I disagree that this was
surprising or hostile. That is the nature of open markets -- if you see excellence, you try to
recruit it.
There are only two responses I know of: Close your borders and your markets; or compete more
effectively.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:20 PM EDT
You are truly incorrect, my friend, and it saddens me that you see it this way.
The antagonistic relationship you describe is more true at the moment, due to the events of
the last year, but not true back in the decades before that. During the Cold War, we were
indeed enemies, so such motivations then were a given.
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT
Ok, then try to explain, why USA had more 80% [popularity in polls] in Russia in 1990 and
less than 20% in 1999. There was not Putin, how can you explain it?
Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 12:27 PM EDT [Edited]
He is correct. One can say that Cold War never ended - it just took place for some decades
on our land in form of guerilla war. After Gorbachev and Yeltsin abandoned all interests
of USSR and Russia you decided to press the advantage and to take Russia of the board
[permanently]. Is it so big surprise that we are angry about it?
Joseph Volgin, 5/7/2015 11:01 AM EDT
Alert! Attention, danger! Putin trolls get into American journalism:
"...Or, as a Fred Hiatt of the 1870s might have commented about Native Americans who resisted
the well-intentioned Bureau of Indian Affairs and didn't appreciate the gentleness of the U.S.
Army or the benevolence of life on the reservations: "Above Sitting Bull's self-serving
hysterics, Indians ought to hear the truth: The white man did not come to exterminate you."
Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 8:22 AM EDT
Thank you, but I lived in Russia in 90s and remember very well Americans who started to
come at that time - arrogant money-grabbers the only thing they were interested in is how to
make money - on everything, from oil to export of Russian children to US. They stole billions
from Russians and continue to do so.
Please, Americans, don't help us - go away and take your democracy with you.
Bob Bobo, 5/7/2015 7:51 AM EDT
Russia help? Yes like that Khodorkovsky Yukos submitted on a silver platter Rothschild. It
would Americans like it if they can plunder the Russian mineral resources. But when Putin to
allow such a persona non grata.
Larysa Mahal, 5/7/2015 6:30 AM EDT
The best article for those who do not know history and events in Russia. I think a lot of
people feel a tears of emotion when they read this article. Bravo!
When author quotes Putin's speech "they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we
come hat in hand." he has forgotten to say that after these words Putin thanked all those who
helped to Russia in its difficult time. Author has forgotten to give example about free help
"devoted billions of dollars". Nothing was free and Russia had to pay if not money then the
disadvantages agreements or concessions. But oh well it. Talk about a paranoia. Author calls
the leader of the biggest country "paranoid". But this man has stood up Russia from knees
during 15 years only. Think about it 15 years only! Author calls "paranoid" the man who are
supported by 75 % population in Russia. The man who was addressed Crimea, insisting on joining
with Russia. Are all of these people paranoid like Putin?
Then you can say about President of Poland who sad that the Victory Parade in Moscow is a
threaten to all Europe. What is it, paranoia in a cube? But author does not see that because
for him to write articles is a work but to know truth is for domestic use only.
I want to ask everybody to see around and say how many prosperous, beautiful countries in
Europe face before a threaten to be section, detached some parts like UK, Italy. But to Russia
with her "paranoid" leader want and join huge territories with huge amount of people. Think
about it. In last year one man standing in a long queue on the sea crossing from Crimea to
Russia sad that they are willing to endure all the inconveniences because the main thing is
they are with Russia. Think about it.
Lucky_Barker, 5/7/2015 5:45 AM EDT [Edited]
The United States supported the destruction and burning of the parliament in Moscow, the
murder of civilians in 1993, the bombing of Grozny in 1994-1995-m, and the killing of
civilians in Chechnya. All crimes Yeltsin was American influence and American advices.
It's very like the oficial America. Manu people call "Yeltsin era" as "Time of Americans"
or "Time of Prostitutes".
Restoration of parliamentary democracy, Mr. Putin did not like top US.
Putin's war in Chechnya without massive bombing did not like owners of US newspapers and US
parties.
The Chechens believe that the Americans supported Yeltsin genocide Chechen civilians in 1nd
Chechen war and strongly resent and hate peace in Chechnya after the 2nd Chechen war.
Tsarnaev was prepared in US as a terrorist for Syria or Chechnya - but was shot too early.
We must always remember that Al Qaeda and الدّولة الإسلاميّة at an early stage was the
US-Saudi projects.
Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 5:24 AM EDT [
What a hipocrisity.
Your "volunters" with their "proven tools" provoked desolation of russian economy and defolt.
The results of their actions were nothing short of economical genocide. The so-called free
press you build are just a puppets of yours, instruments of your influence and of your lies.
Your advises in building of democracy led to anarchy and to the brink of collapse of Russia.
Yes, you tried to bury us. Guess what? You failed. And we will never forgive you.
Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 5:19 AM EDT
But past wrongs do not matter... now Russia and the USA on the brink of war... the war is
already at a distance of 600 kilometers from Moscow, the American puppets killed thousands of
ethnic Russians.
Russia is a nuclear power, such action is suicide. We all have to prevent needless and
stupid war... I ask you to help.
Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:56 AM EDT
4) Let the author will call the name of at least one program, which spent a billion
dollars... which would have improved the lives of ordinary Russians. At least one program (I
don't know, although he lived in Russia at that time). All American billion were used to
purchase depreciating assets industry of the USSR ("privatization"), actually looting people.
5) "Thousands of activists and volunteers" were actually thousands of Yeltsin's advisers...
it was on the advice of these advisers was launched economic programme "shock therapy"
(economic Holocaust). When Federal employees and the military is not specifically paid a
salary (although the money was) ... a few years (to reduce the money supply), the economy was
dead, just do not have the money, the base rate of the Central Bank was 2000% (I'm not
kidding)... people were hungry... you know what hunger is? I know... The country was falling
apart, if not for Putin.
6) Free press this is the press... which is verbatim from CNN, BBC, Foxnews? What is its
"freedom" of this media?
7) the Oligarchs, corrupt officials... and who brought them to power, who collaborated with
them, who gave them money to purchase assets? American corporations...
P. S. I don't know why the author is lying, but I would never wish the Americans in the US...
to experience the poverty and hopelessness... you have experienced the Russians in the 90-ies
in Russia, when the US "gave us a hand"...
Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:26 AM EDT
I accuse the author of lying... and paid propaganda.
1) Russia is satisfied with the U.S. government only when it is weak. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin
ordered to shoot from tanks to the Parliament (similar to the U.S. Congress) killed many
people-elected deputies, and unarmed people in the square who came to support the deputies,
they were killed at close range with machine guns. Hundreds of corpses.... NO ONE
representative of the United States, has condemned the event. Nobody. Everything is fine,
democracy!!!
The author of the article is lying. Putin is telling the truth.
2) Almost all non-governmental organizations of Russia officially get the money of US
taxpayers. Their leaders defiantly go to the American Embassy. (in other 196 embassies of the
countries of the world don't go)... and declare that their goal is "revolution and overthrow
the President." Opposition leaders Russia (Navalny, Nemtsov, Kasparov, Chirikov, Ponomarev)
was trained in the U.S. and regularly travel to the USA... (for example ... Imagine the
leaders of "Occupy Wall Street" would have officially get money from the Russians, and walked
to the Russian Embassy. Presented? ) The author is lying, Putin is not lying.
3) There is No "military adventure in Ukraine." Lies about "Russian aggression" hides that
Ukraine is a civil war and the destruction and arrests of thousands of unarmed ethnic Russians
(they inhabit the East of Ukraine)... who disagree with an armed overthrow of the President.
Near the border of Russia (31 km) is a major Ukrainian city Kharkiv... it unguarded, why in
Kharkov there are no "hordes of Russian troops or the rebels?... If Putin attacked the Ukraine
and began a military adventure"?
The author lied again.
Owan Skirlan, 5/7/2015 3:20 AM EDT
Okay, dear Americans, thanks for fish and sort of that, but, really - Make Your Own
Buisness! Somethere between US borders, not out
Brekotin, 5/7/2015 1:07 AM EDT
Very funny article. Washington PRAVDA!
to author: please check the graph of GDP in Russia and the United States 1985-2015.
Clearly shows how redistribute wealth of the USSR was reditributed.
P.S.: teach macroeconomics and history.
Andrey Belov, 5/7/2015 12:39 AM EDT
I by the way I wonder what is so wrong left Russia communism? Developed industry and
agriculture, United state, connected in the common economic space, a powerful culture and the
arts, advanced science, the successful solution of social problems. And against that you have
spent billions to destroy all? Lord you Americans really believe that we should be grateful
for assistance in the destruction of our country?
Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:48 PM EDT
"After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. tried to help Russians"
Really???
- USA in 1990 had popularity 80%, but to 1999 (before Putin) USA had popularity 20% in Russia,
is it because USA had tried help Russia? (De facto USA did all what was possible to create
politician like Putin).
- USSR had dismissed Warsaw pact by free will (and USSR dismissed USSR by free will), USSR
destroyed all what was linked to Cold War, did USA the same? Did USA dismissed NATO?
- USA used Russia's weakness and increased NATO (now hypocrite Americans say that it was done
by will of those countries, interesting enough do they really believe in the BS? USSR could
also said that E. Europe's countries became ally of USSR because they was afraid Germany).
- USA used Russia's weakness and attacked Serbia the Russia's ally (hypocrite Americans said
that there was ethnic cleansing, BUT USA killed more men there than Milosevic did, moreover
after war created by USA there was new ethnic cleansing and Albanians killed Serbians, why
hypocrite Americans closed eyes about it?). In day when USA began war against Kosovo they loss
all support that had between youth.
- USA payed Chechnya terrorists and USA do great media support to Chechnya terrorists (after
11 September 2001 it was ceased but to the time was killed many Russia's humans including
children, now hypocrite Americans prefer do not remember which media support they did for
creation Islamic State on Russia's south border, it was prototype of ISIL).
- USA used Russia's weakness and dismissed all agreements that interfere create anti-missile
system.
- USA destroyed Russia's democracy when supported falsification of election 1996 in Russia,
because USA was afraid communists in Russia, and preferred support Yeltsin. USA violated
election and supported Yeltsin, who had destroying Russia.
- USA paid for many color revolutions on Russia's borders.
Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:59 PM EDT
- USA instead to help Russia create new economy preferred create more easy way to
emigration high educated Russians in USA and another Europe's countries.
- USA separated Kosovo (and destroyed all system of agreements that existed after WWII, now
hypocrite Americans try show that it was did in Crimea, but really Russia did nothing that USA
had not make in Serbia).
- When Putin began pressure Russia's oligarchs to pay salaries and taxes, USA began media war
against Putin.
I could continue the list very long, but I have not time now.
So all USA's sayings about "trying to help Russia" is hypocrite lie from alpha to omega. All
what wanted USA destroy country that they had afraid half century. USA didn't use Russians
free will and trying end Cold War, USA continued it and I can suppose it will be great problem
for USA in future. Certainly Russia is weak country now, but Russia can give very significant
help to China, especially in military question (if China will be need use power, but do not
show that they use power).
Irene Guy, 5/6/2015 9:34 PM EDT
"For fifty years, our policy was to fence in the Soviet Union while its own internal
contradictions undermined it. For thirty years, our policy has been to draw out the People's
Republic of China. As a result, the China of today is simply not the Soviet Union of the late
1940s"
Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State
Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
New York City
September 21, 2005"
Enough said...
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
– largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt –
and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
In the past several weeks, not a day has passed without a new scandal surfacing revealing Clinton's
lack of judgment whether it involves her abuse of email protocol, or some previously undisclosed
financial relation between either Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation and an outside donor.
The most egregious revelation took place a few days ago when it emerged that the Democratic presidential
candidate had breached her agreement with the White House to name all foundation donors during her
tenure as secretary of state.
Specifically, as
Reuters reported, Clinton had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and
its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat.
"She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand
any proposed new foreign governments donations."
In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied
with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.
The implication is that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns could and
likely did curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name. The charities accepted
new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland,
Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria. And, of course, Ukraine.
The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations.
In two instances, the charities said this was the result of "oversights"; for the other
six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.
The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated
list omitted donors to the foundation's flagship health initiative.
But the most shocking development took place yesterday when the US State Department, via spokesman
Jeff Rathke, told reporters that while it "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign
government funding, it does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said
on Thursday.
"The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to
make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton's tenure,"
Rathke told reporters.
And while the objective, unbiased media would have been up in arms had this gross abuse of government
privileges and clear pandering to foreign interests occurred under a Republican candidate, there
has been barely a peep from said media as far as Hillary's involvement is concerned.
One person, however, did speak up: that was AP's Matt Lee who asked why the State Department wouldn't
investigate further to determine if the tens of millions of dollars in donations had influenced her,
and thus the US State Department's, decisions in the 2011-2013 period.
Rathke's response: there is no evidence that these donations to the Clinton charities had any
effect on Clinton's decisions.
"We're not going to make a retroactive review on these cases and we will not make a
retroactive judgment," he said.
Of course, the circular logic involved is so twisted even hardened, conflicted government apparatchiks
would not fail to recognize that there is no way to make a determination if said previously undisclosed
donations had influenced her decisions without a further inquiry, an inquiry the State Department
refuses to make because it assumes that it would find nothing.
Lee quickly noted this told Rathke that "the reason you are not aware of anything is because
the building is refusing to go back and look at it to see if there is anything that might raise a
flag."
What followed was 6 minutes of squirming that would make even the most hard-core Clinton
supporter blush red with embarrassment at the farce and the corruption evident at every single level
of government, especially when certain pre-approved (by
Wall Street) candidates are involved.
With the outcome already decided in favor of Mrs. Clinton in the next presidential elections,
this type of nonsense is just focused on keeping entertained the brute and ignorant masses in
America. Presidents in the US are selected, NOT elected.
Anusocracy
A read for the political season. This, along with the Moral Intuitions Theory, helps explain
why libs and cons are libs and cons.
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of
both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory
University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the
same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats
and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats
and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information
about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their
brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during
reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What
we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized
to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society
for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to
ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate
negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation
in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix,
Westen explains.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen.
"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the
conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination
of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."
Dame Ednas Possum
What's this 'retroactive' bullshit word w.r.t. judgements?
ALL judgements are on past 'retro' events.
Investigations could hardly assess and pass judgement on future events...
For example it's not like the military of a country e.g. The Department of Attack could legitimately
invade foreign countries pre-emptively on the basis of what they judge MIGHT happen... oh wait...
'Retroactive: (especially of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past.'
Is this muppet suggesting that the laws have changed in the U.S. w.r.t. 'democratically' elected
holders of public office using their tax-advantaged registered charity to covertly take payments
from private interest groups. I
s he suggesting that the morals and ethics of any such conflict of interest have been only
recently established?
Absolutely stunning. The audacity of these people is simply breath-taking.
Real Estate Geek
No. More than once I've seen that reporter 'call Bullshit.' I think he enjoys the sport of
fucking with flacks who're lying right to his face.
Dame Ednas Possum
Agreed.
I think he does extremely well to maintain his composure and repeat his questions diplomatically.
The .gov sock puppet shill was like a deer in headlights; too stunned by legitimate questioning
to maintain control of the situation. The worthless fool.
Full credits to the journo.
cnmcdee
This is not about Hillary this is about your very lives.
That flesh bag of feces was knee deep in the killing of Ambassador Stevens who was going to
bring down the entire arms shipments to jihadi snack bars.
Maybe we laudibly find this entertaining but if we let the entire whitehouse make edicts above
the law there will be nothing left but the slaughters to come upon the American people by nazis
in minority mask
New Kid
The AP reporter is controlled opposition. Or he would not have got his foot in the door,
Or they would not have let him ask all those questions. AP itself is a red shield organization
nmewn
Hear, hear!
"Bipartisanship" is the Deep States way of compromising BOTH SIDES liberties away. The latest
example of this political ruse is the word "gridlock", used by the Deep State (MSM pundits, regulators
& pols) to convey some ill-defined crisis building due to governmental inaction.
I submit the absolute opposite is true, it is they who have created every "crisis" by their
own actions, bipartisan or otherwise.
The debt & deficit is the result of their actions, domestic spying is the result of their actions,
the devaluing of the dollar is the result of their actions...one can go right down the list.
The propaganda against Syria is milking the capture of Idlib city by Jabhat al-Nusra and assorted
other Islamist groups. The general tone is "Assad is losing" illogically combined with a demand that
the U.S. should now bomb the Syrian government troops. Why would that be necessary if the Syrian
government were really losing control?
A prime
example comes via Foreign Policy from Charles Lister, an analyst from Brooking Doha, which is
paid with Qatari money but often cooperating with the Obama administration. That headline declares
that Assad is losing and the assault on Idlib is lauded in the highest tone. Then the piece admits
that this small victory against retreating Syrian troops was only possible because AlQaeda was leading
in the assault.
The piece admits that the U.S. which wants to
balance between AlQaeda and the Syrian government forces prolonging the conflict in the hope
that both sides will lose, was behind that move:
The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions' backers have changed their tune
regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations
confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey,
which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups,
was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards.
That operations room - along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria's south - also appears
to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence
to vetted groups in recent weeks.
Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military
assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib
appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to
the so-called "vetted groups," but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer
cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
The U.S. led operations room encouraged cooperation between the Islamists of the so called Fee
Syrian Army and AlQaeda. A U.S. drone,
shot down over Latakia in March, was gathering intelligence for the AlQaeda attack on Idlib.
More that 600 TOW U.S. anti-tank missiles have been used against Syrian troops in north Syria. These
are part of the 14,000 the Saudis
had ordered
from the U.S. producer.
Even if the U.S., as now admitted, would not officially urge its mercenaries to cooperate with
Jabhat al-Nusra such cooperation was always obvious to anyone who dared to look:
In southern Syria [..] factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat
al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
The reality is that the directly U.S. supported, equipped and paid "moderate" Fee Syrian Army
Jihadi mercenaries are just as hostile to other sects as the AlQaeda derivative Jabhat al-Nusra and
the Islamic State. They may not behead those who they declare to be unbelievers but they will kill
them just as much.
While the U.S. is nurturing AlQaeda in Syria, Turkey is taking care of the Islamic State. Tons
of Ammonium Sulfate, used to make road side bombs, is
"smuggled" from Turkey to the Islamic State under official eyes. Turkish recruiters incite Muslims
from the Turkman Uighur people in west China and
from Tajikistan to emigrate to the Islamic State. They
give awayTurkish
passports to allow those people to travel to Turkey from where they reach Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile
the Saudis bomb everyone and everything in Yemen except the cities and areas captured by AlQaeda
in the Arab Peninsula.
The U.S. and its allies are now in full support of violent Sunni Jihadists throughout the Middle
East. At the same time they use the "threat of AlQaeda" to fearmonger and suppress opposition within
their countries.
Charles Lister and the other Brooking propagandists want the U.S. to bomb Syria to bring the Assad
government to the table to negotiate. But who is the Syrian government to negotiate with? AlQaeda?
Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported
"moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over
and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?
Who comes up with such phantasies?
Posted by b on May 6, 2015 at 03:37 AM |
Permalink
The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and
large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling
abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the
Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help
improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience
from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results.
In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.
To the US and other western governments in that area ;) it probably does not matter too much,
who rules "Syria", as long as they don't own any serious military hardware.
I'm not an expert ;) but looking at the past three years, my conclusion about the goals of
the "west" would be: support the local militias just as much that they can destroy as many
tanks, helis, air defence and aircraft as possible.
Ideally, have them use up all the anti-tank weapons we give them, so, when they've "won",
they're sitting on rubble with nothing but handguns.
A second goal, maybe more of the regional enemies, would obviously be to drive out of the "former
syrian territory" all non-sunni population. Severe the head of one, have 1000 flee to elsewhere...
Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 9:43:48 AM | 8
Re: @Anonymous@5
Well, that about does it. The U.S is completely deranged and there's no hope.
There is always hope. Russia, China, and Iran know they come next in the list if they don't
stop Al-Qaeda hydra in Syria/Iraq et al. Russian intelligence has declared ISIS a threat for Russia,
the Chinese have been battling the Uighurs for long time now, and now they are being trained by
the US to become a fifth-column on their return to China. Iran is in the surroundings, and have
been preparing ever since the war with Iraq for a military maelstrom of gigantic proportions.
Idlib was taken by a coalition of taqfiris renamed "Army of Conquest," the same coalition getting
ready to fight Hezbollah in the Qalamoun barrens facing Lebanon, for control of the heights that
open to the Bekaa Valley. Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah declared a couple of days ago the battle for
Qalamoun has reached high noon, and its start won't be announced.
On the taking of Idlib he stated any war is a pendulum with battles lost and won, and dismissed
the propaganda war b has just denounced as part of the psy-op war. The onslaught suffering by
Syria is flabbergasting, with US/Turkey training 15 thousand more taqfiris to throw into the war,
the purpose, Nasrallah denounced, is to keep the Axis of Resistance, and in general the Arab war,
in a 100 year war.
What we are seeing now, the dismembering of Iraq, the war of attrition on Syria, the destruction
of Libya, the bombing of Yemen, the attack on Lebanon, was planned long ago by the neocons as
a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc.,
are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world.
The most effective resistance against Israel consisted of broad coalitions consisting of Christian,
secular and Islamic groups. These were the panArab organizations inspired by Nasser and given
substance in the Palestinian resistance by the PLO. Israel knew this was a problem. That is why
they supported Hamas in the late 1970s when it first appeared. They quite explicitly supported
Hamas in order to undermine the PLO. That has proven very effective in splitting Palestinian resistance
into two warring camps centered respectively in Gaza and the West Bank.
The US has discovered this formula. That is why we continue to support the Islamist groups
who are more interested in killing fellow Muslims rather than fighting against Israel. It is quite
amazing that Al qaida, ISIS or whatever handle they carry these days has never attacked an Israeli
target.
As we all know Al nusra today in Southern Syria is being actively supported by the Israeli
military in the form of medical, "humanitarian" aid and the occasional bombing raid against the
Syrian army. US and Israeli support for these terrorist Islamic forces is so transparent that
what is puzzling is why this has not been exposed in the western media.
Editors and reporters must know this stuff and are deliberately avoiding these stories.
okie farmer | May 6, 2015 2:03:18 PM | 17
ToivoS, actually Hamas was created by Shin Bet. And you draw a very accurate picture The US
has discovered this formula. Yep.
Wonder if Harry Truman's comment after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 applies to current US
Mideast policies. To paraphrase if the Germans are winning we should help the Russians, if
the Russians are winning we should help the Germans. That way let them kill as many as possible
Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 3:16:07 PM | 20 @g_h@18@
Thanks! Those two are key documents to understand the current drive of the aptly baptized "Empire
of Chaos" and its minions.
Zico | May 6, 2015 3:53:36 PM | 21
The word AL-CIADA's lost it's scary factor in the West.. It's almost become acceptable/mainstream
word... These days, Western journos refer to them in different terms, depending on the circumstances
and location. How times change!!!
In Syria they're referred to as "rebels", "militants","Assad's opponent" and the best one
"moderate Islamists".
In Iraq, they're referred to as "Sunni rebels", "oppressed Sunni fighters" etc.
In Yemen AL_CIADA's knowns as "president" Hadi's forces, "Sunni rebels"
It gets to to point where you just wonder if these people scripting the "news" must really
think the rest of us simpletons are so stupid not to notice the contradictions...
We now have Western journos doing free propaganda for AL-CIADA :)
GoraDiva | May 6, 2015 4:02:56 PM | 22
More NYT propaganda on Syria? Well, it's A. Barnard...
Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported
"moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over
and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?
Who comes up with such phantasies?
the guys from General Electric, Honeywell, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumann, etc...
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Luca K | May 6, 2015 4:22:13 PM | 24
Good article by B. The following is nothing new, but adds more to what we already know, i.e, israeli
cooperation with al-ciada terrorists.
Price of oil has been rising. FT: Dollar under pressure as oil keeps rising (subscription required).
Christoph (German) | May 6, 2015 4:56:51 PM | 26
Lone Wolf said: "What we are seeing now ... was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy
for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all
there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came
as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world."
It was also contemplated
140 years ago by Pike: "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences
caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of
Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and
political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other".
I doubt that this old scheme to eliminate independent cultures will succeed - there is more
awareness and heavenly input today than could be envisioned in the 19th century.
In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper,
the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn't "nailed" his thesis. "It's
hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me
as an author that is impossible to meet," he replied.
... ... ...
Certainly, pundits were warning about the problem of the large sums of money flowing into the
Clinton Foundation's coffers even before Hillary Clinton took up her position as Obama's global emissary-in-chief.
A month before she became secretary of state,
the Washington Post warned in an editorial that her husband's fundraising activities were problematic.
"Even if Ms Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of conflict
is unavoidable."
Since the foundation was formed in 2001, some $2bn has been donated, mainly in big lump sums.
Fully a third of the donors giving more than $1m, and more than a half of those handing over more
than $5m, have been foreign governments, corporations or tycoons. (The foundation stresses that such
largesse has been put to very good use – fighting obesity around the globe, combating climate change,
helping millions of people with HIV/Aids obtain antiretroviral drugs at affordable prices.)
Schweizer may have made mistakes about aspects of Bill Clinton's fees on the speaker circuit,
but one of his main contentions – that the former president's rates skyrocketed after his wife became
secretary of state – is correct.
Politifact confirmed that since leaving the White House in 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made
13 speeches for which he commanded more than $500,000; all but two of those mega-money earners occurred
in the period when Hillary was at the State Department.
Though Schweizer has failed to prove actual corruption in the arrangement – at no point in the
book does he produce evidence showing that Bill's exorbitant speaker fees were directly tied
to policy concessions from Hillary – he does point to several glaring conflicts of interest.
Bill Clinton did accept large speaker fees accumulating to more than $1m from TD Bank, a major shareholder
in the Keystone XL pipeline, at precisely the time that the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton
within it, was wrestling with the vexed issue of whether to approve it.
It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer,
at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary
of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
Such awkward collisions between Bill's fundraising activities and Hillary's public service have
raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy.
Take Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham university who has written extensively on political
corruption in the US.
Teachout, who last year stood against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic party nomination for New
York governor, points out that you don't have to be able to prove quid pro quo for alarm bells
to ring. "Our whole system of rules is built upon the concept that you must prevent conflicts
of interests if you are to resist corruption in its many forms. Conflicts like that can infect us
in ways we don't even see."
Teachout said that the Clintons presented the US political world with a totally new challenge.
"We have never had somebody running for president whose spouse – himself a former president – is
running around the world raising money in these vast sums."
... ... ...
Though
Bill Clinton insisted this week that his charity has done nothing "knowingly inappropriate",
that is unlikely to satisfy the skeptics from left or right. They say that a family
in which one member is vying for the most powerful office on Earth must avoid straying
into even the unintentionally inappropriate.
In the wake of Clinton Cash, the foundation has admitted that it
made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. It has also implemented
new rules that will see its financial reporting increase from once annually to four times a year,
while large donations from foreign governments will be limited in future to six countries including
the UK and Germany.
But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements – "I gotta pay our bills" –
and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it
looks like this controversy may run and run. Politically, too, Hillary Clinton is confronted
with a potential credibility gap between her appeal to ordinary Americans on the presidential campaign
trail and the millions that continue to flow to the foundation.
"Is she going to be in touch with the needs and dreams of poor America when her spouse and daughter
are working with the world's global elite?" said Dave Levinthal of the anti-corruption investigative
organization, the Center for Public Integrity. "That's a question she will have to answer, every
step of the way."
mkenney63 5 May 2015 20:39
It would be nice to know how much Saudi and Chinese money her "Foundation" has taken-in. I can
tell you how much Bernie has taken - $0. Bernie, the only truly progressive in the race, raised
$1.5 million in one day from ordinary working people like you and me who have the smarts to know
who's really in their corner. When I look at Hillary I ask myself, do we really want parasitic
people like this running our country? Is there anything she has ever touched that isn't tainted
by a lust for money?
foggy2 gixxerman006 5 May 2015 20:38
I am in the process of reading the actual book. He does have actual sources for many things but
what is missing is the information controlled by that now cleaned off server and the details of
just who contributed to them, their foundation, and who hired them for those gold plated speeches.
Those names never were made public and now the related tax forms are being "redone." Wonder how
long that will take.
The author was able to get pertinent data from the Canadian tax base information and that is
important because some of the heavier hitters are Canadians who needed help in the US and other
places to make piles of money on their investments. And many statements made by people are documented
as are some cables sent TO the state department.
AlfredHerring raffine 5 May 2015 20:33
It's funny that free-market Tea Party Republicans criticize the Clintons
There's a broad populist streak in the Tea Party. They may be social conservatives and opposed
to government telling them they MUST buy health insurance from a private company (that's where
it started) but on many issues they're part of the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting and Franklin
Roosevelt New Deal traditions.
In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper,
the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn't "nailed" his thesis. "It's
hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me
as an author that is impossible to meet," he replied.
... ... ...
Certainly, pundits were warning about the problem of the large sums of money flowing into the
Clinton Foundation's coffers even before Hillary Clinton took up her position as Obama's global emissary-in-chief.
A month before she became secretary of state,
the Washington Post warned in an editorial that her husband's fundraising activities were problematic.
"Even if Ms Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of conflict
is unavoidable."
Since the foundation was formed in 2001, some $2bn has been donated, mainly in big lump sums.
Fully a third of the donors giving more than $1m, and more than a half of those handing over more
than $5m, have been foreign governments, corporations or tycoons. (The foundation stresses that such
largesse has been put to very good use – fighting obesity around the globe, combating climate change,
helping millions of people with HIV/Aids obtain antiretroviral drugs at affordable prices.)
Schweizer may have made mistakes about aspects of Bill Clinton's fees on the speaker circuit,
but one of his main contentions – that the former president's rates skyrocketed after his wife became
secretary of state – is correct.
Politifact confirmed that since leaving the White House in 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made
13 speeches for which he commanded more than $500,000; all but two of those mega-money earners occurred
in the period when Hillary was at the State Department.
Though Schweizer has failed to prove actual corruption in the arrangement – at no point in the
book does he produce evidence showing that Bill's exorbitant speaker fees were directly tied
to policy concessions from Hillary – he does point to several glaring conflicts of interest.
Bill Clinton did accept large speaker fees accumulating to more than $1m from TD Bank, a major shareholder
in the Keystone XL pipeline, at precisely the time that the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton
within it, was wrestling with the vexed issue of whether to approve it.
It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer,
at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary
of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
Such awkward collisions between Bill's fundraising activities and Hillary's public service have
raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy.
Take Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham university who has written extensively on political
corruption in the US.
Teachout, who last year stood against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic party nomination for New
York governor, points out that you don't have to be able to prove quid pro quo for alarm bells
to ring. "Our whole system of rules is built upon the concept that you must prevent conflicts
of interests if you are to resist corruption in its many forms. Conflicts like that can infect us
in ways we don't even see."
Teachout said that the Clintons presented the US political world with a totally new challenge.
"We have never had somebody running for president whose spouse – himself a former president – is
running around the world raising money in these vast sums."
... ... ...
Though
Bill Clinton insisted this week that his charity has done nothing "knowingly inappropriate",
that is unlikely to satisfy the skeptics from left or right. They say that a family
in which one member is vying for the most powerful office on Earth must avoid straying
into even the unintentionally inappropriate.
In the wake of Clinton Cash, the foundation has admitted that it
made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. It has also implemented
new rules that will see its financial reporting increase from once annually to four times a year,
while large donations from foreign governments will be limited in future to six countries including
the UK and Germany.
But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements – "I gotta pay our bills" –
and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it
looks like this controversy may run and run. Politically, too, Hillary Clinton is confronted
with a potential credibility gap between her appeal to ordinary Americans on the presidential campaign
trail and the millions that continue to flow to the foundation.
"Is she going to be in touch with the needs and dreams of poor America when her spouse and daughter
are working with the world's global elite?" said Dave Levinthal of the anti-corruption investigative
organization, the Center for Public Integrity. "That's a question she will have to answer, every
step of the way."
mkenney63 5 May 2015 20:39
It would be nice to know how much Saudi and Chinese money her "Foundation" has taken-in. I can
tell you how much Bernie has taken - $0. Bernie, the only truly progressive in the race, raised
$1.5 million in one day from ordinary working people like you and me who have the smarts to know
who's really in their corner. When I look at Hillary I ask myself, do we really want parasitic
people like this running our country? Is there anything she has ever touched that isn't tainted
by a lust for money?
foggy2 gixxerman006 5 May 2015 20:38
I am in the process of reading the actual book. He does have actual sources for many things but
what is missing is the information controlled by that now cleaned off server and the details of
just who contributed to them, their foundation, and who hired them for those gold plated speeches.
Those names never were made public and now the related tax forms are being "redone." Wonder how
long that will take.
The author was able to get pertinent data from the Canadian tax base information and that is
important because some of the heavier hitters are Canadians who needed help in the US and other
places to make piles of money on their investments. And many statements made by people are documented
as are some cables sent TO the state department.
AlfredHerring raffine 5 May 2015 20:33
It's funny that free-market Tea Party Republicans criticize the Clintons
There's a broad populist streak in the Tea Party. They may be social conservatives and opposed
to government telling them they MUST buy health insurance from a private company (that's where
it started) but on many issues they're part of the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting and Franklin
Roosevelt New Deal traditions.
US and UK deploy troops to Ukraine, but they're just "advisors"
American
combat troops deployed in Ukraine will soon number in the hundreds, at least, but US officials claim
they're there only as "advisors" or "trainers," not as an in-place threat to Russia. Whatever advising
or training they may do, they are also an in-place threat to Russia. US officials are also lobbying
to arm Ukraine with "defensive" anti-tank rockets and other lethal weapons in hopes of escalating
the fighting, maybe even killing some Russians. In other words, American brinksmanship continues
to escalate slowly but recklessly on all fronts.
To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating
class of chickenhawk hardliners,
the warring sides in
Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day
with no casualties). The
government in Kievand the
would-be governments of the
People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk have been acting as if they're not hell-bent on mutually
assured destruction after all. They've exchanged prisoners. They've agreed to double the number of
ceasefire monitors to 1,000. They've pulled back their heavy weapons. Both sides have stopped the
random shelling that has caused "heavy civilian tolls of dead and wounded," according to theMarch
2 report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.
The calmer heads of Europe,
in Germany and France particularly, are presently prevailing over the
fear-mongered
countries closer to Russia who seem bewitched by US enthusiasm to subject Europe to yet another
devastating war in which those
near-Russia
countries would be the first to feel the pain. But for now, most of Europe seems willing to accept
the notion that the Russians have a rational view of their reasonable security needs, that the cost
of further Russian advances
outweighs any
rational gain, and that all the mad babbling of bellicose Americans is just unprocessed cold
war hysteria amplified by the need to deny decades of imperial defeats.
What is it with exceptional American irrationalists' love of war?
Ashton Carter, President Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense, assured senators during his
confirmation hearing in February that he would push for more aggressive military action for the
rest of Obama's term, that he favors lethal arms for Ukraine, and that he would not be pressured
into faster release of innocent prisoners held in Guantanamo.
John Kerry, Secretary of State, advocated in early February in favor of sending arms to the
Ukraine government.
Since April 2014, Kerry has been demonizing Russia, blaming Russia for growing violence in
eastern Ukraine even as Kiev militias were attacking the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, calling
them "terrorists." Kerry, the highest ranking American diplomat, recently and publicly accused
the Russians of
lying to his face.
James Clapper, director of national intelligence, has told the Council on Foreign Relations
that he wants to give "lethal- defensive weapons" to the Kiev government to "bolster their resolve"
and persuade them "that we're with them." Clapper was calling Russia one of the
greatest threats to the US as early as 2011.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, jumped on the arm-Ukraine bandwagon
March 3, saying "I think we should absolutely consider lethal aid." (He didn't add that the big
danger of non-lethal aid is that it might help people settle differences without killing each
other.)
Victoria Nuland, formerly security advisor to Dick Cheney, now an assistant secretary of state
for European affairs, has long engaged in working for regime change in Russia. Nuland is famous
for her "f-k the EU" attitude
during the Maidan protests in 2014. On March 4 she became the first US official to call Russian
actions in eastern Ukraine "an
invasion." She claimed there were hundreds of
Russian
Tanks in eastern Ukraine, though no credible evidence supports the claim.
"NATO now exists to manage the risks created by its existence."
From the Russian perspective, NATO aggression has continued for the past 20 years. Secretary of
State James Baker, under the first President Bush, explicitly promised the Russians that NATO would
not expand eastward toward Russia. For the next two decades, at the behest of the US, NATO has expanded
eastward to Russia's borders and put Ukrainian NATO membership in play. The unceasing madness of
"US and NATO aggression in Ukraine" is argued forcefully by attorney
Robert Roth in Counterpunch, who notes that US-sponsored sanctions on Russia are already, arguably,
acts of war.
NATO continues to maintain nuclear weapons bases around Russia's periphery while adding more anti-missile
missile installations. Anti-missile missiles to intercept Russian missiles are generally understood
to be part of the West's nuclear first strike capability.
Then there's the months-old, expanding Operation Atlantic Resolve, an elaborate US-sponsored NATO
show of force deploying thousands of troops to NATO countries that are also Russia's near-neighbors.
Beginning in April 2014, Operation Atlantic Resolve started sending troops to Baltic countries (Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) that border Russia. Those troops remain, and
Defense News reported that more
US saber-rattling is coming:
The US military's plans to send troops into Romania and Bulgaria as a deterrence to Russian aggression
could expand to include Hungary, the Czech Republic and Russia's southern neighbor, Georgia….
by the end of the summer, you could very well see an operation that stretches from the Baltics
all the way down to the Black Sea….
In the Black Sea itself, NATO forces continue to project force through "training
exercises" involving the Navies of at least seven nations: US, Canada, Turkey, Germany, Italy,
Romania, and Bulgaria. NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove complained in late February that Russia
had deployed "air defense systems that reach nearly half of the Black Sea" – as if it were surprising
that Russia would respond to hostile military activity close to one of its oldest and
largest naval bases, Sevastopol,
in Crimea.
Breedlove admits that NATO naval forces have approached Crimea, provoking Russian naval responses.
Breedlove's warmongering reportedly
upsets German officials, but they don't object publicly to American lies.
This pattern of provocation and response is familiar to those who know the Viet-Nam War, when
similar US tactics provoked the so-called "Tonkin Gulf incident." That manipulated set of events,
deceitfully described by the White House and dishonestly amplified by most American media, was used
to gull a credulous and lazy Congress into passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president
authority to wage that disastrous, pointless war. Watch for the sequel coming to a Black Sea theatre
of war near you.
Congress is as eager for Ukraine War as it was for Iraq and Viet-Nam
War mongering has a large, noisy cheering section in Congress.
Eleven American lawmakers
including House Speaker John Boehner have signeda
bi-partisan letter to President Obama demanding in the shrillest tones ("defend against further
aggression") that the US ship lethal arms to the Kiev government now. The eleven Congress members
(8 predictable Republicans and three veteran, dimwit Democrats) write about Ukraine what they had
never had the wit or courage to say about US aggression in Iraq. They assert with grotesque oversimplification
and false premises about "the crisis in Ukraine" that:
It is a grotesque violation of International law, a challenge to the west, and an assault on the
international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II.
Fatuous warmongering. At the end of World War II, Crimea was indisputably part of Russia (within
the USSR) and the anti-Russian military alliance of NATO did not exist, much less had it pushed its
existential security threat to the Russian border. You want an all-out, unambiguous assault on international
law, look to Iraq and all the "little Iraqs" that the American hegemon executes with impunity and
nearly endless destructiveness to peace, order, and culture.
The weak-kneed Democrats mindlessly signing on to this reflexive Republican rage to kill someone
are: Eliot Engel of New York (Westchester County), lawyer – first elected in 1988,
he's been a strong supporter of violence in Palestine, Kosovo, and Iraq (voting for the war in 2002);
Adam Smith of Washington (Seattle), lawyer – first elected 1997, he's supported
violence in Afghanistan and Iraq (voting for the war in 2001) and he sponsored a bill to allow the
US government to lie to the people; and Adam Schiff of California (Burbank),
lawyer – he's supported violence in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (voting for the
Iraq war in 2002). "Bi-partisanship" is pretty meaningless when the imperial warmaking ideology is
monolithic, as in this basic lie also in the Boehner letter:
We should not wait until Russian troops and their separatist proxies take Mariupol or Kharkiv
before we act to bolster the Ukrainian government's ability to deter and defend against further
aggression.
The core of this lie is those "separatist proxies." That's an Orwellian phrase used to turn the
roughly 5 million residents of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk into un-persons. These 5 million
people are predominantly Russian-speaking and ethnic-Russian. They have legitimate, longstanding
grievances with Ukrainian-dominated governments in Kiev, especially with the current illegitimate
one which is neo-Nazi-tinged and Russo-phobic.
It is important for these 5 million people seeking self-determination to disappear from the American
argument for war sooner rather than later. The American war justifiers require "Russian aggression"
as a crediblecasus belli, but the would-be war makers offer no credible evidence to support
that propaganda claim ("Remember the Maine!").
The American news bubble distorts and excludes the world's realities
The blandly mindless media repetition of the phrase "Russian aggression" is a reliable measure
of how much the news reports the government propaganda, at the expense of something like real world
complexity. Dissenting voices are few in America's media world, and seldom heard, especially those
who ask: "What aggression?"
Somehow, in the well-washed American collective brain, it's aggression when an oppressed minority
declares its independence from its oppressors, the coup-installed Kiev government (and some of its
predecessors). But that same scrubbed brain believes it's not aggression when another minority, aligned
with foreign interests, carries out a violent overthrow of Ukraine's legitimately elected government.
Newsweek has demonized
Russian president Vladimir Putin for months now, including on a cover with the headline "The Pariah"
over a picture showing
Putin in dark glasses that seem to reflect two nuclear explosions. (This imagery worked with
deceitful perfection in 2002 when President Bush and Condoleezza Rice terrified audiences with the
possibility that the "smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.") Newsweek has even called for
regime change
in Russia. Newsweek is hardly alone in demonizing Putin without considering the realities of his
situation. Others, like CNN, simply resort to
calling him "completely mad," even though Russian actions have been largely measured and limited,
especially when considered in the context of two decades of western provocation.
At pivotal moments in the crisis, such as the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper fire that killed both police
and protesters and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 passengers
and crew, the U.S. political/media establishment has immediately pinned the blame on Yanukovych,
the ethnic Russian rebels who are resisting his ouster, or Putin. Then, when evidence emerged
going in the opposite direction – toward "our side" – a studied silence followed, allowing the
earlier propaganda to stay in place as part of the preferred storyline.
When reality intrudes upon propaganda, reality must be discredited
In a somewhat mocking story about Russia's denunciation of US troops arriving in Ukraine as a
threat to Russia security, the
Los Angeles Timesgive roughly equal time to a NATO commander denouncing the Russian denunciation.
The casual reader who stops halfway through the story is easily left with the impression that the
Russians are behaving badly again and maybe sending lethal weapons is a good idea. Only in the last
two paragraphs does the Times, quite unusually, report some real things that matter about Ukraine:
Ukraine, which proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 as the communist-ruled
federation was collapsing, had pledged to remain nonaligned, and in any case would need years
to carry out reforms and assimilation of its armed forces with those of NATO before it could be
inducted into the Western defense alliance.
But since the Russian-backed insurgency began ripping Ukraine apart, Kiev authorities have
renounced the nonalignment pledge and set their course for eventual NATO membership.
The first of these two paragraphs is a partly reasonable explanation of why Russia would feel
betrayed by the US and NATO. A nonaligned Ukraine remains an obvious possible alternative to the
present conflict ignited by decades of NATO aggression.
The second paragraph serves as a warning, packaged as a justification based on a lie. The
lie is that it's a Russian-backed insurgency that's ripping Ukraine apart, when Ukraine has been
ripping itself apart for years, a reality that led to the coup-government in Kiev. The explanation
– which is false – is that the insurgency has forced the Kiev government's hand, even though the
government took power with EU and NATO links obviously in mind. The warning is that Ukraine may just
join NATO as soon as it can.
Until Americans – and especially American policy makers – face fundamental realities in and about
Ukraine, the risk that they will take the rest of us into an unjustified, stupid, and potentially
catastrophic war will remain unacceptably high. One of the realities Americans need to face is that
the Ukraine government is corrupt, as corrupt an some of the most corrupt governments in the world,
and nothing the US has done is likely to change that any time soon. What any war would ultimately
be about is: who gets to benefit from that corruption?
Ukrainians know this and despair as, for example, Lilia Bigeyeva, 55, a violinist and composer
did when she told
her family's
storyfrom Dnipropetrovsk in central Ukraine:
I was born in Melitopol, raised in Zaporizhzhya, and have spent all of my adult life in Dnipropetrovsk.
It hasn't been easy, this past year in Ukraine. The loss of Crimea is a tragedy, the war is a
tragedy. And it's far from clear that our government and our people are really prepared to institute
rule of law….
The war is very close to us, here in Dnipropetrovsk. Every day there's bad news. But we continue
to play music, my pupils and I. Culture and art, these are the things that have always helped
us through frightening times.
This was published in The Moscow Times on March 6, but it was originally recorded and distributed
by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In other words, there's no excuse, for anyone on any side, to
say they didn't know what was happening to the Ukrainian people for the sake of geopolitical greed.
END NOTE: HOW YOU CAN HELP THE WEST'S WAR EFFORT
[Craigslist posting, edited, from Orange County, California, March 3, 2015.]
GTS (Glacier Technology Solutions LLC) – We are military contractors working directly with
the US Marine Corps assisting them with their immersive simulation training program.
Currently, we are looking for role players of Ukrainian and/or Russian ethnicity and language
skills. Need MEN ranging 18-65 years of age.
This is temporary, part time, on-call work based on need and availability.
At the moment, we are staffing for an upcoming training to take place on: March 29-31, 2015.
The scheduled hours will vary from 8-12 hours per working day.
Compensation is $15.17/hr. plus another $4.02/hr. Health and Welfare benefit for up to 40
hours of work in a workweek. (Overtime rates will be paid if necessary). Register for work
at: www.Shiftboard.com/wforce
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print
journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors
from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely
granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Activista 2015-03-10 13:22
rt.com/op-edge/239205-baltic-states-us-military-troops/ NATO uses 'Russia threat' as excuse to halt defense cuts ... these are make up threats to keep profit/militari sm/NATO going ...
EU does not want to pay 2% GDP to NATO ... and US military expenditure and debt is growing .. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#mediaviewer/File:Top_ten_military_expenditures_in_$_in_2013.jpg.jpeg
jdd 2015-03-10 18:52
You have it backwards. While it may be less disturbing to believe that NATO exists merely to justify
military spending, you have missed the point. NATO's was originally created as a military alliance
against the Soviet Union, even though the Warsaw Pact was later dissolved, NATO was maintained and
expanded to threaten and encircle Russia. Nuland, Carter and other believe that they can cause "regime
change" in Russia, or alternatively win a "first strike" victory in a "limited nuclear war." Now,
in response to the successful cease-fire, made possible by Putin's cooperation, we have EU Commissioner
Juncker calling for an EU army to confront Russia. The response from a prominent Russian parliamentarian
:
"In a nuclear age, extra armies do not provide any additional security. But they surely can play
a provocative role...One should presume that a European army is seen as an addendum to NATO...never,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War, had anyone dared to make such a proposal." If only it were
merely about military spending.
and continue to provoke the Russians
lorenbliss 2015-03-11 02:13
If I did not know better, I would assume there is someone in the State Department channeling Hitler,
someone in the Defense Department channeling Goering, someone at Homeland Security channeling Himmler
and someone at the head of the media monopoly channeling Goebbels.
And in their resurrected madness -- exactly as in 1941 -- they are forgetting the lessons the Scythians
taught the Persians and the Scythians' Russian descendants taught the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols
and Bonaparte, not to mention the lessons Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebbels were themselves taught
by the Russian "untermenschen."
Such are the darkest times in our species' history...
REDPILLED 2015-03-10 17:13
The 11th COMMANDMENT:
No nation shall DARE defy the United States and its Puppets by attempting to be truly independent!
That right is reserved only for the God-chosen United States.
wantrealdemocracy 2015-03-10 20:06
Too bad the "God chosen United States" is not independent. Our nation is under the control of Israel.
Israel wants this war against Russia, and all those wars in the Middle East, so that the Christians
and Muslims will kill each other leaving Israel the winner. The state of Israel and the Zionists
will then control the whole world. That is the 'New World Order' you have heard about.
arquebus 2015-03-10 17:20
NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia,
then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German
invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.
skeeter 2015-03-10 19:07
Quoting arquebus:
NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against
Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German
invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.
Let's get real...the Europeans are threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO, a military alliance established
and maintained to challenge the Soviet Union. No Russian leader in his right mind could stand by
and let this happen. Imagine if the Soviets had approached Mexico or Canada a few years ago and tried
to convince them to join the Warsaw Pact. The Russians paranoid...can you blame them?
Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23
First I read the (very excellent) piece of journalism from people like William Boardman.
Then I "scroll to the troll" and give the predictable right wing doublethink a thumbs down.
Then I go to PayPal and give RSN 10bux all the while complaining that trolls don't pay to clog up
important discussions on RSN. Penny a word from the troll factory is all I ask.
Merlin 2015-03-10 21:05
Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23
Spot on and well said!
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:15
If Russian troops began to maneuver on the US border, like US troops (NATO) are now doing on the
Russian border, the US would go "ballistic." That's called "hypocrisy," by the way.
MJnevetS 2015-03-13 14:52
"Russia already did that and invaded killed people and are feeding a false insurgency that is being
dubbed freedom fighters .. they even shot down a domestic airliner in the summer flying over that
territory over the UKraine from Amsterdam. don't you know the news even on this subject"
There is a sad lack of facts in these statements. NY Times had to retract the allegations of a 'Russian
Invasion', as the evidence proved to be fabricated. The only 'false insurgency' was the coup initiated
by the US and with regard to the shooting down of the commercial liner, show me one SINGLE piece
of evidence that Russian backed rebels were involved. It was a false flag operation and when people
demanded evidence over propaganda, the news story magically disappeared, as the evidence would show
that it was a terrorist attack by the Nazis currently in control of Ukraine.
jdd 2015-03-11 08:15
When you "see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia" it will not
be the time to converse with you, but rather then you may kiss your loved ones a final goodbye as
that will be the beginning of a war of human extinction, all over within an hour.
Thank goodness
for Putin and s few sane voices in the West who are trying to avoid ever getting to that point while
others in the West, such as the Newland gang, seem hell-bent on making it happen.
Activista 2015-03-11 20:36
... see NATO bombers in Libya, Yugoslavia .. US troops in Kosovo US Sending 3,000 Troops To Latvia,
Estonia ... www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-us-sending-... International Business Times 2 days ago - An Abrams main battle tank, for U.S. troops deployed in the Baltics as part of NATO's
Operation Atlantic Resolve, left the port in Riga, Latvia ....
Trish42 2015-03-10 18:03
When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world
from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking
other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our
intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
Kev C 2015-03-10 21:19
Allow me to explain why they won't. Education. The entire system is based on US centric thinking
and behaviour. There is limited information available about the rest of the world and what there
is is painting the US as the God Given Saviour of humanity. Hell they won the war after all. Single
handed. They saved the UKs ass by coming to our rescue didn't they? Not!
Until the vast majority of Really decent but hypnotized Americans get the real info they will continue
to believe what they are told because there isn't really an alternative to the Faux news/MSN bullshit
and the pre programmed education system. Its not the peoples fault. The system was rigged long before
they were born.
dsepeczi 2015-03-11 09:38
Quoting Trish42:
When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world
from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking
other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support
our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
Sadly, I'm starting to believe the answer to your question is ... "Never". If Iraq wasn't a big enough,
loud enough, and obvious enough mistake to wake up ALL Americans to the fact that our government
lies to us and we should take everything they say with a grain of salt and request that they provide
solid proof of their allegations against another nation ... I can't think of any event that will.
:(
pbbrodie 2015-03-11 09:45
"get warmongers out of Washington." Yes, especially the complete idiots who are making insane comments about "limited nuclear war." There
is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Once one is exploded, it is all over.
Johnny 2015-03-10 18:15
How soon we forget. The U.S. must punish Russia, and, more importantly, divert the attention of Russia
from the Middle
East, because Russia has supported Syria, which is an obstacle to open war against Iran, because
Iran arms Hezbollah, and the last time the Zionists invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah chased them out. Hezbollah
is an obstacle to annexation of the whole area by Israel. And now that the Zionists smell the opportunity
to induce the U.S. to attack Iran, they are creating another front on which Russia must try to defend
itself and its allies. The U.S. Congress is not the only part of the U.S. government that Jewish
supremacist banksters have bought, lock, stock, and barrel. (Before some asshole starts to howl about
anti-Semitism, let him explain why we should not criticize other proponents of racism, such as white
supremacists; Zionism, after all, is merely warmed over Nazism, with a different "chosen" people
and different victims.)
dquandle 2015-03-10 20:05
In fact, the neo-nazis now in control in the US/NATO supported Ukraine have been blatantly anti-semitic
for decades, having supported the Nazis at that time and are even more egregious now.
"For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state
power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in
the borderland through which Hitler's invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported
by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called
"vermin". The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelli
ng Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia"
and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left."
In addition to Ms. Nuland and her PNAC founding husband, Robert Kagan, two of the three Democrats
cited by Mr. Boardman as signees on the "arm Ukraine" letter are Jewish. In fact, Congressman Engel
is of Ukrainian Jewish ancestry.
As the "protests" in Ukraine grew in late 2013/early 2014, Ukrainian Jewish groups reported skyrocketing
cases of anti-Semitic rhetoric and attacks. But those reports were buried by Zionist organizations
who insisted that Russia was the real threat to Ukrainian Jews, not the frigging Nazis in Ukraine!
At first, this sort of thing confused me, before I realized it wasn't a Jew against Jew thing. This
is Zionist fascists supporting Nazi fascists.
Vardoz 2015-03-10 22:23
Sorry it just boils down to profits and power and any excuse to wage endless war for profits period
end of story.
L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06
I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military
action. Those troops are advisors and instructors. This interpretation is very cynical and pessimistic
and I don't buy it.
My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge
this interpretation and find it very unhelpful and in itself can be contributing towards War rather
than supporting the diplomatic actions towards Peace.
Merlin 2015-03-10 21:02
L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06
So talk to me about the advisors that Eisenhower put in Viet Nam. Then talk to me about Kennedy expanding
on their number. Then talk to me about the Viet Nam War.
You state:
"My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge
this interpretation"
I challenge YOU because either you a not what you claim or you sure did not learn very much.
Kev C 2015-03-10 21:24
If you don't see what is happening now then your a lousy chess player. Don't give up though. Practice
makes perfect. However beware there are not many nations left that haven't been smeared then bombed
by the US and we are running out nations and out of time before the US blow all our asses off the
face of the planet for that self serving act of pathetic vanity which will be countersigned in hell
with 'Property of The US Military.'
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:17
"Advisors and intructors" - Don't be naive. And what happens when some of them get killed? What is
the likelihood or statistical probability of escalation after that? This is clearly provocative and
dangerous and does absolutely nothing for "peace" or "security" of anyone.
Radscal 2015-03-11 00:27
L.S. "...I am watching the chess pieces on the board..."
Does your use of that analogy imply that you read Ziggy Brzezenski's 1998 book, "The Grand Chessboard,"
in which he explains why the U.S. must take control of Ukraine as key to controlling Eurasian resources,
and ultimately to conquer Russia and China?
RODNOX 2015-03-11 05:14
history has shown the USA always has some underhanded agenda--some self serving plan---and often
plays BOTH sides of the problem--just to escalate it----WHEN WILL WE STOP THEM ????? THIS IS TRULY
THE 1 % IN ACTION--WE--THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM
wrknight 2015-03-12 20:47
Quoting L.S.:
I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in
military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors.
Like the advisors the U.S. sent to South Vietnam in the 1950's.
Archie1954 2015-03-10 20:16
Exceptional, indispensable? More like irrational, despicable! What we need is for Putin to call up
Obama and tell him point blank that if the US doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine, Russia will make
it! If you don't think it can, think again!
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:20
I appreciate your emotion here, but that would be really really scary because I imagine the US would
respond with even greater belligerance and "justify" it by saying "Putin is threatening us" - even
though, ironically, it is the US that is doing all the threatening.
Vardoz 2015-03-10 21:17
It's more like war madmen then warmongers and it's all very frightening. Putin is crazy too and we
have no right getting involved so that the Fuking military can make profits!!!! Enough!!!!! Our military
is out of control with a suicidal war agenda and they don't care about the consequences or the collateral
damage. It's just war all around, kick out the jams no matter how many die- they don't give a damn.
Seemed like Germany was making some constructive headway and Merkel should tell the US where to go.
This is all so dirty and obscene and wrong.
Radscal 2015-03-11 00:33
You do know that the U.S. was not even invited to the peace talks, right?
Similarly, it was EU members, Russia and then-president Yanukovych who signed the agreement with
the Maidan Protest leaders on 2/21/14 in which Yanukovych acquiesced to every one of their demands.
That was when Vickie Nuland's "Fuck the EU" plan went into action and the neo-nazis stormed the government
buildings, including the Parliament and drove about 2 dozen Members of Parliament and the President
to flee for their lives.
And that, is why those who followed the events call it a "coup."
jdd 2015-03-11 07:28
The ceaae-fire came about because the "Normandy Four" excluded the US and UK, whose participation
would have guaranteed failure. Now the efforts of all, but especially that of Putin have led to a
fragile peace. The response from a disappointed Victoria Nuland crowd continues to speak of sending
arms and "advisors" to Ukraine in order to throw gasoline on the embers.
dsepeczi 2015-03-11 08:21
Quoting ericlane:
Another moronic article. Who do you think was behind the peace deal?
Ummm. I believe the organizers of that peace deal were Europe, Ukraine and Russia. The US, wisely,
was not invited to the table.
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:13
Is "US Goes Ballistic" a scary pun here? I.e., as in "nuclear armed ballistic missiles". Also,
isn't that how it all started in the Vietnam War - with "advisors"? This is batcrap crazy, but
then many people have now begun to realise that US politicians have become homocidally psychotic.
It's "back to the future" and return of Dr. Strangelove.
We have no business in Ukraine, we have no business antagonizing the Russians. We Slavs have been
demonized, mocked and denigrated as imbeciles and barbarians by the West for centuries. Stay the
hell away from us, already. We don't need to be like you.
Buddha 2015-03-11 17:10
"To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating
class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has
almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties)."
John McCain's dick just got limp again. Oh well, there is always ISIS and Iran to try to stoke up
WWIII, right Uncle Fester?
Kootenay Coyote 2015-03-16 10:12
"Until Americans, and especially American policy maker, face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine….".
Or any fundamental realities, for that matter: cf. Global Warming. The nearest thing to reality that's
considered is that of the weapon makers & warmongers, & that's pretty meagre.
As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not
ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason.
Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clinton's career reveals the empirical evidence
of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe.
Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical
plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for
treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she
supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided
by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention,
claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but "…for oil and for the return
of colonialism to the African continent."
This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an
attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview,
said regarding this international crime: "We came, we saw, he died." As Time magazine pointed out
in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells
active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported
that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state- conducive for exporting radicals
through "ratlines" to the conflict against Assad in Syria.
Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012,
Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal
for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This
proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted
one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.
Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently
called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved "behind
the scenes" in Iran's failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David
Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a "snap-back" in policy
by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this
article? "Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back." This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a
return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario.
Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one
of the loudest proponents against her husband's hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina
Frank: "I urged him to bomb," even if it was a unilateral action.
While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her
stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian
government". When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko's proto-fascist
rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putin's actions like "what Hitler did in the
'30s." As a leader of the bumbled "reset" policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some
animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine.
Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive
response to what she called the "rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts
of Latin America." This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts
at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and
Brazil.
It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the
Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillary's clumsy façade comes directly
from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his
wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillary's term as Secretary of State. He claimed in
the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the "mainstream"
by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted.
Kagan stated: "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue…it's something that might have
been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call
it something else." What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for
Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.
The "Giant Sucking Sound": Clinton Gave US NAFTA and Other Free Trade Sellouts
"There is no success story for workers to be found in North America 20 years after NAFTA," states
AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Unlike other failures of his Presidency, Bill Clinton can not run
from NAFTA. It was Vice President Al Gore, not a veto-proof Republican congress, who lobbied to remove
trade barriers with low-wage Mexico.
The record of free trade is clear. Multinational corporations and Wall Street speculators realize
incredible profits, wages remain stagnant in the US, poverty persists in the developing world, and
the remaining industrial corporations in America and Canada are increasingly owned by Chinese, Indian
and other foreign interests.
America's free trade policy is upside down. Besides Canada, Australia and Korea, most of our "free"
trade partners are low-wage sweatshop paradises like Mexico, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Bahrain and
Oman. The US does in fact apply tariffs on most goods and on most nations of origin – rates are set
by the US International Trade Commission (USTIC), a quasi-public federal agency.
Since a German- or Japanese-made automobile would under USITC's schedule be taxed 10% upon importation,
Volkswagen and Toyota can circumvent taxation by simply building their auto assembly plants for the
US market in Mexico. In Detroit, an auto assembly worker is paid between $14 and $28/hour, ($29,120-$58,240/yr);
hard work for modest pay. In Mexico, the rate varies from $2-5/hour.
In China, all automobile imports regardless of origin are tariffed as high as 25%. This allows
the Chinese to attract joint ventures with Volkswagen and Toyota, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln,
"keep the jobs, the cars and the money."
NAFTA-related job loss is not a question of productivity, currency manipulation, "fair trade,"
environmental standards, etc. While these issues are not trivial, free trade – as Lincoln's advisor
Henry C. Carey proved – is a matter of simple accounting. Can an American family survive on $4,160/year
($2/hr)? If not, cars and their components will be built in Mexico. If we want cars built in the
United States, the only solution is a general tariff (import tax) reflecting the difference between
those wage standards, like the very tariffs repealed by Bill Clinton.
In the United States the "runaway shop" under NAFTA and CAFTA has sent trade deficits and unemployment
soaring while wages drop relative to the cost of living. Yet Mexico and other "partners" receive
no benefit either. Many manufacturing sectors in Mexico pay wages lower than the equivalent sector
in China. Mexico is now the world leader in illegal narcotics exportation and weapons importation.
The poverty level between 1994 and 2009 remained virtually identical. (52.4% – 52.3%). The shipping
of raw materials to Mexico comprise the majority of so called American "exports". The finished products
from these exports are assembled and sold back to the United States at slave labor prices.
Don't expect Hillary to behave differently with the coming "Trans-Pacific Partnership," which
seeks to replace an ascendant China with less-developed Vietnam and Malaysia. Vietnam would overtake
India-allied Bangladesh in the global apparel trade, and Malaysia has a high-tech manufacturing sector
poised to rival China's. With America's manufacturing economy in shambles, the Clinton machine can
now be redirected to geopolitical maneuvers.
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided
the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license
CC BY-NC-ND).
As i've written before, it's actually very astute of Sanders to elide around Clinton rather
than attack her head-on (best to leave that to the loony Right). All he has to do is present a
full-policy spectrum alternative to Clinton's corporatism, neo-con affiliations, elite (glass-ceiling)
feminism, support for fracking/KXL, TPP-like trade agreements, etc., and let support his his policies
drive his campaign in the positive sense, than to run against Clinton in the negative sense.
There are serious limits to both how far "left" Clinton can go and how sincere her 'campaign
conversion' to progressive policies really is; which will be exposed the moment she starts assembling
her campaign managers/speech-writers, economic and foreign policy adviser teams, which will be
soon enough. [As Napoleon Bonaparte said, "Never interrupt an opponent when they're making a mistake"]
One of the best things Sanders could do here is to start that process himself with a 'shadow cabinet'
as surrogate speakers on specific policy areas (eg, getting Robert Reich back in as Labor Sec.).
And i'm serene in the confidence that once "democratic socialism" is honestly explained to U.S.,
there will be far more support for it than you can imagine.
ExcaliburDefender Dean Hovey 3 May 2015 12:58
I'll vote for whichever democratic candidate is selected in the general. Don't know who I'll
vote for in the primary yet, or if will make a difference when my state has a primary.
Don't want the bombs dropping in Iran, roll back of the ACA, or NRA rule.
#allvotesmatter2016
David Linsell 3 May 2015 12:50
I think it's terribly sad that one of the few who actually care about social justice & the
American working class is almost considered a joke by mainstream America. Come to Europe Bernie,
we love you!
bcarey 3 May 2015 12:10
Bernie Sanders is exactly correct. He is not afraid to point at the elephant in the room.
Dean Hovey 3 May 2015 12:07
I can hear the question now: "Why would you back a loser?"
Yes, I'm backing Bernie, with my vote and a tiny bit of discretionary income.
The question begs the question by assuming Bernie Sanders cannot win. It fails to account for
the disillusionment over two years of Barack Obama's appeasement of right-wing pols and the strong
possibility that Hilary will be the "other Republican" in the presidential race. Hilary, like
Obama, can "strap on" progressive talking points, but her Velcro Values will be discarded as soon
as she grasps victory.
So, really, what is there to lose by backing Bernie? A Corporate Democrat is much like a Corporate
Republican. Vote for either one, and you've lost--unless you're among the 1%.
The "Russian aggression" meme really follows in the footsteps of the "WMD" meme.
You can easily see how it works, from the invention
of a few buzzwords and/or phrases that are then repeated in nauseam, to the obedient media quickly following suit.
It strikes me as the highest level of irony that all the silly propaganda tactics they continuously and loudly accuse Russia
of (and Russia is surely guilty of some of them), they employ themselves – ten fold.
It's like that ongoing BS about RT, its funding and penetration. All the data's there, and RT is simply dwarfed by its Western
analogues, both in terms of finances and scale. Yet they keep raving about it, using bald-faced lies to support their tirades.
Likewise, whatever bad journalism RT is guilty of (e.g. distorting events by omission to fit the agenda etc) they're again ten
times worse.
And the big elephant in the room is Ukraine, a country highly relevant in this context as most of these things pertain to that
particular crisis. Ukraine where things are so aggressive, oppressive and generally rotten that had it been any other country
there'd be talk about some sorely needed B-52's raining democracy bombs over Kiev by now.
This kind of mindblowing hypocrisy, selective (deceptive) reporting and cynical agitation against whatever the "preferred target"
happens to be today is nothing new, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me.
Since it's foreign policy week this week, with President Obama
delivering a major speech on Wednesday at West Point, Christie Watch will spend the next few
days looking at the foreign policy views of the various 2016 candidates, starting today with the
presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, start first by disentangling the nonsense about
Benghazi-a nonexistent scandal if ever there was one-from the broader palette of Clinton's own, relatively
hawkish views. As she consolidates her position as the expected nominee in 2016, with wide leads
over all the likely GOP challengers, it ought to worry progressives that the next president of the
United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one. Expect to be deluged, in the
next few weeks, with news about Hard Choices, the
memoir of her years as secretary of state under President Obama,
to be released June 10.
But we don't need a memoir to know that, comparatively speaking, two things can be said about
her tenure at the State Department:
first, that in fact she accomplished very little;
and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came
down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from
Afghanistan
to Libya and Syria. She's also taken a
more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.
In the brief excerpt that's
been released by her publisher, Clinton notes that as secretary of state she "ended up visiting
112 countries and traveling nearly one million miles." But what, if anything, did she accomplish
with all that to-ing and fro-ing? Not a lot. She largely avoided the Israel-Palestine tangle, perhaps
because she didn't want to risk crossing the Israel lobby at home, and it's hard to see what she
actually did, other than to promote the education and empowerment of girls and women in places where
they are severely beaten down. And, while it's wrong (and really silly) to call Clinton a neoconservative,
she's more of-how to put it?-a "right-wing realist" on foreign policy, who often backed military
intervention as a first or second resort, while others in the White House-especially Obama's national
security staff and Vice President Biden's own aides, were far more reluctant to employ the troops.
In that vein, it's useful to explore
the memoirs of Robert Gates, who was secretary of defense under George W. Bush and then, inexplicably,
under President Obama, too. In Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War (which could also be the
subtitle of Clinton's own memoir), Gates says several times that he and Clinton saw eye to eye. (This
has also been extensively documented by Bob Woodward, if more narrowly focused,
in his 2010 book, Obama's Wars.) In Duty, Gates says that he formed an alliance
with Clinton because both he and her had independent power bases and were, in his words, "un-fireable":
Commentators were observing that in an administration where all power and decision making were
gravitating toward the White House, Clinton and I represented the only independent "power center",
not least because…we were both seen as "unfire-able." [page 289]
Gates confirms that he and Clinton lined up with the hawks against the doves on Afghanistan:
The Obama foreign policy team was splintering. [Joe] Biden, his chief of staff, [Rahm]
Emanuel, some of the National Security Council staff, and probably all of the president's White
House political advisers were on a different page with respect to Afghanistan than Clinton, [Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs] Mullen, [Dennis] Blair, and me. [page 350]
And Gates says that on the crucial decision to escalate the Afghan war in 2009 and then to
slow the drawdown in 2010, he and Clinton were on the same side:
Yet again the president had mostly come down on Hillary's and my side. And yet again the process
was ugly and contentious, reaffirming that the split in Obama's team over Afghanistan, after two
years in office, was still very real and very deep. [page 502]
And, says Gates (page 587), Obama's efforts to centralize foreign policy decision-making inside
the White House "offended Hillary Clinton as much as it did me."
As The Nation noted in 2013, just before the November 2012 election-after Gates had left
the administration and was replaced by Leon Panetta-Clinton joined Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus
and the military in
proposing that the United States go to war in Syria. (That the United States didn't act more
aggressively in Syria back then was entirely due to President Obama's decision to resist Clinton
and the other hawks.)
And, more famously, Clinton-joined by several other administration officials, including Samantha
Power and Susan Rice-pushed hard, and successfully,
for the United States to go to war in Libya. For Republicans who've endlessly waved the bloody
flag of Benghazi, Clinton's hawkish view on Libya contradicts much of the nonsense they go on about.
But for progressives, it's an ugly blot on Clinton's résumé. Not only did the war in Libya go far
to inflame Russian nationalism, it also created a terrible vacuum in North Africa, toppling Muammar
Qaddafi but leaving hundreds of armed militias in his stead, creating chaos and anarchy. (And, because
the war against Qaddafi followed the Libyan leader's decision to forgo a nuclear arms program, it
also sent the wrong message to Iran, namely, give up your nuclear program and we'll attack you anyway.)
In
their book about Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, HRC, Jonathan Allen and Amie
Parnes don't provide much insight into Clinton's role as maker of foreign policy decisions, preferring
to concentrate far too much on the politics of the Clinton people vs. the Obama people. But they
do suggest that there was far more tension between the White House and the State Department under
Clinton than is usually cited. For instance, they write:
Many of the White House aides saw the Clinton network as part of a bipartisan Washington
foreign policy establishment that kept getting it wrong. [page 143]
As background, Allen and Parnes note that Clinton's relationship with Gates was founded in part
on the fact that both Clinton and Gates backed Barry Goldwater in 1964-Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl"-and
that Gates took note of the fact that Clinton, as senator from New York, "had made friends with a
number of high-level flag officers-three- and four-star generals and admirals-during her time on
Armed Services." She was, Gates noted, "an ardent advocate of a strong military" and "believed in
all forms of American power, including force." As important decisions were imminent during the Obama
administration, Allen and Parnes quote a "high-ranking Pentagon source" who says:
[Gates and Clinton] often compared notes in advance of some of those meetings to find common
ground to allow them to influence or drive the direction of policy on a given issue.
In
its summary of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, The New York Times suggests that
even Clinton herself has a hard time deciding what her real accomplishments were, noting that she
"seemed flustered" when asked about it at a public forum. In the end, the way she responded was,
well, meaningless:
"I really see my role as secretary, and, in fact, leadership in general in a democracy, as
a relay race," Mrs. Clinton finally said at the Women in the World meeting, promising to offer
specific examples in a memoir she is writing that is scheduled to be released in June. "I mean,
you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton."
But the Times adds that, after countless interviews, it is clear that Clinton was the
administration's hawk:
But in recent interviews, two dozen current and former administration officials, foreign diplomats,
friends and outside analysts described Mrs. Clinton as almost always the advocate of the most
aggressive actions considered by Mr. Obama's national security team-and not just in well-documented
cases, like the debate over how many additional American troops to send to Afghanistan or the
NATO airstrikes in Libya.
Mrs. Clinton's advocates-a swelling number in Washington, where people are already looking
to the next administration-are quick to cite other cases in which she took more hawkish positions
than the White House: arguing for funneling weapons to Syrian rebels and for leaving more troops
behind in postwar Iraq, and criticizing the results of a 2011 parliamentary election in Russia.
And the Times quotes Dennis Ross, the pro-Israel advocate who worked for both Clinton
and for the White House on Iran: "It's not that she's quick to use force, but her basic instincts
are governed more by the uses of hard power."
Since leaving office, Clinton has gone out of her way to sound more hawkish than Obama on a range
of issues, including
expressing skepticism on the negotiations with Iran. Some observers say that it's just politics,
and that Clinton is positioning herself for 2016. Maybe so. But it sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton
is just being, well, Hillary Clinton.
Quote: "Clinton gave the Bush administration political cover from the left on both issues, as she
backed the initial invasion of Iraq and twice voted for the Patriot Act. Her Iraq vote became a
major issue in her race against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, which
she would eventually lose.
Lincoln Chafee -- a former Republican senator, independent governor of Rhode Island and potential
Democratic presidential nominee --
said this week that Clinton's vote on Iraq should disqualify her from receiving the Democratic nomination
in 2016. "
Hillary Clinton, a former US secretary of state (and senator, and First Lady), will reportedly announce
her 2016 presidential run Sunday via social media. Expect these recent Clinton scandals to surface
again (and again) for the duration of her candidacy.
State Department emails
The latest Clinton controversy stems from her
use of a private
email account and server -- which was found to be
insecure
for at least three months -- to conduct official business as US secretary of state. Clinton has said
she used her private email account -- just as
past secretaries of state have done -- as a
matter of convenience.
Then just over a week ago, it was
revealed
that Clinton used both her Blackberry and an iPad to email State Department employees from her private
account and server.
US Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who heads the House Select Committee on Benghazi, issued a subpoena
for the private
server that hosted Clinton's emails as the congressional panel investigates the 2012 attacks
on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher
Stevens. Late last month, he announced that Clinton had failed to respond to the subpoena and had
wiped her server
clean. In response, the Benghazi committee has formally asked Clinton to answer questions about
the server during an in-person, transcribed interview before May 1.
Clinton has said that she deleted 30,000 of about 60,000 emails exchanged during her four years
as secretary of state because they were "personal in nature," but that she turned all of
her work-related emails over to the State Department.
Benghazi attacks
On September 11, 2012, following the disposition and death of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi,
a US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi was attacked, leading to the deaths of US Ambassador to Libya
Christopher Stevens, a colleague, and two security contractors -- the latter two at an "annex"
used by the CIA. Many top officials of the Obama administration, including the president himself,
have been
scrutinized ad nauseam by congressional Republicans and the media for actions -- or lack thereof
-- taken before the attack. The administration has also been criticized for its behavior during the
incident's aftermath, for allegedly attempting to
pass blame
for any mistakes made that led to the deaths.
Clinton, in her final days as secretary of state at the time, has been a particular focus of investigations,
not only due to her role as top US diplomat, but also because of her position as the Democratic Party's
likely standard bearer following President Obama's second and final term in the White House. Republicans
have
claimed that Clinton refused to offer increased security upon request of diplomats stationed
in Libya prior to the Benghazi attack. Clinton has denied she ever received word of such requests.
The aforementioned private email scandal has provided new fodder for congressional investigators
interested in cornering Clinton over the incident. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has been
blamed for indirectly
providing arms to Al-Qaeda-linked extremists in Libya.
Diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks
In late 2010, Wikileaks published 250,000 classified documents sent by State Dept. diplomats from
December 1966 to February 2010. The leaked
cables -- provided by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, a US Army soldier stationed in Iraq at the
time -- displayed the unfiltered face of America's diplomatic machinations, in which embassies
were used as a vital tool for American espionage. For instance, secret cables sent under Clinton's
name instructed US diplomats to gather "biometric data," such as "fingerprints, facial
images, DNA, and iris scans," of African officials.
Other cables targeted the most personal information, including credit card numbers, of United
Nations diplomats. Top UN officials -- including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and security-council
representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK -- were also targeted. The leaked cables include
myriad other revelations about American diplomatic maneuvers.
Despite the damning contents splayed out for all to see, Clinton asserted that the leaks were
not an indictment of Washington's malevolence.
"Let's be clear. This disclosure is not just an attack on America - it's an attack on the
international community," Clinton
said.
"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about
sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations," she added.
The Clinton Foundation donors
Last month, it was
reported by the Wall Street Journal that the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization run
by the Clinton family, had accepted as much as $68 million from elite donors with close ties to foreign
governments and state-run companies while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The conflict-of-interest
allegations were denied by the Clintons, who said the donations were part and parcel of building
coalitions to tackle the world's most pressing issues.
"We do get money from other countries, and some of them are in the Middle East," former
President Bill Clinton said last month. "The United Arab Emirates gave us money, do we agree
with everything they do? No, but they're helping us fight ISIS and they helped build a university
with NYU. . . . My theory about all this is, disclose everything, and let people make their judgments."
This week, McClatchy News Service
reported that, since 2001, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates -- governments
that have been maligned for their dismal human rights records and for ties to terror funding throughout
the Middle East -- gave as much as $40 million to the Clinton Foundation.
As RT has reported,
from 2009 up to 2013, the year the Ukrainian crisis erupted, the Clinton Foundation received
at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is headquartered in the Ukrainian
capital of Kiev, calling into question whether the donations were an attempt to curry favor from
the US State Dept. Several alumni of oligarch Pinchuk's program have already graduated into the ranks
of Ukraine's parliament, while a former Clinton pollster went to work as a lobbyist for Pinchuk at
the same time Clinton was working in government.
According to the International Business Times, the Clinton Foundation accepted million of dollars
from a Colombian oil company before then-Secretary of State Clinton changed her previous position
and supported a US-Colombia trade deal, controversial for its links to human rights violations. In
addition, after the deal was finalized, Clinton's State Department "never criticized or took
action against the Colombian government for alleged violations of labor rights at Pacific Rubiales,"
the oil company "at the center of Colombia's labor strife," IBT reported.
Support for Iraq war, Patriot Act, bank bailouts
Despite a long career in and around government, Clinton has only held one elected position: US
senator from the state of New York during the duration of the George W. Bush administration, from
2001 to 2009. Bush's two terms were full of divisive issues, especially following the attacks of
September 11, 2001. Two of the top issues that galvanized Democratic opposition to the Bush White
House included the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the USA Patriot Act, a broad-based national
security law passed in late 2001 that
was a basis
for vast spying programs employed by the likes of the National Security Agency to this day.
Clinton gave the Bush administration political cover from the left on both issues, as she
backed the initial invasion of Iraq and twice voted for the Patriot Act. Her Iraq vote became
a major issue in her race against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, which
she would eventually lose.
Lincoln Chafee -- a former Republican senator, independent governor of Rhode Island and potential
Democratic presidential nominee --
said this week that Clinton's vote on Iraq should disqualify her from receiving the Democratic
nomination in 2016.
"I don't think the next president of the United States should have voted in favor of that
mistake," Chafee said in an interview with AP. "And I don't think the Democratic party nominee,
in particular, should have voted for that mistake."
Chafee, now a Democrat, was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the Iraq invasion.
Clinton also
supported the hugely unpopular bank bailouts amid the financial crisis of 2007-2008.
By Steve Fraser, co-founder of the American Empire Project and Editor-at-Large of the
journal New Labor Forum. He is the author of Every Man a Speculator, A History of Wall Street in
American Life, and most recently co-editor of Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a
Democracy. This article is excerpted and slightly adapted from The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and
Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. Originally published at
TomDispatch
The American upper classes did not constitute a seasoned aristocracy, but could
only mimic one. They lacked the former's sense of social obligation, of noblesse
oblige, of what in the Old World emerged as a politically coherent "Tory
socialism" that worked to quiet class antagonisms. But neither did they absorb the
democratic ethos that today allows the country's gilded elite to act as if they
were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead,
faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the "tramp terror" and other
innovations in machine-gun technology, to private corporate armies and government
militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial injunctions, and lynchings. Why
behave otherwise in dealing with working-class "scum" a community of "mongrel
firebugs"?
One historian has described what went on during the Great Uprising as
an "interlocking directorate of railroad executives, military officers, and
political officials which constituted the apex of the country's new power elite."
After Haymarket, the haute bourgeoisie went into the fort building business; Fort
Sheridan in Chicago, for example, was erected to defend against "internal
insurrection." New York City's armories, which have long since been turned into
sites for indoor tennis, concerts, and theatergoing, were originally erected after
the 1877 insurrection to deal with the working-class canaille.
During the anthracite coal strike of 1902, George Baer, president of the
Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and leader of the mine owners, sent a letter to
the press: "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and
cared for… not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to
whom God has given control of the property rights of the country." To the
Anthracite Coal Commission investigating the uproar, Baer proclaimed, "These men
don't suffer. Why hell, half of them don't even speak English."
Ironically, it was thanks in part to its immersion in bloodshed that the first
rudimentary forms of a more sophisticated class consciousness began to appear
among this new elite. These would range from Pullman-like Potemkin villages to
more practical-minded attempts to reach a modus vivendi with elements of the trade
union movement readier to accept the wages system.
As did Frederic Lundberg in America's 60 Families (1938) somewhat later. Still protected
by the "Protect Mickey Mouse Act" (copyright extension to perpetuity) as best I can figure but there
are copies around in those subversive Public Libraries and such.
But neither did they absorb the democratic ethos that today allows the country's gilded elite
to act as if they were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead,
faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the "tramp terror" and other innovations in machine-gun
technology, to private corporate armies and government militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial
injunctions, and lynchings….
We still see that in play today across the globe.
Some security states are clumsy and some suave.
The suave ones say to their ruled, 'Behold them savages. Thou are truly blessed to have me."
But an opposed instinct, native to capitalism in its purest form, wanted the state kept weak
and poor so as not to intrude where it wasn't wanted. Due to this ambivalence, the American state
was notoriously undernourished, its bureaucracy kept skimpy, amateurish, and machine-controlled,
its executive and administrative reach stunted.
Thanks to its capture, after the tragic Sack of New Rome by a roaming band of billionaires, the
state can now be safely allowed to expand, to be given unlimited money to spend. No more undernourishment,
no more skimpiness. Amateurish maybe, as the debate rages eternally whether it's evil intent or just
incompetence.
What a sad fact to learn in this post, that May Day originated in the US and is now expunged like
some unwelcome Kommissar airbrushed out of a Kremlin lineup. Oh the mere thought of the actual people
who do all of the actual work, not the financial leeches, the tax-free corporo-fascist bosses, or
the millionaires per capita of Maryland, that those actual people who do *work* should have some
kind of identity and voice and actual claim to the social fabric…perish the thought!
Turning point in my mind was Reagan's stamping out the air traffic controller strike, in the Capital
versus Labor battle of course Capital could buy every last possible advantage. Only with the consent
of the governed of course…so the very idea that workers have rights needed to be demonized, and how
completely successful they have been at that.
The very word "union" is spat with contempt by the
widest possible swath of the populace, with holdover associations from the Red Scare. Mayor Bloomberg
knew what to do: arrest 243 people for loitering in the Occupy Park…because he knew everybody was
behind him. At the same time Jamie and Lloyd were flying to St. Barts for a really nice confab…when
they should have been the ones getting the ankle bracelets.
This is particularly useful for the references to alliances between working class and "petty bourgeois"
shopkeepers, e.g. the Pittsburgh strike. I'm fairly familiar with the strike history lit and hadn't
seen that before.
In a related vein, Yves has usefully pointed out that the resistance to the TPP has been drawing
together sections of the left and right. In my contacts with our Congresscritter, Gwen Graham, I've
stressed this point strongly. I think she's basically a hack looking to run for higher office asap
but, for someone trying to maintain a seat in a district that went Tea Party in 2010, an anti-TPP
position should be a no-brainer.
'The Gilded Age' is such an apt moniker. Under its veneer of wealth there was no there there.
My all time favorite book on the subject of the struggle for democracy is "Framing America" by Frances
Pohl. The first plate is the memorial statue dedicated to those who died in the Haymarket riot. It
is extremely beautiful. No need for gilding. There was another horrendous incident in 1913, a mining
incident where miners and their families were massacred by the owners of the mines (Colorado I think)
which became a rallying cry for NY artists and they produced an exhibit of abstract art in protest
at the NY Armory. And then, of course, WW1.
When civility breaks down in one country it usually spreads.
And the threat of socialism was on the horizon. Which is why it is so unbelievable to see the encroachment
(really a takeover) of what is yet another gilded age trying to keep power. It's crazy.
A month ago there was a discussion on Ian Welsh's site about the lack of non-fiction books of
depth and original thought. Commenter Jessica had a list of good books that I decided to follow.
I read Graeber's "Utopia of Rules" and am now tackling "Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life" by
Jonathan Sperber. I am totally taken with it. (And mind you, I've never read or studied Marx. As
a theater/film major the closest I got was studying Bertolt Brecht.) Sperber's book puts Marx in
the context of his times not through a 20th Century lens. Marx lived in an exciting but turbulent
time; the mid-nineteenth century. It was a time of heady ideas and deep philosophical thought. Did
God exist? What should replace him? Should nations or "the state" exist? Are "united" states a good
idea or bad? Why should Marx's region of the Rhineland be either French or German?
Well heeled "shop keepers" put money into radical newspapers as share holders or gave great writers
like Marx, Engels and Hess "grants" to publish their ideas. Shoe makers and other tradesmen moved
from Germany to cities like Paris, Brussels, and London to take up revolutionary causes that had
started with the French revolution and spread out. There were cafes, reading rooms, and back of the
bar discussions that included factory workers, skilled craftsmen and scholars. Marx committed his
life to action although as a scholar and writer not a professional agitator like a Karl Schapper
or Giuseppe Mazzini. He did not want to just "interpret the world" as philosophers had done before
him, he wanted to change it.
We did have some heady days in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Revolution was in the air
in 1968 like it was in 1848. The anti-globalists have soldiered on and created a great event in 1999.
Occupy gave a brief but heady time. It is good to be reminded of the labor clashes and solidarity
that existed in the 19th Century amongst workers, farmers, and shop keepers. I am grateful to Yves
for pointing out yet another book worth reading. Here at NC, we have a virtual cafe where we can
hone our ideas and bicker in true Hegelian style. But after reading this book on Marx, I am determined
to get back to the city for more meet ups of NC readers. The Most Holy Order of the Knights and Dames
of Capitalism Most Naked dedicated to as much leisure time as we can get our hands on. In an age
of acquiescence, drinking does help.
I may not be remembering correctly, but doesn't Jeb Bush have some sort of financial
interest in a company that benefits from the charter school movement?
NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 12:41 pm
I thought it was Neil off the top of my head, but it is the Bush crime family after all.
washunate, April 3, 2015 at 8:04 am
Jeb Bush has been involved with education for a long time, and certainly has some financial
interests, but he's actually more of a true believer. The people in it for the money are more
around him than Jeb himself.
If anything, Jeb is more interested in undermining Democratic constituencies (unions,
impoverished communities, etc.) than in financial gain.
Which is a great example of how the Democrats have bean so unbelievably weird on areas like
education policy. They have helped create the environment in which traditional Democratic
constituents are now abandoning the party in droves. Rahm Emanuel and teachers unions are
fighting each other in Chicago instead of fighting together against GOP policies.
Almost as if that's how national Democrats want things to work…
The cold war never ended. Russia was pillaged and plundered in the 90s and of course the nukes
are still pointing at Russia, the airbases surrounding the West of Russia remain, the missile
shield...
She can easily push reset buttons, delete buttons, everyones button...lol...but she can't push
simple phone buttons when her "good friend Chris" is under attack with RPG's, mortars & AK's?
Hillary Clinton: war mongering is her strong suit – according to media hacks.
BradBenson Ashok Choudhury 2 Apr 2015 19:04
Nonsense. Who are the wise? Hillary is a war criminal. She should not be elected for any
reason. She should be shipped off to the Hague with Obama, Bush and Cheney.
BradBenson yesfuture 2 Apr 2015 18:57
Libya, for one. It's always been about light crude that is used for airplane fuel.
Regaining control of Libya's Oil is BP Petroleum's prime project and Hillary supported it.
BradBenson Elton Johnson 2 Apr 2015 18:52
Congratulations, you are both wrong. We were occupiers in Iraq and were always going to
incite bigger and more violent opposition groups. We should not have gone in. We should have
gotten out sooner. We should not be there now.
BradBenson Michael Seymour 2 Apr 2015 18:49
This kid is a living, typing example of the way that Americans have been dumbed down over
the years. He has no fucking clue as to what we are doing in the world and believes everything
he hears on CNN and MSNBC (our so-called 'liberal' media outlets). He can no longer be
reeducated.
He will live in fear that ISIS or some other phony terrorist group will plant a bomb in his
toilet and thus suffer from constipation for the rest of his life.
Paul Moore Alchemist 2 Apr 2015 18:45
Bush vs. Clinton
Been there. Done that.
BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42
Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status
quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a
Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will
be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama
the second time around.
BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40
Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead,
he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which
he once claimed to have stood.
Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.
More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the
following link.
Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status
quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a
Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will
be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama
the second time around.
BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40
Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead,
he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which
he once claimed to have stood.
Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.
More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the
following link.
Nobody, including Obama. Where have you been for the past six years. Obama makes Bush look
like a beginner. Bush started two wars. We now have seven that we know about and are
militarily engaged in more than 100 countries.
The blind eye that you faux lefties turn toward Obama and Hillary is absolutely disgusting and
hypocritical. Obama and Hillary are fucking WAR CRIMINALS--just like Bush and Cheney--in fact
worse!
BradBenson diddoit 2 Apr 2015 18:34
Yes...in the wrong direction. He's beginning to reverse some of his earlier
anti-interventionist statements and was one of 47 idiots that signed that letter to Ayatollah
Khamenei. I like Rand for a while, strictly because of his 'opposition' to our wars and
the domestic spying. Lately, he's back to trying to appeal to Evangelical Nutcases.
BradBenson Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 18:30
Well Natasha, you are correct that US Foreign Policy should be about protecting US
Interests--to a point. Where we may disagree is in how that policy has truly not served our
best interests and certainly could not be said to have served in the best interests of the US
or the Globe in any single respect--not one. When your only foreign policy is war and murder
by drone, you are not serving anyone's interests but the arms dealers.
BradBenson Samuel Burns 2 Apr 2015 18:22
Our leaders have brought war, torture, murder and mayhem to the planet since the early 90's
and have doubled down since 9/11. They are war criminals and the blame is correctly place upon
the US. Wake up.
BradBenson fredimeyer 2 Apr 2015 18:19
Well I wish you were right, but it's not shaping up that way right now. That being said,
she cannot win and we will all be stuck with another fucking Bush.
I'll be voting third party this year as will every other anti-war progressive.
BradBenson sour_mash 2 Apr 2015 18:17
Those ills are now the ills of the Obama Administration and I have pointed this out to you
way too often in the past for you not to have gotten it. Obama embraced Bush's War Crimes and
made them his own. Quit apologizing and making excuses for this murderous SOB. Here again are
the links. Educate yourself.
More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the
following link.
She like Obama are militarists. Obama astounded his progressive supporters with his praise
for militarism at Nobel. Hillary lost the primaries by hanging onto the 'Iraq was a just and
good intervention'. Even if it was imposed by Bill it was idiotic when even some in the GOP
were jumping ship.
BradBenson Mikhail Lykhin 2 Apr 2015 18:14
That's just sexist bullshit. She's a well-qualified war criminal and will wage our wars
with the same audacity, ferocity and veracity of any man. In fact, she will be more brutal
just to prove that women should be allowed to be the War-Criminal-in-Chief more often.
BradBenson Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 18:11
Yep, I remember that too. That should have been a wake up call for any faux Democrats that
hated Bush's Policies, but loved those same policies under Obama. Now these neo-con converts
can't wait for Hillary to break the glass ceiling and become the greatest US War Criminal of
all-time. She will never be President. Real lefties will stay home.
BradBenson toadwarrior 2 Apr 2015 18:07
It's not a matter of age. It's a matter of faulty policies and a total lack of any
morality. I'm 64 and I'd match my intellectual acuity against anyone, young or old. I might
not always win, but it wouldn't be because of my age if I lost.
Hillary is not qualified because she is a war criminal. Period.
Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 18:03
It was easier for Clinton to coordinate his politics with Europeans at that time. The US
was the measure of everything.
But yes, I think you are right, Hillary may be moved by an excessive ambition rather than
pure ideology. What I fear is that this ambition makes her prone to hard ideological positions
and to alliaces with the worst currents of American politics. On the other hand, you are
right, as a whole the Democrats may seem to be more reasonable and I, in Europe, probably
underestimate the political climate in the country.
BradBenson Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:59
People with money back them and most of the American People have been dumbed down to
believe that we are a beacon of freedom and democracy around the world.
Despite the fact that realistic Americans recognize the truth, we can no longer unseat the
shadow government and will just have to wait for the inevitable collapse of the evil empire
under its own weight. It will be tough, but the education will be good for the
survivors--however difficult.
voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:48
Point taken.
But interestingly, there was much less "go-it-alone" foreign policy by Bill Clinton. He
coordinated with European allies, for one--for which he was castigated by the Republicans.
That sort of foreign policy really took off under Bush--the right-wing is contemptuous of
Europe, the UN, and pretty much any other nation.
I agree with you that she's too hawkish--and that she has made a number of serious
mistakes. But I think she's less ideologically driven that driven by her (maybe "pragmatic")
ambition.
But the climate in the US is such that the Republican alternatives are *much* more extreme
and aggressive -- they talk about waging war on a daily basis. It's truly terrifying.
But anyone more "moderate" that Clinton really doesn't stand a chance for the Democrats.
The political climate is too extreme and money has totally corrupted our political
process--big money is generally (*but not exclusively) interested in "advancing their
interests" and "the rest of the world be damned." There really are no good alternatives--it's
Clinton or someone like Bush, or even worse someone like Cruz, Christie, or Paul.
NomChompsky Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 17:45
The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was
Secretary of State.
Hey.
BradBenson 2 Apr 2015 17:32
The people are not dissatisfied with Obama's Foreign Policy because it has somehow been too
tepid. They are sick of his embrace of the worst war crimes of the neo-con right as his own
and his failure to implement hope and change from the abuses of the Bush/Cheney
Administration. To say that Hillary's experience as Secretary of State has given her anything
more than experience in WAR CRIMES is an exaggeration if not outright mendacity.
Obama started with two wars and we now have at least seven. During Obama's Tenure, both he and
Hillary were involved in: illegal drone murders; CIA Black Sites (Benghazi was actually about
the freeing of illegally held Libyan Nationals from a CIA Black Site Prison); an illegal Coup
d'état in the Ukraine, which nearly brought Europe to the brink of war; the overthrow of the
Libyan Government, which resulted in a civil war and the rise of ISIS there; the failure of
our policies in Syria and Yemen, resulting in major wars throughout the Middle East; the
failure of the Arab Spring and the reestablishment of US-backed dictatorial strongmen in
numerous Arab Countries. Hillary has promised to be "more aggressive" than her predecessor.
There is no basis for this woman to be elected and her candidacy will result in the US being
saddled with Bush III. Anti-war Progressives WILL NOT vote for another war criminal and will
either vote for a third party candidate or stay home.
More information on Hillary's War Crimes can be found at the following sites.
We don't call her Killary over here for nothing. There is no need to speculate about the
future. We can already see her foreign policy in action in Yemen, where the USA is once again
directing another lawless war of aggression.
Ask the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate how his targeted bombing of what little civilian
infrastructure Yemen has? You know, dairy processing, electrical power installations, the
usual list of war criminality we have all come to know so well and hate.
Ana ask how long will it take for mass starvation to kick in with a total naval blockade on a
country that must import 100% of its grain?
normankirk 2 Apr 2015 17:02
Please, not Hillary. I'm not eligible to vote in American elections, but I do have a stake
in staying alive. Hillary has to be a nutcase with her warmongering rhetoric.
And I'm not encouraged by Ukrainian oligarchs bloating the Clinton foundation with looted
money
Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 16:56
I meant internationally. At that time nobody dared to oppose the US. Nowadys it's
different. China challenges the US, in South America there are left governments and others
that claim some independence. In Europe there is skepticism and critic of the American
government. Iran made now an agreement on better terms than they had offered in 2003. Russia
showed that they would act according to what they think it's their interest against American
opposition. The US lost wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have to consider all those
failures and mistakes. Hillary Clinton is not the right person for that.
voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:38
"Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition."?
You must have missed the government shut-down by the right-wing and the mendacious
obstructionism of Newtie Gingrich and his pals
Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:21
I wonder why the electorate keeps people in politics who are clearly unsuitable to be
politicians. Many are crazy, are ignorant, are politically corrupt, have no common sense, have
no scruples of any kind, are greedy. Why can't people have better choices? Why don't they send
such people in retirement and vote for better politicians? Why do such politicians remain
eternally in the political arena? Why do people take them seriously?
CroatianRoger 2 Apr 2015 16:14
If Clinton or Bush win we are in for more war, only Rand Paul will pull the troops back.
Apparently this election will cost about $5 billion, disgusting.
Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:12
but who may be guided by a preference for alliance-based negotiations of the kind that
informed her husband's presidency
This doesn't mean very much. Times were completely different. The Soviet Union had just
fallen when Bill Clinton was the president and the leadership of the US was not disputed.
Today opposition to intervention is much stronger and an agressive politics which didn't
function before when conditions were more favourable will not function now.
Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition. But he didn't seem to be
very ideologically guided. He used military and diplomatic power because he had the power to
do that, he was moved by custom, and for personal reasons (because of the scandals involving
him).
Obama doesn't seem to be a very determined person, to have very strong convictions. He noticed
that his power was limited and decided to take the easiest way. That means that he made
mistakes, that he simply followed what Bush had begun without much questioning. But he tried
to correct the course in some moments, to repair some mistakes, he took some positive
initiatives.
Hilary Clinton on the other hand lacks some of the few qualities of past presidents while
combining their bad qualities. She doesn't seem to be careful like Obama, she isn't so
pragmatic as Bill Clinton, she's as ideological as some of the worse politicians in the US,
she's as naive as Bush, she's as ignorant as McCain, she doesn't show any kind of moral and
intellectual independence and autonomy: she sides with the worst tendencies of politics. The
results cannot be good.
Speculation and discussions about all those cases (Ukraine, Syria and so on) show how insane
political talk has become. It's funny, because they are exactly the result of long term
faillures, political mistakes and so on. Obama often spoke wrong, but did the right thing in
the end. H. Clinton would do the wrong thing in the end. I think that politis is too serious
to be in the hand of people like her.
Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 14:59
On the 22nd April 2008 Hillary Clinton made the following astonishing comment:"I want the
Iranians to know that if I'm the President, we will attack Iran," she replied adding, "In the
next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we
would be able to totally obliterate them". From that time on, I began to see her as a
liability and was confirmed by innumerable speeches made as Secretary of State: speeches which
displayed arrogance towards and ignorance of other cultures, together with a contempt for the
political process.
Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 14:41
How exactly is foreign policy her strong suit? The world is in much worse shape and the
U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State. There is not one area of the
world better off now due to her efforts.
Phil429 lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 13:55
Obama's strategy of forcing the regional players to sort things out themselves
This would be the same Obama who started the war on Libya and showered his Al-Qaeda buddies
with weapons to terrorise the whole region, would it? The same Obama who tried to support
Hosni Mubarak only until his defeat became undeniable, then worked to make sure his
replacement would be as close to identical as possible? Whose State Department funded and
enabled the Nazis who overthrew the government of Ukraine? Who's been devoted to indefinitely
continuing the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq from his first day in office? Whose
murder-by-drone campaign has caused vastly more devastation in Yemen and Pakistan than under
Gov Bush? Who's turned Honduras into a living hell, tried to sanction the life out of Iran on
fraudulent grounds with no authority and faithfully continued enabling every war crime Israel
commits on its way to national suicide?
Anyone who considers that 'leaving others to sort things out' has lost all touch with reality.
Whitt brighterday 2 Apr 2015 12:48
"If some nutter like Jeb Bush wins, a major war is just a matter of time." - brighterday
*
Actually, in the current crop of Republicans making noises about running, Jeb Bush is the
moderate one. Moderate being in a completely relative sense here.
TONY C 2 Apr 2015 12:08
A vote for Hillary is a vote for her undying support of the Iraq war. I hope this woman
becomes undone at the seams for whatever can be made to stick. She is the same old pedigree of
war mongers that both democrats and republicans push to the forefront of amerikkkan politics.
LowlyPeruser 2 Apr 2015 12:06
Hillary Clinton supported just about every military aggression in the Middle East (invading
Iraq, bombing Syria and Lybia) that was on offer, and when the crap hit the fan (as in
Benghazi) she was stupid enough to try to cover it up. Some strong diplomatic skills and
wisdom she has, indeed....
sparafucile2 2 Apr 2015 11:24
Rand Paul is the only candidate on the horizon who could conceivably end America's
disastrous love-affair with the neo-cons and neo-liberals. The thought of Hillary Clinton
returning to the White House would be a bit like Cherie Blair returning to No 10.
DynamicDitherer 2 Apr 2015 11:24
Americans are being fed the idea that it is time a woman was in charge, like the first
black president it is a con.
Anyone want to know what Hillary Clinton is about simply google "Hilary Clinton on Gadaffi"
and it just about sums up US foreign policy REGARDLESS who is in the big chair.
If people in the UK really want to end the murders and mayhem our? foreign policies wreak
around the globe then the only way to stop it is to vote green and be brave enough to usher in
a brand new dawn in British politics as this shit has to stop, its only a matter of when, vote
for the main parties and we are sending more of our own sons and daughters to go fight the
banksters wars which in turn will unleash hell on the civillian populations of whatever
country it is.. last time it was Libya, almost Syria... lets not let it happen again and
perhaps bring foreign policy to the front of elections... no more war.
nonfiction 2 Apr 2015 11:02
She is an old fraud. She's told the world she was the one who brought peace to Northern
Ireland, though it was certainly not anything she did that helped there. She told the world
how brave she was, when she landed in a supposed danger zone, when in fact she and her
daughter had landed to a peaceful welcome by a children's band. She showed no understanding of
Palestine or of Israel. Internationally, she hasn't a clue. She's nothing but a grabby
property developer. t can't believe even Americans are so easily hood-winked that they'd vote
for her.
wimberlin 2 Apr 2015 10:42
She is obviously a bellicose bag - there is no doubt about that. However the irony is that
this bellicose bag may be better than any wing-nut the Republicans decide to come up with in
the next year.
American politics is all about money anyways - if she can get the really rich behind her, then
she will get in.
Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:39
Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton ......
... Hillary, give the money back. Or don't run. You can't keep the money and run.
In politics you do not need to be good, you just need to be better than the other choices
and win a plurality of the electorate. Discussing someones merits or failings as a leader
without contrasting that with the competition is a tiresome waste of time. Clinton is not
impressive except in comparison with the lunatics from which her opponent will be choosen. It
is this contrast that is the relevant one that should be discussed. Despote her many failings,
she is the least bad choice among thoae on offer, by a country mile.
Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:28
Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit
25 Mar 2008 ........ Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in
Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have
been significantly exaggerated. .....
..... News footage of the event however showed her claims to have been wide of the mark, and
reporters who accompanied her stated that there was no sniper fire. Her account was ridiculed
by ABC News as "like a scene from Saving Private Ryan".
Madame is a war hawk's war hawk; and few major political figures belong more completely to
Wall Street.
No thanks.
moncur 2 Apr 2015 09:48
Family dynasties are a disturbing, newish trend in Western democracies, particularly in
USA. The Bushes, the Clintons...
There is no need to copy North Korea.
The cold war never ended. Russia was pillaged and plundered in the 90s and of course the nukes
are still pointing at Russia, the airbases surrounding the West of Russia remain, the missile
shield...
She can easily push reset buttons, delete buttons, everyones button...lol...but she can't push
simple phone buttons when her "good friend Chris" is under attack with RPG's, mortars & AK's?
There have been some suggestions that the Treaty of Moscow notwithstanding, there may well be
another hidden agreement between the USA and Germany that exists apart from an agreement between
the former WWII allies, a secret agreement that infringes upon German sovereignty and blocks the
possibility of adopting a Verfassung.
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:25 am
The German system is better as there one votes for a party and for a candidate that one prefers.
However, the system is complex – with good reason: they do not want a repeat performance of the 1930s.
See: Germany's Voting System Explained
A little sleight of hand there, though, in the above linked Der Spiegel article:
It only recently became completely fair. Germany's Constitutional Court ruled in 2009 that the
voting system used up through the 2009 general election was actually unconstitutional. Then the first
fix offered up by the Bundestag was thrown out as well. It was only in February of this year that
the country finally got a new system that conforms with the country's constitution, the Basic Law.
Ever wondered why the German "constitution" is called "The Basic Law" (Grundgesetz)?
No?
Never entered your mind, or just not bothered?
Well, I shall tell you anyway:
You see, independent sovereign states have constitutions, do they not? – apart from the UK and
three other sovereign states, or so I have been led to believe.
The UK has a constitution, they say, but if you ask to see a copy of it, they say there isn't
one, because it is an unwritten constitution – which sounds like a bit of a swizz to me – whilst
here, in the Police State that everyone knows as Russia, I can go to any news kiosk or bookshop and
buy a copy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
But I digress: the Federal Republic of Germany has no constitution (Verfassung) because some maintain
that it is an occupied country and has been so since 1945.
The German "Basic Law" was imposed on the Germans by the victorious allied occupying forces in
1949 and differs from a constitution that has been created by a sovereign people.
In the day to day functioning of the German state, the Grundgesetz functions, of course, as a
Verfassung, so every Fritz and Freda is happy – I think.
The fact remains, however, that the allied forces imposed the original Grundgesetz on the Germans
(at the point of a Lee-Enfield .303 or M1 carbine as the case may be and as Call-Me-Dave might have
said if he had been around at that time), and the Germans, of course, had no choice but to accept
the Grundgesetz, though some at the time of its imposition did object to their conquerors' demand
because they were good Germans and not Nazis – though they had known plenty who were – and felt that
they were perfectly capable of drafting their own Verfassung.
It is also a fact that since the allied imposition of the Grundgesetz, the German Constitutional
Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has had occasion to change and make adjustments to parts of the
Grundgesetz as regards the EU and the former German Democratic Republic, which the West Germans always
called Die Sowjetische Besatzungszone (The Soviet Occupation Zone) before it became re-united with
the rest of Germany, namely with the US, British and French occupation zones of Germany.
One could argue, therefore, that the changing of the Grundgesetz by the German Constitutional
Court shows that it had the sovereign right to do so and that Germany is, indeed, a sovereign state
that treats its Grundgesetz as though it were a Verfassung. Furthermore, that august and supreme
judicial authority based in Karlsruhe is indeed called the the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)
and not the German Basic Law Court (Bundesgrundgesetzgericht) – so Germany does indeed have a constitution
QED.
Yes, and the EU has a parliament in Strasbourg – but it ain't no parliament!
But get this:
Grundgesetz (not, may I remind you once again, Verfasssung) article 146.
"This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany applies to the
entire German people, shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the
German people takes effect".
See, the Basic Law recognises that there is no German constitution yet.
This very fact that Germany still has no Verfassung, or a document that they dare call one, may
also indicate that Germans still do not enjoy full freedom in self-determination – which is a human
right, goddamit!!!!!
:-)
A constitution is based upon a sovereign people. In Germany, however, there exists "The Basic
Law" that was imposed upon the German people by its conquerors in 1949 following the unconditional
surrender of the German state in 1945. Since "the unity and freedom of Germany" was achieved with
the signing of the Treaty of Moscow in 1990, why have the Germans not changed the Basic law into
a Constitution drawn up by a sovereign nation?
The Treaty of Moscow 1990 states in article 7:
"(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities
relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite
agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved.
(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs".
Alles klar?
So why no Deutsche Verfassung?
There have been some suggestions that the Treaty of Moscow notwithstanding, there may well be
another hidden agreement between the USA and Germany that exists apart from an agreement between
the former WWII allies, a secret agreement that infringes upon German sovereignty and blocks the
possibility of adopting a Verfassung.
In 2007, Gerd-Helmut Komossa, a former head of the "German CIA" – the Bundesnachtrichtendienst
(BND) – published the book "Die deutsche Karte (The German Card), stating that there was such a treaty
in 1949
From comments (BradBenson -> maggie111 14 Mar 2015 11:55) : We should have a
woman candidate, but not this one. She is a WAR CRIMINAL who has promised a more aggressive foreign
policy than Obama who, by the way, started five new wars to add to Bush's two. You are dangerously
naïve.
I think many Americans come here because usually the level of discussion is quite a bit
higher than that found in most US newspapers.
I come here to read what other people are thinking and try hard to digest what I find because
by using that process I can learn and grow.
Waughchild -> philipf 14 Mar 2015 14:10
Couldn't agree more. When she said she came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996,
she retracted and said it was a mistake. Mistake!!!!! No, a total BS lie that she was so stupid
that she thought she could get away with. She is power hungry like her husband. She doesn't have a
feminist bone in her body.
sfgirl42 14 Mar 2015 14:08
Remember this?
"After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions,
sofas and other gifts with them when they left (the White House), the Clintons announced last week
that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.
Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the
Clintons have either decided to pay for or return." abc news 2/8/2001
foggy2 -> Orance 14 Mar 2015 13:50
I think corporate and bankster money is much more important to them than opinion
polls. They can say one thing to appease people but in the end go with the monied interests.
janvaneck 14 Mar 2015 13:41
What you Brits do not realize is that Hillary can never prevail in a national election. It
has nothing to do with talent, or campaign funds, or staff abilities, or anything else. It has to
do with her behavior, which is so disgraceful that a hefty chunk of "democrat" voters will bolt.
To understand the Hillary-antipathy phenomenon, I offer this little tidbit: Hillary was asked by
some University to give a Commencement Address. For 40 minutes of speaking, she demanded a fee of
$350,000. She also demanded to be ferried to and fro in a Gulfstream G-5; that is the ultimate
top-of-the-line corporate jet, with intercontinental capabilities. She also demanded to be put up
in a hotel - not some raggedy 4-star hotel, but only a 5-star hotel - and not is some "room," nor
even a "suite," but only the "Presidential Suite." Then she demanded that a staff of courtiers be
brought along and paid for, a chunk of these to be ferried out as advance men on First-class
tickets (at least, not a private jet!), and then only so many photos were allowed, and so forth.
The University caved in to this extortion, and hired the jet and the Presidential Suite and paid
the outrageous fee. But the problem is that this tab, which all-in likely ran to some $750,000,
meant that hundreds of students would not be receiving need scholarships. If you figure that even
$2,000 would tip a needy student out of school, she with her arrogance and hubris shut down the
education of some 400 students.
She gets away with this self-absorbed behavior because she is "Hillary," and has figured out how
to milk the system to put hefty chunks of coin into her purse. Plus, she confuses the G-5 with
being "royalty." And she craves being pseudo-royalty. {Would Kate ever behave like this? No
chance; the Princess has real class.] But the voters are wise to this, and they do not like this
bad behavior in their leaders. She has so incensed even party stalwarts (not to even mention how
Republicans froth at the mouth when anyone says "Hillary!") that she will end up shellacked.
It reminds me of another badly-behaved politician, a fellow named John Ashcroft. He was running
for Senator from Missouri, and as the fates would have it, his opponent was killed in a plane
crash some five weeks before the election. There was no time window to put another candidate in
there on the ballot, so the voters were faced with the choice of electing Ashcroft or a dead man.
The voters chose the dead man - anybody but Ashcroft. Humiliated, he was awarded a Cabinet Post as
a consolation prize (and went on to do a lot of damage, just as Hillary did in the State
Department).
Personally, I would vote for any identifiable road-kill carcass - skunk, gopher, opossum, whatever
- before I would elect Hillary. Welcome to America, where we elect the dead. It is the ultimate
"none of the above" voting line.
Lucymarie 14 Mar 2015 13:38
Hilary Clinton is such a hawk, that I offer the following version of the nursery rhyme:
Pillory Hillary, mock,
Our troops land on the dock.
Our troops strike out,
Throughout we're cursed,
Pillory Hillary, mock.
foggy2 -> BradBenson 14 Mar 2015 13:35
I'm a woman and would like to at some point see a female candidate but I don't think it should
come about strictly based on gender. The right woman will appear and this may or may not be the
election. But nowhere is it written that a female president is going to be any better than a male.
geronimo -> rustybeancake 14 Mar 2015 13:30
Why do you think this only comes up as an issue for female candidates?
I think that observation is plainly and simply wrong, however often Hillary claims that any
attacks on her are 'because she's a women'. Disingenuous self-serving claptrap.
Where should I start the list of male politicians with the same sociopathy? Well, for the sake of
provocation let's take another opportunistic self-serving martyr and Grauniad darling in the news,
Boris Nemtsov...
No matter how many words are written to try and humanise these people they are clearly
sociopaths. Clinton, like her husband, is utterly shameless and without scruples. She is
warmongering, lying scumbag without any genuine qualities.
MBDifani 14 Mar 2015 12:50
Hillary Clinton made a headline when she gave an address at Wellesley College in 1969 regarding
the 'Nam war which I protested too at UC San Diego. I was in the army for five yrs. half of which
was in W. Germany as a flight operations Sp5 at two helicopter bases. Our protest was not aimed at
the trigger pullers, but the four star brass and civilian hawks such as Pres. LBJ and McNamara in
the Pentagon. I am not for her as president...Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley in '16...not Joe Biden.
Back in 2008 stand up comic Lewis Black ranted and raved about Clinton in the race vs. Obama. He
wanted her to get out of the race, it's time for Barack Obama...on and on. Much applause from the
audience.
boscovee 14 Mar 2015 12:48
Ah, the money must be finding the right pockets, this article is nothing but propaganda to
foist this woman on the people, read the Clinton chronicles of ask the people of Arkansas about
the Clinton's.
george1la 14 Mar 2015 12:39
This is exactly the personality type we do not need anymore. This is self destruction if she is
elected. How about some sensible people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are for the
people not corporations and billionaires as the Clinton's have proven, by their actions, to be
with Fascist inclinations as does Obama when looking at not what they say, but what they do. Are
we more free and safe? Do you have more or less privacy? Is the world safer? Why is the U.S.
backing Nazi Fascists in the Ukraine?
WHO ARE WE REALLY AND WHO ARE THE LEADERS WE ELECT?
hertsman 14 Mar 2015 12:39
Why does this article not address the outright, provable lies she told when she ran against
Obama and she was aggrandising her time in the White House ;
1) Her claim to have landed at Sarajevo, dodging sniper-fire
2) Her claim to have been instrumental in the Irish Peace process
Appalling liar. Impossible to trust her a e-mail controversy shows.
pwatson mizdarlin 14 Mar 2015 12:39
She's just another ambitious careerist who voted for war
chiefwiley -> Guruwho 14 Mar 2015 12:38
There will be a constant stream of sycophantic articles laying the base, together with
stinging, downright nasty articles on each and every opponent, questioning why they are not in
jail. She will be shown as holding her own against terrible accusations, while Republicans will be
portrayed as denying, deflecting, and deceiving. Even potential Democratic opponents will be
measured and found wanting.
It's all nonsense, of course, but the template is "history in the making," and history must be
served. So they lower the bar for her and raise it for anybody else. She blatantly ignores public
records and FOIA regulations --- no big deal. Christie, on the other hand, personally created a
traffic jam and should be in jail for it.
Put on the popcorn and get out the pompoms. In the Guardian, it's Hillary Time!
flatulenceodor67 -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:33
"She was on a secured server and has already confirmed that security was not breached."
What an ASININE statement believing a compulsive/corrupt KNOWN LIAR! I guess it takes one to know
one.
geronimo -> MurkyFogsFutureLogs 14 Mar 2015 12:31
Indeed...
Under the retiring editor, all politics seems to have been reduced to 'identity' politics. Forget
about class, war, class war and so on... If it can't be reduced to Hillary's gender or Putin's, er...
transcendental evil... then it's barely worth a comment above the line.
As I've said before, for the Guardian 'the personal is the political' - or rather, for the
Guardian as for Hillary, the political reduces to the personal.
A marriage made, not so much in heaven, but somewhere in political-fashionista North London.
Scuppie -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:18
I've heard that Elizabeth Warren's IQ is somewhat greater than that of a cherry stone clam.
Anyone who would willingly sign up as a US presidential candidate cannot be very high in the
brain-power pecking order. Political party has nothing to do with it.
xxxaaaxxx -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:17
She hasn't much experience and lied about her background to get a place at Harvard. We had an
inexperienced young politician in Obama and that has not worked out so well. Just because someone
is a women does not mean they need to be elected. BTW I am a women but there has to be more
qualifications then sex to get the job.
consciouslyinformed -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:14
Elizabeth Warren, has stated she is heavily invested in her current position, about which, she
has great passion and rewards of her personal productivity, and recognises that the presidency is
not the "goal," of one who knows what her current position provides her and the citizens of her
state.
Spanawaygal -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:12
She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the
hackers can invade gov't websites (wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but
very likely that her security was breached.
Roberta -> Hudlow Crewman 14 Mar 2015 12:06
There is a political term that drives me crazy, "flip-flopped," Do we really prefer politicians
who say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up?' Or do we prefer someone who can
review the facts of an issue and find that their own view is wrong and untenable? I change my mind
in view of facts. Do we want thinkers of primitive robots? I say primitive, because even computers
can re-analyze. Further, I understand that many Evangelicals have changed stance on
Israel-Palestine.
BradBenson -> maggie111 14 Mar 2015 11:55
We should have a woman candidate, but not this one. She is a WAR CRIMINAL who has promised a
more aggressive foreign policy than Obama who, by the way, started five new wars to add to Bush's
two. You are dangerously naïve.
This case convincingly demonstrates to the world not only that Hillary is an a very weak politician,
but also that she is uncapable to attract decent experts.
The former secretary of state said she had preserved official communications but her office said
she 'chose not to keep her private, personal emails'
Hillary Clinton failed to quell mounting criticism over her controversial private email account
on Tuesday evening after her office suggested she had erased more than half of her emails before
turning them over for release to the American public.
In a statement released after a press conference intended to end a week-long controversy, Clinton's
office said that she did not preserve 31,830 of the 62,320 emails she sent and received while serving
as Barack Obama's secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
"After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Secretary Clinton chose not to keep
her private, personal emails that were not federal records," her office said, in a defiant nine-page
explanation for the unusual arrangement that has put her under political fire.
Republicans accused Clinton of blocking transparency. It could not be confirmed whether the deleted
archives included messages sent and received by Clinton relating to her family's philanthropic foundation.
Donations to the foundation by foreign governments and corporations are the subject of a separate
ongoing controversy.
The continuing saga threatened to complicate the plans for her expected second campaign for the
US presidency, which were thought to be in their final stages in advance of an announcement in April.
Criticism has grown since it was revealed last week that Clinton did not use an official government
email address during her four years at the State Department. She instead conducted all official business
using a private address under the ClintonEmail.com domain.
Clinton conceded at a press conference in New York on Tuesday afternoon that she had erred and
"it would have been better" to have used separate email accounts for work and personal matters. However,
she insisted she had used a single account on one mobile phone for "convenience", adding: "I thought
using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."
The former secretary's office said she had turned over all 30,490 of her sent and received emails
that related to her work to the State Department. They manually searched her archive, the statement
said, first by finding all emails involving people with government email addresses, then searching
for some people by name and for topics such as Libya.
All these are expected to be published. "You will see everything from the work of government,
to emails with State and other administration colleagues, to LinkedIn invites, to talk about the
weather – essentially what anyone would see in their own email account," her office said.
In further defiant remarks on the emails that Clinton will not turn over, her office insisted
that none contained material relevant to her work in four years leading Foggy Bottom.
"These were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her
mother's funeral services, and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines,
and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers,
spam, etc," it said.
But the Republican party, which accused Clinton of "putting our national security at risk for 'convenience'"
by operating the private email server, said there could be no independent verification that Clinton
had preserved all messages related to her work.
"Because only Hillary Clinton controls her personal email account and admitted she deleted many
of her emails, no one but Hillary Clinton knows if she handed over every relevant email," Reince
Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement.
Clinton rejected suggestions that an independent monitor could review her email server to examine
emails not turned over. "I believe that I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will
remain private," she said at the press conference.
Despite separately indicating all personal messages were erased, she said the server "contains personal
communications from my husband and me". Clinton's spokesman did not respond to an email seeking clarification
on what precisely had been erased.
Other critics pointed to remarks made by Clinton at an onstage interview last month, in which
she said she used both an iPhone and a Blackberry. Discussing devices later in the conversation,
Clinton said, "I don't throw anything away, I'm like two steps short of a hoarder." It was not clear
when Clinton began using two devices.
The statement from Clinton's office addressed other questions raised by the news of her email
server – several relating to security and her interaction with foreign governments. The statement
said her team's review of Clinton's email archive "revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official".
It clarified that "during her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person, through
correspondence, and by telephone".
Clinton said during her press conference that she had never used the email account to send classified
material. She insisted that the server had been secure by being placed on property protected by the
secret service and claimed to know that the system had never been breached.
Controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account while serving as secretary of
state has sent fresh waves of alarm through the Democratic Party, with activists saying they need
a "plan B" if Mrs Clinton's candidacy runs aground.
... ... ...
Mrs Clinton is under attack after it emerged she may have broken the law by using a personal email
account, run out of a private server in an office near her New York home, during her entire tenure
as secretary of state.
Under pressure from Republicans who accuse her of "a scheme to conceal" her communications, Mrs
Clinton has agreed to release four years' worth of emails.
For a woman who fought through the dark days of her husband's impeachment and her own loss to
Barack Obama in 2008, the current political storm is one more round of choppy weather.
But the email controversy has alarmed some Democrats, who say the party cannot afford to head
into the election with no alternatives to Mrs Clinton.
"We should have a plan B," said Martin Peterson, a party chairman in the crucial early voting
state of Iowa. "We will pretty much lose the general election if we don't have a competition for
the nomination."
... ... ...
A Quinnipiac poll found that Mrs Clinton commanded the support of 56 per cent of Democrat voters.
Elizabeth Warren, a Left-wing senator from Massachusetts, was on 14 per cent, despite saying she
was not going to run.
... ... ...
Mrs Clinton has not yet formally announced her candidacy but may do so as early as next month.
patrickz
Thanks for a well-balanced, thoughtful assessment of Frau Clinton's position within the Democratic
Party's "American Idol" tryouts. America's media couldn't sum up the situation with such honesty
and dispassion – nor would they ever want to. With barely a little over a year and a half until
the 2016 November elections, now is not the time for our media to hold back on the hysteria, name
calling, Mean Girl remarks, malicious misquoting, rumor spreading and journalistic tire slashing.
If only Barack Obama had a younger, equally articulate brother, then yet another Clan Kennedy
political dynasty would be born – but alas, Trayvon Martin, Obama's almost son, cannot run.
DavEd -> CamerBand
''Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2011 campaign to drive Moammar Gadhafi from power did significant
damage to U.S. intelligence, according to a top Libyan aide and U.S. intelligence officials.
The Libyan dictator provided regular reports to the CIA that helped capture or kill key al
Qaeda figures and thwart terrorist attacks against American targets overseas, those sources said.
The Libyan regime, for instance, helped U.S. forces kill a key al Qaeda operative of a suicide
attack on a U.S. air field in Afghanistan in 2007 when Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting.''
Oh, Hillary will press on. She thinks she's indispensable, and anyway what else would she do
with those vats of campaign money? Further, it's unlikely that any credible Democratic candidate
will enter the field against her. The cry of "party unity" will weigh against the challenger;
so will the vats of campaign money mentioned above.
midnighteye
I hope she still is wins the candidacy. Although she would be my second worst nightmare as
president (after Obama) only just over 40% of the American people think she is honest and with
her big idiotic mouth and her obvious disdain for the intelligence of the electorate she could
only go downhill from here.
daysofglorypassed
Nothing that she has ever done or said that was questionable (or worse) and nothing that she
will say or do, no matter how offensive to 50% of the country between now and Nov. 1, 2016, will
make a bit of difference to the biased, liberal U.S. media. She is preordained. Her gender oppression
card was trumped by his race oppression card in 2008, but now her time has come. It doesn't matter
that she isn't deserving, qualified or trustworthy, she is a liberal female and the media can
hardly contain themselves. Martin O' Malley is mostly unknown to most Americans, except for the
couple million of us who had the pleasure of having our pockets picked by him and our businesses
banished to neighboring states for the last 8 years. He does not offer a solution to anything
and is probably a more accomplished self-aggrandizer than Bill Clinton himself...his hero and
mentor.
The Republicans better wake up and realize that they must move to the center of the country
and fast. Let the fundamentalist Christians and take-no-prisoners neocons leave and form their
own party. Their only hope to defeat Queen Hillary is a tough minded, fighting centrist....they
need Chris Christie.
George
Goodness, if her emails reveal any activities similar to those previously displayed by her
despicable "husband" for the sake of my digestive system I would not want them revealed - EVER -- She must be one of the few women in the world who actually makes Frau Merkel and "La Kretena"
of Argentina appear attractive !
midnighteye George
She used to be quite attractive, it just shows what they can turn into. The Picture of Dorian
Gray comes to mind.
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton is working hard to shore up support among liberals in hopes
of tamping down a serious challenge from the left in the battle for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
Clinton has aligned herself firmly with President Obama since the November midterms on a range
of liberal-friendly issues, including immigration, climate change, and opening diplomatic relations
with Cuba.
In an impassioned human rights speech this month, she also condemned the CIA's use of harsh interrogation
tactics and decried cases of apparent police brutality against minorities.
The recent statements suggest a concerted effort by Clinton to appeal to the Democratic Party's
most activist, liberal voters, who have often eyed her with suspicion and who would be crucial to
her securing the party's nomination.
But the positions also tie her ever more tightly to a president who remains broadly unpopular,
and could provide new lines of attack for the many Republicans jostling to oppose her if she runs.
Clinton has said she is considering a second run for president and would probably reach her decision
after Jan. 1. An announcement looks likely in the spring.
There are several potential Democratic candidates who could appeal to portions of the party's
liberal base, including former senator Jim Webb of Virginia, Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland,
and Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent. Many progressives also are urging a bid by Senator
Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, whose populist anti-Wall Street message draws large
crowds. ...
WASHINGTON - If Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the White House
again, her message on the economy could be an important barometer as she courts fellow Democrats.
Members of her party are watching closely how the former secretary of state outlines steps to
address income inequality and economic anxieties for middle-class families. Some members of the party's
liberal wing remain wary of Clinton's ties to Wall Street, six-figure speaking fees and protective
bubble.
Clinton is widely expected to announce a presidential campaign next year and remains the prohibitive
favorite to succeed President Barack Obama as the party's nominee in 2016. But how she navigates
a party animated by economic populism, an approach personified by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
could represent one of her biggest hurdles. Democrats bruised from GOP gains in the 2014 elections
are pushing for big policy changes - raising the minimum wage and pay equity, for example - that
favor the declining middle class. ...
Darryl FKA Ron said in reply to pgl...
Who else do we got if Liz Warren will not run?
I would go for either Joe Biden or Jim Webb over
Hillary, but a couple of blue dogs is very thin gruel for progressives or even liberals in general.
If we get a Bush versus Clinton race then that would be a great intro to her back to the 90's theme.
By the end of 2017 then O'Barry will be looking REAL good.
DrDick said in reply to Darryl FKA Ron...
Sanders, but he does not have much of a shot at winning. Even Warren is a bit of a long shot, owing
to probable fundraising issues.
Darryl FKA Ron said in reply to DrDick...
Yeah, I like Bernie even better than Liz, but Liz has gotten good press support from some folk over
at HuffPo and quite favourable press from the boob tube MSM such as Morning Joe. Liz is the progressive
establishment's "revolutionary." It's a long shot if she decides to run still, but at least she has
a shot. Bernie is more of a curiosity than a national candidate in the eyes of the press and the
political establishment. Liz could save capitalism from itself. Bernie might just want to end it.
"Among liberals in America, there's actually fairly widespread
dismay over actually what I think of as Clinton-Blairism; the kind of '90s liberalism that is not
really taking on economic inequality, not really taking on Wall Street. And there's a sense that
Hillary Clinton might be a return to that.
But I don't think Hillary Clinton is going to try and make it 1999 again. I remember in 2008 -as
a Times columnist, I can't do endorsements, so you have no idea which party I favor in general elections
- but I was skeptical of Obama at a time when a lot of people on the Left were very, very high on
him. I heard a number of people saying, oh, god, if Hillary is elected, she's going to bring in the
old Rubin crowd, people like Larry Summers, to run the economy. And then Obama got elected and did
exactly that. I think, if anything, he was more conventional on economics than she was.
I think at this point, Elizabeth Warren is now the visible embodiment of the wing of the Democratic
Party that's determined not to return to Clinton-Blairism. That makes her useful even if she doesn't
run, as - I don't know - a ghost or something looming over Hillary."
I was one of those who thought Hillary would replay Clinton: deficit reduction, deregulation, opportunistic
disinflation from the Fed, all of which led to the tech stock bubble and housing bubble.
Candidate
Obama told Businessweek the very technical but salient point that labor hasn't shared in productivity
gains in 30 years except for a brief period in the late 90s and that isn't fair. Maybe Yellen will
make it true for the last 2 years of Obama's administration.
"Hillary Clinton holds a massive lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a new poll released
by CNN.
The CNN/ORC poll released Sunday finds that Clinton leads by 57 points, 66 percent to 9 percent,
over Warren. That lead is essentially unchanged from a CNN poll in November, when Clinton was up
65 percent to 10 percent.
Warren insists she is not running, despite an effort by liberal groups like MoveOn.org to convince
her to run.
Vice President Biden, who is also uncertain to run, comes in next, at 8 percent. Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), who is looking to challenge Clinton from the left, gets 3 percent..."
The Washington Post and ABC News this morning bring us an early look at the leader board for the
2016 presidential nominations. The fact that Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democrats
will surprise absolutely no one-but the sheer size of her lead is something to behold: 61 points.
The former secretary of state holds a staggering 6 to 1 lead over her nearest rival, Joe Biden,
in the survey. To put that in perspective, as the Fix helpfully does, that makes Clinton the "single
biggest frontrunner for a Democratic presidential nomination in the history of the poll."
The effort to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the
2016 presidential race received a major boost Wednesday evening, as the Howard Dean-founded group
Democracy for America formally joined MoveOn.org's "Run Warren Run" campaign and announced it would
invest $250,000 in the effort.
DFA will announce the move at the campaign's Iowa kickoff rally, slated to be held in Des Moines
at 5:30 p.m. local time. The decision comes one week after MoveOn members voted overwhelmingly in
favor of the organization's $1 million campaign to draft Warren. Last week, the one million-member
DFA announced its intention to join the campaign, but waited for its members to vote on the matter
before formally doing so. The group said on Wednesday that 88 percent of members voted in support
of the plan. ...
What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity
or intelligence. Smear Campaigns, Bullying, Flattery ... All set of tricks of female sociopaths...
What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity
or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender.
But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in
American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.
Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language
in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting
as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel
eye.
Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged
to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador
to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government
in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it
is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should
or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.
We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev,
Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was
an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare
the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans
have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from
afar.
But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own
admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal
breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering
a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k
the EU."
What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt
for international law and norms.
Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top
negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the
American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle
for a brain.
Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose
and moronic than her male American peers.
Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming
negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well
as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.
Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra
of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the
government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.
Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the
same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went
on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That
is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.
"Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and
Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof
and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.
The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran:
"What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms
of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments,
or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp
up new sanctions."
Remember that Sherman and her State Department boss John Kerry are considered "soft on Iran" by
the likes of Menendez, John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Mark Kirk, and the other political psychopaths
in Washington. So, we can tell from Sherman's callous words and mean-minded logic that the scope for
genuine rapprochement between the US and Iran is extremely limited.
Sherman finished her performance before the Senate panel with the obligatory illegal threat of
war that Washington continually issues against Iran: "We retain all options to ensure that Iran cannot
obtain a nuclear weapon."
In the goldfish-bowl environment of Washington politics, perhaps such female officials are to be
even more feared. The uniform monopoly of America's political class is dictated by militarism – weapons
manufacturers, oil companies and Zionist lobbyists. The only way to "succeed" in this cesspool is to
be even more aggressive and imperialist than your peers.
Nuland and Sherman illustrate the cold-hearted logic at work in American robotic politics: it's
a system programmed for imperialism and war, and it doesn't matter whether the officials are Democrat,
Republic, male or female. They are all clones of a war criminal state.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles
published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career
in journalism.
It was launched immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when I was still in the military, and almost
immediately became known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT. Pentagon insiders called it "the long
war," an open-ended, perhaps unending, conflict against nations and terror networks mainly of a radical
Islamist bent. It saw the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, buried in the aftermath of defeat
in Vietnam, and a reinterpretation of that disaster as well.
Over the years, its chief characteristic became ever clearer: a "Groundhog Day" kind of repetition.
Just when you thought it was over (Iraq, Afghanistan), just after victory (of a sort) was declared,
it began again.
Now, as we find ourselves enmeshed in Iraq War 3.0, what better way to memorialize the post-9/11
American way of war than through repetition. Back in July 2010, I wrote an article for TomDispatch
on the seven reasons why
America can't stop making war.
More than four years later, with the war on terror still ongoing, with the mission eternally unaccomplished,
here's a fresh take on the top seven reasons why never-ending war is the new normal in America. In
this sequel, I make only one promise: no declarations of victory (and mark it on your calendars,
I'm planning to be back with seven new reasons in 2019).
1. The privatization of war: The U.S. military's recourse to private contractors
has strengthened the profit motive for war-making and prolonged wars as well. Unlike the citizen-soldiers
of past eras, the mobilized warrior corporations of America's new mercenary moment -- the Halliburton/KBRs
(nearly $40 billion in contracts for the Iraq War alone), the DynCorps ($4.1 billion to train 150,000
Iraqi police), and the Blackwater/Xe/Academis ($1.3 billion in Iraq, along with boatloads of controversy)
-- have no incentive to demobilize. Like most corporations, their business model is based on profit
through growth, and growth is most rapid when wars and preparations for more of them are the favored
options in Washington.
"Freedom isn't free," as a popular conservative bumper sticker puts it, and neither is
war. My father liked the saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune," and today's mercenary corporations
have been calling for a lot of military marches piping in $138 billion in contracts for Iraq alone,
according to the Financial Times. And if you think that the privatization of war must
at least reduce government waste, think again: the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan estimated in 2011 that fraud, waste, and abuse accounted for
up to $60 billion of the money spent in Iraq alone.
To corral American-style war, the mercenaries must be defanged or deflated. European rulers learned
this the hard way during the Thirty Years' War of the seventeenth century. At that time, powerful
mercenary captains like
Albrecht von
Wallenstein ran amok. Only Wallenstein's assassination and the assertion of near absolutist powers
by monarchs bent on curbing war before they went bankrupt finally brought the mercenaries to heel,
a victory as hard won as it was essential to Europe's survival and eventual expansion. (Europeans
then exported their wars to foreign shores, but that's another story.)
2. The embrace of the national security state by both major parties: Jimmy Carter
was the last president to attempt to exercise any kind of control over the national security state.
A former Navy nuclear engineer who had served under the demanding
Admiral Hyman Rickover,
Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber and fought for a U.S. foreign policy based on human rights. Widely
pilloried for
talking about nuclear war with his young daughter Amy, Carter was further attacked for being
"weak" on defense. His defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 inaugurated 12 years of dominance by Republican
presidents that opened the financial floodgates for the Department of Defense. That taught Bill Clinton
and the Democratic
Leadership Council a lesson when it came to the wisdom of wrapping the national security state
in a welcoming embrace, which they did, however uncomfortably. This expedient turn to the right by
the Democrats in the Clinton years served as a temporary booster shot when it came to charges of
being "soft" on defense -- until Republicans upped the ante by going "all-in" on military crusades
in the aftermath of 9/11.
Since
his election in 2008, Barack Obama has done little to alter the course set by his predecessors. He,
too, has chosen not to challenge Washington's prevailing
catechism of war. Republicans
have responded, however, not by muting their criticism, but by upping the ante yet again. How else
to explain House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to
address a joint session of Congress
in March? That address promises to be a pep talk for the Republicans, as well as a smack down
of the Obama administration and its "appeasenik"
policies toward Iran and Islamic radicalism.
Serious oversight, let alone opposition to the national security state by Congress or a mainstream
political party, has been
missing in action for years and must now, in the wake of the Senate Torture Report fiasco (from
which the CIA
emerged stronger, not weaker), be presumed dead. The recent midterm election triumph of Republican
war hawks and the prospective lineup of candidates for president in 2016 does not bode well when
it comes to reining in the national security state in any foreseeable future.
3. "Support Our Troops" as a substitute for thought. You've seen them everywhere:
"Support
Our Troops" stickers. In fact, the "support" in that slogan generally means acquiescence when
it comes to American-style war. The truth is that we've turned the all-volunteer military into something
like a foreign legion, deploying
it again and again to our distant battle zones and driving it
into the ground in wars that
amount to strategic folly. Instead of admitting their mistakes, America's leaders have worked to
obscure them by endlessly overpraising
our "warriors" as so many universal
heroes. This may salve our collective national conscience, but it's a form of
cheap grace that saves no lives -- and wins no wars.
Instead, this country needs to listen more carefully to its troops, especially the war critics
who have risked their lives while fighting overseas. Organizations like
Iraq Veterans Against the War and
Veterans for Peace are good places
to start.
4. Fighting a redacted war. War, like the recent
Senate torture report, is redacted in America. Its horrors and mistakes are
suppressed, its patriotic whistleblowers
punished, even as the American
people are kept in a demobilized state. The act of going to war no longer represents the
will of the people, as represented by formal Congressional declarations of war as the U.S. Constitution
demands. Instead, in these years, Americans were told to
go to Disney World (as George W. Bush suggested in the wake of 9/11) and keep shopping. They're
encouraged not to pay too much attention
to war's casualties and costs, especially when those costs involve foreigners with funny-sounding
names (after all, they are, as
American sniper
Chris Kyle so indelicately put it in his book, just "savages").
Redacted war hides the true cost of a permanent state of killing from the American people, if
not from foreign observers. Ignorance and apathy reign, even as a
national security state that
is essentially a
shadow
government equates its growth with your safety.
5. Threat inflation: There's nothing new about threat inflation. We saw plenty
of it during the Cold War (nonexistent
missile and
bomber gaps, for example).
Fear sells and we've had quite a
dose of it in the twenty-first century, from ISIS to Ebola. But a more important truth is that
fear is a mind-killer, a debate-stifler.
Back in September, for example, Senator Lindsey Graham warned that ISIS and its radical Islamic
army was coming to America
to kill us all. ISIS, of course, is a regional power with no ability to mount significant operations
against the United States. But fear is so commonplace, so effectively stoked in this country that
Americans routinely and wildly
exaggerate the threat posed by al-Qaeda or ISIS or the bogeyman du jour.
Decades ago, as a young lieutenant in the Air Force, I was hunkered down in
Cheyenne Mountain during the
Cold War. It was the ultimate citadel-cum-bomb-shelter, and those in it were believed to have a 70%
likelihood of surviving a five-megaton nuclear blast. There, not surprisingly, I found myself contemplating
the very real possibility of a thermonuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, a war that would have
annihilated life as we knew it, indeed much of life on our planet thanks to the phenomenon of nuclear
winter. You'll excuse me for not shaking in my boots at the threat of ISIS coming to get me. Or of
Sharia Law coming to my local town hall. With respect to such fears, America needs, as Hillary Clinton
said in an admittedly different context, to "grow
a pair."
6. Defining the world as a global battlefield: In
fortress America, all realms
have by now become battle spheres. Not only much of the planet, the seas,
air, and space, as well as the
country's borders and its increasingly
up-armored police forces, but
the world of thought, the insides of our minds. Think of the
17 intertwined
intelligence outfits in "the U.S. Intelligence Community" and their ongoing "surge" for information
dominance across every mode of human communication, as well as the surveillance of everything. And
don't forget the national security state's leading role in making
cyberwar a reality. (Indeed,
Washington launched the first cyberwar in history by deploying the
Stuxnet computer worm against Iran.)
Think of all this as a global matrix that rests on war, empowering
disaster capitalism and the
corporate complexes that have formed around the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and
that intelligence community. A militarized matrix doesn't blink at $1.45 trillion dollars devoted
to
the F-35, a single under-performing jet fighter, nor at projections of
$355 billion over the next decade for "modernizing" the U.S. nuclear arsenal, weapons that Barack
Obama
vowed to abolish in 2009.
7. The new "normal" in America is war: The 9/11 attacks happened more than 13
years ago, which means that no teenagers in America can truly remember a time when the country was
at peace. "War time" is their normal; peace, a fairy tale.
What's truly "exceptional" in twenty-first-century America is any articulated vision of what a
land at peace with itself and other nations might be like. Instead, war, backed by a diet of fear,
is the backdrop against which the young have grown to adulthood. It's the background noise of their
world, so much a part of their lives that they hardly recognize it for what it is. And that's the
most insidious danger of them all.
How do we inoculate our children against such a permanent state of war and the war state itself?
I have one simple suggestion: just stop it. All of it. Stop making war a never-ending part of our
lives and stop celebrating it, too. War should be the realm of the extreme, of the abnormal. It should
be the death of normalcy, not the dreary norm.
It's never too soon, America, to enlist in that good fight!
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), is a
TomDispatch regular. His D.Phil. is in Modern History from the University of Oxford.
He's just plain tired of war and would like to see the next politician braying for it be deployed
with a rifle to the front lines of battle. He edits the blog The Contrary Perspective.
What's happening in Libya today is a crime: murder, rape, looting,
chaos, a war of
all against all. The perpetrator, the one key person who made all this possible, is a well known
personage in American politics, a former Secretary of State and the frontrunner for the Democratic
presidential nomination.
In monitoring the activities of foreign organizations, the DOJ often gives powerful political
lobbies a pass.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Meets with AIPAC Leaders on January 14, 2015. Kobi Gideon / GPO
In high school civics classes, Americans are brought up to believe that in their nation a rule
of law prevails. Justice is depicted as blind and the rules apply to everyone. All Americans will
receive the same fair hearing in court or at the hands of the government. Of course the reality is
that experience tells us that those who trust in impartial justice are somewhat delusional as the
criminal justice and regulatory systems do not operate in a reliably mechanical fashion. Many factors
determine whether a suspect actually goes to trial or whether an organization is regulated or investigated
and there are a number of roadblocks along the way that influence the outcome.
One of the federal government regulatory bodies that few have heard about is the board at the
United States Department of Justice's Counterespionage Section that administers the
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The original
FARA was passed in 1938 just before the outbreak of war in Europe and was intended to monitor the
activities of front organizations being directed by the German and Italian governments. From its
inception FARA was politicized and selective. Rome and Berlin were potential enemies while the extremely
active British government efforts to draw the United States into what eventually became a European
and then a world war were largely ignored.
The original act was loosely worded to include anyone propagandizing for a foreign power but an
amended version in 1966 narrowed the definition of whom would be covered to include only actual "agents
of a foreign principal" working directly for a foreign government in an attempt to influence U.S.
economic or political decision making. Since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions
under FARA and nearly all compliance has been more-or-less voluntary. There have, however, been a
number of civil cases and administrative resolutions in which the government asserted the viability
of the act. In 2004, for example, Susan Lindauer, a former congressional staffer,
was charged
with taking payments from an Iraqi government source. Her case was finally dropped in 2009.
There are somewhat less than 2,000 foreign agents
registered
under the act representing more than 100 countries. Their names and their periodic financial
and activities filings are accessible
by the public at the FARA Unit office in Washington. Most are associated with law or lobbying
firms that represent foreign governments as part of their business. Former Speaker of the House Dennis
Hastert was, for a time, a
registered agent for Turkey when he held that account while working for the Dickstein Shapiro
law firm, which he joined after leaving congress. Former Congressman Dick Gephardt also headed a
company engaged in lobbying for Turkey. Both Gephardt and Hastert were involved in lobbying Congress
to oppose pending legislation calling the First World War massacre of Turkish Armenians a "genocide."
The disadvantage of registering under FARA is that you have to disclose your sources of income
and you also have to detail what you are doing on behalf of the foreign government. Organizations
that do not consider that they are actually directed by a foreign government or who assess their
relationship to be borderline are consequently reluctant to comply.
FARA inevitably is selective in its targeting. Agents of nations hostile to the United States
are pursued with some vigor while organizations linked to powerful domestic political lobbies tend
to get a pass. This has been historically true of Irish republican groups as well as of the predecessor
of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which was founded in 1949 as the
American Zionist
Council. The American Zionist Council was funded directly by the Jewish Agency for Israel. Attorney
General Robert Kennedy
ordered the
group to register in 1962 but the death of his brother led to an intense lobbying campaign to
influence his strongly pro-Israel successor Lyndon B. Johnson who obligingly instructed the Justice
Department to stand down.
Since that time
repeated
efforts to compel AIPAC to register
have failed due to White House and Justice Department unwillingness to confront the issue but a new
initiative by the Israeli government might well be construed as having crossed the line in violation
of FARA. In early January the Prime Minister's Office of the Israeli government funded a joint project
to be run by the government's National Information Directorate and StandWithUS, which has been
described as an "American hasbara organization." In Hebrew the name, hasbara, means
literally "public explanation" but the expression is generally applied to anyone involved in generating
pro-Israeli propaganda. It is also sometimes more politely described as a program of "perception
management," a
euphemism made popular by the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon in 2004.
Israel has long been paying students
as part-time bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. In 2009 the
Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote to a number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the "importance
of the internet as the new battleground for Israel's image." Haaretzreported in
2013 how Prime Minister Netanyahu's office collaborated with the National Union of Israeli Students
to create "semi-military covert units" at the seven national universities organized to work in situation
rooms. Students use different names and IP addresses, which enable them to make multiple posts, and
are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the online targets.
The hasbara
program includes recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet
alerts to potential targets. It is essentially an internet-focused "information war." It is supported
by a desktop tool called Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles appearing on the internet
that are singled out for confrontation or attack. The hasbara commenters flood websites where
commentary critical of Israel is observed in the belief that if something is repeated often enough
in many different places it will gain credibility and create doubts regarding contrary points of
view. They also can hound critics and even destroy careers in journalism. Veteran CNN reporter Jim
Clancy was forced
to resign last week after an exchange of tweets with hasbara over the Paris terror attacks.
The joint enterprise between the American foundation and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office
is more of the same. It
reportedly is intended to strengthen "Israeli hasbara on social media platforms," with
StandWithUs running "interactive media war rooms." The National Information Directorate's role will
be to draft the talking points and monitor the progress of the "war."
StandWithUs, which was
founded to "educate
others about Israel," originated in Los Angeles. It now has 18 chapters in the U.S., Canada, Britain,
and also in Israel. Incorporated as the Israel Emergency Alliance, StandWithUs is a 501(c)(3) organization,
which means it has successfully claimed to be a tax exempt educational foundation. It is reportedly
largely funded by Las Vegas multi billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who also has been
active in supporting Republican candidates perceived as particularly friendly to Israel. StandWithUs
is aggressive in its defense of Israel, to include a
secret program
to compile critical dossiers on pro-Palestinian speakers as part of an effort to help "Israel advocates
respond to and counter anti-Israel speakers who come to your campus."
The project is ostensibly being run through the StandWithUs chapter in Israel, but it will include
the training of British and American students, and the parent organization is itself American in
both funding and its incorporation. As it has no other function than promoting the Israeli government
point of view so as to influence decision making in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
It would be a clear case where registry with FARA would be mandatory as the political direction and
half the funding for the project are coming directly from the Israeli government. If StandWithUS
is compelled to register under FARA it will have to reveal all its funding and its tax exempt status
will presumably be revoked by the Internal Revenue Service.
And StandWithUs is far from alone. Israel is certainly entitled to make its case to the American
and international audience and one might observe that it has done so extremely tenaciously and very
effectively. But a number of organizations in the Israel Lobby are little more than fronts for promoting
the Israeli right wing government talking points in an attempt to shape American policy, which indisputably
makes them foreign agents as defined by FARA. As foreign agents, they should be subject to some supervision
of and restraints on their activities and there would also be a certain transparency in terms of
who they are and what they represent which just might make the media less inclined to go to them
for commentary.
One suspects that the Barack Obama/Eric Holder Justice department has little stomach for going
after any organization linked to Israel and that reticence is regrettable, particularly as Israel
will undoubtedly be using the upcoming Netanyahu visit to ratchet up the intensity of its own campaign
to convince the American public that war with Iran should be a compelling U.S. national interest.
If the American public were made aware that much of the war fever is being drummed up by organizations
that are actually acting as agents of a foreign government it just might make a difference in how
that sales pitch is perceived. But even if that were not the case, it would not be a bad thing to
observe that the United States government does indeed, at least occasionally, play by its own rules.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton's 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with
the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings
recovered from Tripoli.
The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle
U.S. officials' unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi's son and a top Libyan leader,
including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary
war without adequately weighing the intelligence community's concerns.
...
Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community for analysis, officials
told The Times, the White House trusted Mrs. Clinton's charge, which was then supported by Ambassador
to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason
enough for war.
Clinton is still laughing
at that (vid): "We came, we saw, he died. Hahahahahaha ..."
I doubt that this was the last laugh on this issue.
I'm convinced that Hillary has no chance winning a general election. That's why there is such
a ruckus among potential GOP nominees. Everyone wants a chance at the low-hanging fruit. The Kochs,
if I had to wager, are going to support Scott Walker. This means that it will likely be Jeb Bush
vs. Scott Walker to see who can take on the Democrat nominee.
In order for the Democrat to win it has been broadly accepted that you have to have robust
turnout among blacks and Latinos, something which is not going to happen for Hillary. Democrats
are whistling past the graveyard when they say they can turnout the "Obama coalition" for Hillary.
dh | Jan 29, 2015 3:19:47 PM | 6
@5 All personal would be my guess. The girls were out to get Ghadafi.
harry law | Jan 29, 2015 3:25:03 PM | 7
What a horrible venomous harridan, I hope those lawyers in the Epstein case, have pictures
of "big dog" "Bubba" Abusing those underage slave girls.
NotTimothyGeithner | Jan 29, 2015 3:42:27 PM | 10
@3 Hillary will win if she is nominated, but she would usher a crazy GOP congress. The electoral
map is too far gone for any Republican to win. Even in 2004, Dubya was relatively popular and
still had to cheat to beat a thoroughly unlikable corpse. Team Blue has every Kerry state plus
Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, and maybe Virginia locked. Down ballot races will get creamed.
The Obama national coalition wasnt very different from Kerry's and Dean's 2006 editions. The
subsequent elections have proven Hispanics (young people across the board really) are not going
to be wowed by old people acting silly on YouTube.
The GOP is fractured more than people realize between their voters and the traditional elite.
Dubya's personal issues resonated with their voters, and it was clear Dubya belonged to the Romney
class. The Romney/41 class won't risk a Dubya like candidate. They will fight to prevent that.
james | Jan 29, 2015 4:55:24 PM | 12
a few things.. i don't like hilary, but my radar went up with mention of the washington times.
the only time i ever hear about that publication is when someone is furthering an extreme right
wing agenda.. of course the wt will not want to see hilary in power as she is a dem and dems apparently
aren't warmongering enough. i know.. confusing for anyone to figure that one out, but i guess
one is supposed to be more to the right then attila the hun..
i agree with ben @1. the usa has been bought and paid for.. the public can't touch it with
voting... they have the racket sown up.. the only remedy would be revolution in the streets and
as we saw in jefferson, or in the occupy wall st. movement, it is going to get shut down by the
police state too..
i also agree with mike @3.. hilary doesn't have much of any chance is how i see it too.. i
could be wrong, but it is just cheap shots from the washington times, not that i deny what a piece
of work she is..
jfl | Jan 29, 2015 7:25:21 PM | 13
@12
Yeah, it's a partisan attack on Hillary. She and Obama and all the rest, including the
lifers, were responsible for US aggression against Libya and for its destruction. And all,
but Hllary who continues to give moral support, are responsible for the aggression against Syria,
Ukraine and Iraq, again, and for the destruction of those countries ... still attempted in Syria
and Ukraine.
There is only one party in the USA and it's the War Party. And we can vote for it
from the 'progressive' side or the 'regressive' side, depending upon our self-perception, or delusion.
You're also right @1 that we will never 'get' anything but more of the same ...
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral
and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found
out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will
continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. ... "
-- Frederick Douglas
... if we want change we'll have to do it ourselves. It's always been that way and always will
be.
Rusty Pipes | Jan 29, 2015 10:01:21 PM | 16
b:
While the Wasingington Times is rightly regarded as a right-wing Moonie rag and it is reasonable
to be suspicious of an article with so many anonymous (Pentagon!!!) sources, there are some aspects
of the article that appear based in fact.
First off, I consider Dennis Kucinich a reliable source. In addition, Hillary's role in the
formation of Obama's Libyan policy appears to be a consistent subtext of what I have read in her
and Gates' biographies. What is not being stated (yet, this is the first of a 3-part series),
is the role of the neocons, PNAC and the Israel Lobby in having set Libya up as one of seven countries
to be taken out and the entire alignment of Hillary with the goals of the Israel Lobby and its
donors in her long-term quest for the presidency.
Since the WT is a Republican rag, this may never come up -- if the purpose of the piece is
to single out Hillary and ignore the role of Bushco in setting off the neocon roadmap for the
New American Century.
Is The Establishment Riddled With Paedophiles? Russell Brand The Trews (E244).
Reaction to the delay in Parliament's child abuse inquiry, the allegations of child abuse against
former politicians and the recent allegations against Prince Andrew.
Subscribe Here Now: http://tinyurl.com/opragcg
and send links to video news items of topical stories that you'd like me to analyse.
Interview with economist, Dr. Michael Hudson. Dr. Hudson is President of The Institute for
the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend, a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research
Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of "Super-Imperialism:
The Economic Strategy of American Empire". We discuss the US balance of payments trade deficit
which creates US credit to finance the US national debt and war abroad; Russian economic shock
therapy as the final stage of the cold war; the real estate bubble; permanent war and the inevitable
collapse of the current US dominated global economic system.
To leap on (and quickly off) my hobby horse, note that Hudson points out that the sanctions can
strengthen Russia precisely because the government can "print all the Rubles it wants." He is
not wringing his hands about all this "debt" and about a Weimar-scale inflation.
The debt obsession is a canard that has been foisted on us by 30 years of propaganda by those
who want to shrink government to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. Why? Because they
want to privatize services so that they can set up toll-booths and reap the profits (really, rents)
that the government was failing to collect (By doing so, the government was keeping overall costs
down for business and so maintaining overall competitiveness of labour.
Do the "entrepreneurs" behind initiatives like private jails and education – a recent hedge
fund favourite – care about having a good business climate in this sense? Of course not. They
want to loot the host country and it's communities and disappear to a gated, secure compound.
They are sociopaths.)
Contemporary America is rife with examples:
– privatised infrastructure projects
– privatized jails
– privatized education (especially sickening as the cash – really credit – grab here is facilitated
by government guaranteed loans. The hedge funds here are literally looting the public treasury
AND loading down youth with huge debt for a public good that could easily be publicly funded.
Beyond that, the quality of the education being provided is appallingly bad. Not surprising since
the real purpose is profit; the education on offer is simply a vehicle.)
– privatized public services like garbage collection
Back in the good old days of the Cold War, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would do whatever
it could to discredit the Soviet Union. We used to place articles in friendly newspapers exposing
Soviet human rights violations, arrange for Russian front companies to buy technology that had been
tampered with so that it would damage assembly lines when put into place, and send money and samizdat
publications to groups like Solidarity that were opposing the communists. But there was a real war
going on, even if it was tepid, and because the two sides were in dead earnest it was anything goes
and more was always better.
Today, more than 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
there are many indications that Washington is slipping into a new and completely unnecessary confrontation
with Moscow, only this time it is not being run largely out of sight by the CIA. Much of the
new conflict is being conducted openly, with sanctions and resolutions by Congress, regular appearances
in unstable regions overseas by senior state department officials and politicians, and trainings
in new media political organizing funded by quasi non-governmental organizations like the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED).
This is not to suggest that there is not a covert side to it all. The funding and training of
opposition groups frequently take place outside of the country being targeted, meaning that the players
and their sources of income are carefully hidden from sight. The actual training and organizing are
frequently carried out by a
private contractor rather than any agency linked to the U.S. government, increasing the plausible
deniability of an official connection.
And much intergovernmental activity and links to important corporate components in the private
sector are often arranged with a wink and a nod, without leaving any paper trail and avoiding any
downstream accountability. That is exactly how $5 billion of U.S. taxpayer-provided money has been
wasted on developing
what passes for pluralistic democracy in Ukraine but might more properly be described as "regime
change." Such overt interference in other countries' internal politics also explains
why governments in Cairo, Moscow, and elsewhere have forced a number of foreign consultants working
locally on NED's dime to go home.
The rights and wrongs of Russian policy towards Ukraine have been discussed ad nauseam
in The American Conservative as well as virtually every other forum dedicated to foreign and
security policy. Let it suffice to say that Moscow has definite security concerns relating to ongoing
NATO expansion, particularly the most recent ham-handed attempts to bring Kiev into the "Western"
fold. It has as well strong historical and national defense related ties to Crimea. Even if one believes
that Vladimir Putin is evil incarnate and seeks to reacquire Eastern Europe, one must concede that
the argument over what is taking place should not be reduced to bumper sticker slogans. Unfortunately
that is precisely what the United States Congress and to a lesser extent the White House are seeking
to do.
Former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has noted some of the overt maneuverings taking place to
heighten tension with Moscow. He is
particularly scathing regarding the U.S. House Resolution 758, entitled "Strongly condemning
the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy
of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination," which was
passed on December 4th just before Congress recessed for Christmas. There were only ten
votes opposed to the motion.
Paul describes the bill as "16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush,
if they were capable of such a thing" and observes that the resolution might provoke "a war with
Russia that could result in total destruction."
H.R.
758 condemns Russia for invading Ukraine without producing a shred of evidence that that is what
took place, blames Moscow for shooting down MH-17, condemns the selling of arms to the Syrian government,
accuses Russia of invading Georgia in 2008, and claims Moscow "illicitly acquir[ed] information"
about the U.S. government through computer hacking while also "distorting public opinion" through
its controlled media outlets. The resolution urges Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to disarm
separatist rebels in the country's eastern provinces and calls on President Barack Obama to provide
the Ukrainians with weapons and training to that end, meaning that American soldiers might well be
on the front line of what is generally regarded as a civil war.
In response to those who might ask why the United States is getting involved at all, the resolution
affirms that it is because Russian involvement in the Ukraine "poses a threat to international peace
and security." As Ron Paul notes, seldom have there been so many lies, half-truths and distortions
packed into one House Resolution. Indeed, many of the accusations being made regarding Moscow's alleged
bad behavior could more credibly be leveled against Washington.
As bad as the openly promoted war against Moscow is, there is also a secret conflict that some
have referred to as a "stealth war." It has been
described as"an attack on the international market for Russian corporations, and on the
international currency and security clearance systems on which the market depends."
To that end, there have been some reports
suggesting that the United States Treasury Department has been discreetly putting pressure
on major European lenders to urge them to avoid acquiring Russian equity or debt because such transactions
are currently legal but might become illegal with a new round of tightened sanctions, making Moscow
a very bad risk, financially speaking. Whether a tightening of sanctions is likely or not is
largely irrelevant as financial institutions are risk averse and any warning of potential problems
produces an instant retrenchment. A Lloyds Banking group withdrawal from a refinance involving Russian
oil conglomerate Rosneft in May
has been attributed to U.S. pressure.
Russia's economy
is indeed struggling, partly due to sanctions, but more due to the fall in the price of oil.
Russia considers existing sanctions to be illegal but has so far failed to take steps against them.
It is, however, likely that if sanctions are strengthened there will be litigation over breaches
of contract, which would hurt all parties involved and only benefit a handful of international law
firms.
More to the point, sanctions will not change Russian policy, because for Moscow Ukraine is a vital
interest, and using them as a sword of Damocles style threat, as Secretary of State Kerry
has done, is only likely to poison the atmosphere, making genuine rapprochement unobtainable.
The United States has a great deal to lose if Russia chooses to go tit-for-tat in responding to both
the overt and secretive attacks on its economy. Moscow has been cooperative with both Washington
and the Europeans regarding tracking the financing of terrorist groups, proliferators, and drug cartels.
It will be unlikely to continue that cooperation if it perceives a Western willingness to act against
its own financial institutions and economy. It could even revert to its pre-2003 standard operating
procedure of looking the other way when criminal proceeds were deposited in its banks, which made
it at that time a haven for money laundering.
Moscow has also cooperated politically over how to deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Russia
could unilaterally break sanctions on oil purchases from Tehran and start selling weapons to Damascus,
including up to date air defenses that could bring down U.S. warplanes. It could ease restrictions
on trade with North Korea. At the United Nations, it might use its veto selectively to impede American-backed
initiatives.
Using both open and hidden initiatives to push Russia into a corner from which it cannot escape
is not good policy. As Ron Paul has noted, to do so is to invite war. And there are historical analogies
that demonstrate what might develop.
Trade embargoes and restrictions on oil sales to Japan in 1940-1941 contributed both to Tokyo's
expansion in Asia in search of alternative resources and eventually led to Pearl Harbor. It is not
wise to provoke a powerful enemy unless a vital national interest is at stake, which is not the case
with Ukraine and Crimea.
The ire directed at Russia by both Congress and the White House, ably assisted by the mainstream
media, is irrational, and official Washington should reconsider the error of its ways and step back
before it creates a situation that will be disastrous for all parties involved.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
The "credibility" argument is almost exclusively used by foreign policy hawks, and they pay
no attention to negative international reactions to U.S. behavior that contradict their assumptions
about "credibility." If other states react to provocative and confrontational policies by becoming
more assertive in their respective regions, hawks interpret that as proof of the other states'
inherent aggressiveness and "expansionist" tendencies.
Hawks usually don't accept that adverse responses that directly follow U.S. actions have
any connection to U.S. policies, but any development that happens to take place after the
U.S. "fails" to "act" somewhere is preposterously traced back to the moment of "inaction." Thus
the U.S. is blamed for somehow "causing" unrelated events in one part of the world by choosing
not to do something in an entirely different part, but it is excused from responsibility for the
direct negative consequences of whatever it has actually done. That's because the only thing that
jeopardizes "credibility" in their eyes is "inaction" (i.e., not attacking or threatening to attack
someone), and adverse consequences of "action" (e.g., expanding alliances, invading/bombing/occupying
other countries) are ignored or spun as the result of later "weakness."
This is all correct, but the funny thing to me is that credibility arguments should be the almost
exclusive preserve of advocates of restraint. Why? Because if credibility is an important asset that
allows America to achieve some objectives without deploying resources (by simply making a commitment
to respond if some other actor takes some other action), then we shouldn't squander that asset by
making commitments we don't intend – or cannot – make good on.
Libya is now
split along tribal and religious lines with two governments claiming to rule the country. The
war between them is also a proxy war between the Saudi and Qatari governments who finance the various
warlords.
The economy of the richest African country before the "western" war against Libya is now
in shambles and its bankruptcy in sight. The last airline connecting to Libya, Turkish Airlines,
suspended all further flights.
While many "western" politicians were happy to take down Ghaddafi none of them are now willing
to take responsibility for the consequences.
The plan seems to be to let the conflict "burn out" - that is to make enough Libyans kill each
other until no one is left to fight.
Those who then control the
oil, under "western" supervision of course, will rule the country.
Was that the plan all along? Of course not. Incompetence rules.
When "Arab Spring" first appeared
3 years ago the US saw an opportunity to depose Khadaffi. We sent J. Christopher Stevens, as "special
representative", to coordinate US actions with the Libyan peoples "uprising". This involved him
contacting those forces on the ground and providing them with Nato air power. It worked out well.
Khadaffi was killed. For his great work Stevens was promoted to be ambassador to Libya. That silly
fool somehow came to believe that the Islamist militias he supported during the "people's uprising"
were his allies. Things started to unravel in Benghazi in 2012. So he traveled there to work out
a deal with his former allies. They killed him.
The US government immediately dismantled the CIA facilities in Benghazi, quickly withdrew the
25 Benghazi CIA agents and decided that maybe we should not try to control events on the ground.
That has to be a fiasco however it is spun. But what surprises me is that this blunder is not
recognized anywhere inside the US. Even Juan Cole, who often has sensible things to say about
the ME, just this last week was defending his support for the Nato war against Libya.
It may have been the plan. Or not - hard to tell. For a better understanding of the inner workings
of US diplomacy (if one may call it that), I really recommend Magnificent Delusions by Amb. Haqqani
(Pakistan). Not sure what his intention was when writing the book, but he gives a comprehensive
overview of the US/Pak relationship from 1947 until ab 2011. It makes one's hair stand on end
(part. if one thinks through all the implications, including the ultimate blowback of 9/11, and
the picture of absolute incompetence). Using that as a guide, Libya may have been both - a plan
and a serious f...-up (as in - nothing on this scale can ever be done w/o serious (and seriously
damaging) unintended consequences).
RUKidding - Nice little nugget at the end there.
Reading between the lines one can potentially argue that the Benghazi scandal may have been the
lid on the jar as far as the topic of Libya in the USA media circus is concerned.
Notice how the entire Libya narrative just vanished after the Benghazi episode. Repubs tried briefly
milking it for some partisan mileage, but the media lost interest even more rapidly!
As far as western governments and their servile media are concerned, the less said about Libya,
the better - nothing to see here folks, just move along!
Just like Saddam before him, with his idea of denominating Iraqi oil in Euros, Gaddafi did
make the mistake of promoting his gold dinar... one facet that hasn't been mentioned, but should
be, was the rebels' first official act after establishing themselves as the "legitimate" govenment
of Libya, is that they established a Central Bank tied into the international bankers' cartel.
it was one of the few holdouts, and besides Iran there are few juicy targets left for the oligarchs
to sink their fangs into...
Back to 2011, the French government was so keen to
intervene
in Libya, in order to acquire the high-quality Libyan oil. Whereas, the Italian PM
Silvio Berlusconi (former) opposed the French "rush" to topple his friend, as Gaddafi normalized
the relationship with Italy. Italy officially apologized to the Libyan gov't for the FASCISTIC
colonization of Libya, in turn, they signed
bilateral economic
deals .
The Turkish position was the most predominant as it was quiet paradoxical. At the beginning,
Turkish PM (now president)
attacked the Western intervention in Libya (Guess the size of Turkish investment in Libya
during Gaddafi era??).
Thereafter, the Turkish government supported the Western-Qatari formed "Libyan Transitional
Council" (Remember the Qatari-Turkish made "Syrian Opposition Coalition").
The U.S. was NOT keen to interfere in the "European Backyard" (yup, Libya is a major route
for illegal immigration to Europe, in addition to the geographic location). May be to avoid the
Iraqi and Afghani scenarios!
Surely, they did not expect that things would go out of control, although the European governments
already have what they want from Libya (i.e., OIL).
@M. Tomazy #18:
The U.S. was NOT keen to interfere in the "European Backyard"
If the US starts a war in the middle of Europe, why would it hesitate to interfere in Europe's
"backyard"? As Uncle $cam noted, according to
Wesley Clark,
As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers
had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there
was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there
were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan and finishing off Iran.
Yes, France and Britain began the aggression against Libya, but that was a case of the USleading
from behind:
Leading from behind - a phrase first used by a White House adviser in
a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza - was smart policy in Libya. The United States, short
on cash, bruised by Iraq and Afghanistan, did not want to head the charge into a third Muslim
country, even if the Arab League had backed intervention.
Discreet U.S. military assistance with France and Britain doing the trumpeting was sensible.
Libya was simply another nation that was crushed because it could not defend itself effectively
- and they were unfortunately sitting on value others coveted. Normally both these things have
to be present at the right level. For it to work, the cost/benefit ratio has to be correct. The
gamed scenarios the players have give them the information. I say players because there are many
and they are not using the same scenarios, or the same timelines. Its the great game, maybe the
greatest- pity they can't just play it on Xbox without real death and disaster - like the good
citizens
About a year ago 'b' said on this board that the real plan of the USA's and the West's policy
on Syria is the destruction of the economy and social fabric of Syria. Today, above, 'b' asks:
"Libya is now in shambles.... Was that the [West's] plan all along?"
His question shows that 'b' has still not grasped the big secret to understanding US and EU
foreign policy and policmakers. "The big secret is that there is no secret", i.e., what they say
is what they think -- and the exceptions to which you can point are relatively rare and relatively
unimportant. The propaganda from the West contains a great many falsehoods. But very few lies.
They believe the bulk of their own shite. This is the first and most essential secret to comprehending
Western foreign policy.
A second secret sauce for comphrehending the Western foreign policy and policymakers is that
they require of themselves to act in ways that are well-intentioned in their own minds (according
to their own logic and their own information set). They do indeed sincerely believe themselves
well-intentioned and they do maintain this belief for themselves in their decision-making reasoning.
And their decisions are constrained by it. And their public defense of their decisions is required
to be defensible by the criterion of well-intentionedness.
A third secret sauce for comprehending Western foreign policy and policymakers is that they're
deeply incompentent and deeply ignorant when it comes to understanding non-Western political societies.
That's a big and important fact, which has been demonstrated again and again on this board over
the years. I'd like to give you two more examples of it that stick in my mind from fairly recently:
(1) A cease-fire was agreed in east Ukraine on 5 Sep 2014. President Obama said on 5 sep 2014:
"The only reason that we're seeing this cease-fire at this moment is because of both the sanctions
that have already been applied and the threat of further sanctions, which are having a real
impact on the Russian economy and have isolated Russia in a way that we have not seen in a
very long time."
(ref).
(2) James Jeffrey (born 1946 in USA) is a former USA Deputy National Security
Advisor for Middle East Affairs, former USA ambassador in Iraq, former top-level special advisor
on Iraq in the US department of foreign policy, currently a scholar at the
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, currently a member of the USA
Council
on Foreign Relations. He can't speak Arabic. On about 19 Dec 2014 he said: "Assad and particularly
Iran and ISIS are manifestations of the same problem: alternative universes.... There are people
in the Middle East, including the Iranians (and the Iranians are the driving force behind Assad),
and ISIS, that have an alternative universe view of the world, and they can never be our allies."
(ref). In case you didn't notice it, it is deeply incompetent to say that the Iranians
are the driving force behind Assad. Assad was elected president in May 2014 in an election
in which 11,634,412 Syrians voted. Tens of thousands of Syrian men have sacrificed their lives
in combat for the defense of the Assad government. Assad himself is the most popular politician
in Syria, and the Assadists are by far the most politically powerful party. James Jeffrey is
part of the cream that rises to the top in the USA foreign policy cesspit.
Saying of the wise: "Never ascribe to bad faith what can be explained by incompetence."
Anybody remember Bush mentioned a Korean model for Iraq?
That is, in the long run, Iraq will be like South Korea, with prosperous economy, democracy,
hosting the US military base without complaints, and without significant anti-Americanism.
When I heard that, I shuddered with fear. When Bush said that, most commentators bombarded
Bush for his historical ignorance.
To sum up, we intervened in South Korea as a response to an invasion and as part of a broad
strategy to contain Communist aggression. We intervened in Iraq as the instigator of an
invasion and as part of a broad strategy to expand unilateral American power. We remained
in South Korea to protect a solid (if, for many years, authoritarian) government from another
border incursion. We are remaining in Iraq to bolster a flimsy government and stave off
a violent social implosion.
"Never ascribe to bad faith what can be explained by incompetence."
Yuri Orlov wrote an
interesting post about organizational incompetence. To quote the paper he bases his post on:
Functional stupidity is organizationally-supported lack of reflexivity, substantive reasoning,
and justification. It entails a refusal to use intellectual resources outside a narrow and
"safe" terrain. It can provide a sense of certainty that allows organizations to function
smoothly. This can save the organization and its members from the frictions provoked by doubt
and reflection. Functional stupidity contributes to maintaining and strengthening organizational
order. It can also motivate people, help them to cultivate their careers, and subordinate them
to socially acceptable forms of management and leadership. Such positive outcomes can further
reinforce functional stupidity.
But clearly the destructive effects of US foreign policy are often deliberately malevolent. Orlov
also has a
post about that:
By Anglo-imperialists I mean the combination of Britain and the United States. The latter took
over for the former as it failed, turning it into a protectorate. Now the latter is failing
too, and there are no new up-and-coming Anglo-imperialists to take over for it. But throughout
this process their common playbook had remained the same: pseudoliberal pseudocapitalism for
the insiders and military domination and economic exploitation for everyone else. Much more
specifically, their playbook always called for a certain strategem to be executed whenever
their plans to dominate and exploit any given country finally fail. On their way out, they
do what they can to compromise and weaken the entity they leave behind, by inflicting a permanently
oozing and festering political wound. "Poison all the wells" is the last thing on their
pre-departure checklist.
However they might have missed the point. The first time the US army went to Korea was not in
1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea but in 1945 after the Japanese surrender, and the US
presided over a bloody civil war which killed one hundred thousand people even before the outbreak
of the Korean War.
The reasons for the civil war were many. Volatile situation created by sudden collapse of Japanese
colonial government, the ineptitude of the US military government to handle the situation, cold
war ideological divide running through Korea, the US machination of backing one faction against
another. Do they sound familiar? Maybe if you substitute ideological divide with religious one.
Then the war came and millions more died. If enough people die, people will accept anything
for peace and order, a truly a Hobbesian case of Leviathan. That was the ground for the four decades
of authoritarian rule in South Korea and, more importantly to the US, lack of any anti-Americanism
therein.
I don't know what Bush was referring to when he said the Korean Model. But surely the US has
an experience of presiding over a bloody civil war that tells them if you let them kill enough
of each other they will accept your rule.
And, of course, there was Wurmser, a neocon staff to Cheney, who might have taken the lesson
of Korea into heart.
Wurmser argued that toppling Saddam was likely to lead directly to civil war and the breakup
of Iraq, but he supported the policy anyway: "The residual unity of [Iraq] is an illusion projected
by the extreme repression of the state."
After Saddam, Iraq will "be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans,
sects, and key families," he wrote. "Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression,
[Iraq's] politics is defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism, and gang/clan-like competition."
Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to "expedite" such a collapse.
"The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting
the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance."
Welcome to the National Security State of 2015
A Self-Perpetuating Machine for American Insecurity
By Tom Engelhardt
As 2015 begins, let's take a trip down memory lane. Imagine that it's January 1963. For the last
three years, the United States has unsuccessfully faced off against a small island in the Caribbean,
where a revolutionary named Fidel Castro seized power from a corrupt but U.S.-friendly regime
run by Fulgencio Batista. In the global power struggle between the United States and the Soviet
Union in which much of the planet has chosen sides, Cuba, only 90 miles from the American mainland,
finds itself in the eye of the storm. Having lost Washington's backing, it has, however, gained
the support of distant Moscow, the other nuclear-armed superpower on the planet.
Right, I agree that that article has the merits you describe.
@brian #40:
Haha, the usual Ukrainian nationalist nonsense. But you're right, the HuffPost has a pattern
of publishing that: I was surprised when they published an
ultranationalist rant by Yulia Tymoshenko.
The claim made by the article you linked to that "Most residents [of Donbass] viewed Ukrainian
as a 'foreign' tongue" is a typical expression of Ukrainian delusions of grandeur. Russians, whether
they are citizens of Russia or the Ukraine, do not view Ukrainian as a foreign tongue: they (correctly)
view it as a dialect of Russian. And a Ukrainian who is a Ukrainian patriot but lives in the southern
US and is open minded told me recently that Ukrainian is to Russian as black English is to standard
English. I think that analogy is perfectly correct. It makes no more sense to call Ukrainian a
language than it does to call black English a language.
Before NATO bombing of Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel
Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights.
(see document). http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/...
The Green Book by Muammar Al Gadhafi (1975)
Part 1: The solution to the problem of Democracy;
Part 2: The solution to the Economic Problem;
Part 3: The Social Basis of the third Universal Theory.
Demoralized with wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, oil hungry West decided to discredit and depose
Gadhafi at a time when he was fighting Al Qaeda terrorism. In fact, Gadhafi was the first world
leader to condemn Al Qaeda as a terrorist group in the early part of the 2000s. Not only that,
the Libyan leader has even adopted progressive or humanitarian policies in the domestic and international
arenas such that he was even scheduled to receive a humanitarian award from no less than the Human
Rights Council of the United Nations in March of this year. He was to be cited for his human rights
record, including his stand on women's rights, his opposition to the more oppressive features
of Islamic Sharia law, and his record on religious and ethnic tolerance and social inclusion.
The UN Human Rights Council working group report released on January 4, 2011 virtually serves
as a glowing praise of Qaddafi's leadership in Human Rights. Additionally, it is worth noting
that based on human development indicators, Libya Arab Jamarihiya has been many notches higher
than the rest of the world, much more the Arab states.
///
The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate
The Anglo-French-American war on most prosperous country in Africa is opposed by countries
representing majority of the human race regardless of massive propaganda by NATO puppets Al Jazeera,
The New York Times, CNN, BBC and the rest of the western media.
There is no doubt that U.S. participation in the Anglo-French-American attack on Libya is completely
unconstitutional.
Before becoming president Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law professor,
accurately described the limits of a president's authority to initiate a war in cases where the
U.S. has neither been attacked nor is in imminent danger of attack:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military
attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
The current aggression against once independent Libya is a perfect case of "a situation that
does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." While the president is
limited by the Constitution to repelling or forestalling attack, Congress can declare war for
a variety of purposes beyond simple defense In the case of the Libyan war, the presidential power
grab is even more blatant, because weak, poor countries on the Security Council have acted as
ventriloquists' puppets for the U.S., Britain and France.
Including the United States, the Security Council nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution
have a combined population of a little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms
of purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security Council countries that showed
their disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the vote have a combined population of
about 3 billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion.
If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the
Security Council is even more striking.. The countries that joined the U.S. in voting to authorize
attacks on Libya, including Britain and France, have a combined population that adds up to a little
more than 5 percent of the human race.
The truth is that the U.S. is joined in its war on Libya by only two second-rank great powers,
Britain and France, which between them carved up North Africa and the Middle East a century ago,
slaughtering and torturing many Arabs and Blacks Libyans in the process. Every other major power
on earth opposed the Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa, registering that opposition
by abstentions rather than "no" votes in the Security Council (in a fear of been trashed and demonized
by obedient to NATO western media that basically controls 80% of worlds information space).
"The Plan", once the Coup of 2001 was a fait accompli, and Cheney's Pipelinistan War in
Afghanistan was fully engaged, was to find pretext to end Saddam's 'Food for Oil', that had
driven crude oil prices to $15 a barrel and lower. Iraq has cheap sweet crude and Libya has
the best sweet crude in the region. Prince Bandar is on record, you can watch him on news video,
stating that the House of Saud would be satisfied with *$25 a barrel*. Then Saddam started
blah, blah, blah about gold dirhams replacing of petro dollars, which was a direct threat to
the USA/Sheiks. Cheney baked a Yellow Cake, House of Saud became trillionaires.
It's that simple. Cheney is a war criminal, and the House of Saud are a menace to humanity.
Once Chavez demanded Venezuala's gold bullion back, Gaddhafi was a dead man. Where did that
250 tons of gold bullion in the Libyan vaults disappear to, anyway? And Saddam's 450 tons?
MoAs have fallen for the 'incompetence' meme as their Occum's Razor analysis of US foreign
policy, but did it ever occur to you that State and USAID are merely charades, with people
selected for their breeding and incompetence and willingness to not get in the way? A John
Kerry koob is certain no proof that a Dick Cheney can't exist. Your logic is incompetent.
Nor can you state that because Cheney and the NeoCons failed to achieve their Triumphal
End of History, that they are incompetent. Far from it. USA is now -$18 T+ in Perpetual Debt.
The International Bankster Fed Mafia 'owns' everything in the USA. That's not incompetence.
We're witnessing an Anti-Christ Feast of the Apostles, where they're partaking of the flesh
and blood of Every Man. Sure, it's allegorical, sure it's just taxes, fees and surcharges,
sure health and human services is being torn out and eaten raw, ...that's not incompetence.
Some people say inequality doesn't matter. They are wrong. All we have to do to see its effects
is to realize that all across America millions of people of ordinary means can't afford decent
housing.
As wealthy investors and buyers drive up real estate values, the middle class is being squeezed
further and the working poor are being shoved deeper into squalor - in places as disparate as
Silicon Valley and New York City.
This week Bill points to the changing skyline of Manhattan as the physical embodiment of how
money and power impact the lives and neighborhoods of every day people. Soaring towers being built
at the south end of Central Park, climbing higher than ever with apartments selling from $30 million
to $90 million, are beginning to block the light on the park below. Many of the apartments are
being sold at those sky high prices to the international super rich, many of whom will only live
in Manhattan part-time – if at all - and often pay little or no city income or property taxes,
thanks to the political clout of real estate developers.
"The real estate industry here in New York City is like the oil industry in Texas," affordable
housing advocate Jaron Benjamin says, "They outspend everybody… They often have a much better
relationship with elected officials than everyday New Yorkers do." Meanwhile, fewer and fewer
middle and working class people can afford to live in New York City. As Benjamin puts it, "Forget
about the Statue of Liberty. Forget about Ellis Island. Forget about the idea of everybody being
welcome here in New York City. This will be a city only for rich people."
At the end of the show Bill says: "Tell us if you've seen some of these forces eroding the
common ground where you live. Perhaps, like some of the people in our story, you're making your
own voice heard. Share these experiences at our website,BillMoyers.com."
When Bernie Sanders gets to griping about the Democratic Party, which happens frequently,
he asks, "What does it stand for?"
The independent senator argues that, after years of sellouts and compromises on issues ranging
from trade policy to banking regulation, and especially after letting campaign donors and consultants
define its messaging, the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman has become an ill-defined
and distant political machine that most Americans do not relate to or get excited about.
His point has always been well-taken, but it was confirmed on November 4. How else can we explain
voters who chose Mitch McConnell senators and Elizabeth Warren policies?
That's what happened in Arkansas, where 65 percent of voters expressed their concern about income
inequality and poverty by approving a substantial minimum-wage increase on the same day they gave
Senator Mark Pryor just 39 percent of the vote. Pryor was one of many Democrats who ran away from
President Obama in 2014, and part of how Pryor distanced himself was by announcing his opposition
to increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Republican Tom Cotton, who also opposes
the federal increase, slyly endorsed the state ballot initiative and swept to victory in a race where
what could have been sharp distinctions between the contenders were neutralized by the Democrat.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
http://michael-hudson.com/
http://michael-hudson.com/2015/09/killing-the-host-the-book/
The Table of Contents is as follows:
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy
Introduction: The Twelve Themes of this Book
The Parasite, the Host, and Control of the Economy's Brain
I. From the Enlightenment to Neo-Rentier Economies
II. Wall Street as Central Planner
III. Austerity as a Privatization Grab
IV. There Is An Alternative
William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,…http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the entity as a "weapon,"