Saturday, March 12, 2016

Lesser-Of-Two-Evils Politics Doesn't Serve America Well


Yesterday at this time we asked, rhetorically if you wonder why voters hate politicians, focusing on Republican conservatives. However, there's a prominent conservative Democrat who voters are growing less and less enamoured with the more they see her in action. The NY Times editorial board, a bastion of her kind of status quo establishmentarianism, warned her to stop the ugly, deceitful tactics that have come to define her smear campaign against Bernie. Even late night comedy hosts, who sympathisize with her politically, can't help but comment on her awkward, unsavory character. Maybe it has something to do with her conservative Republican upbringing and her fist political experiences as a right-wing Republican.

A headline at the Daily Beast summed up what more and more Democrats are finding hard to stand about her: Hillary Clinton’s Hit Men Target Bernie Sanders at Blue Nation Review. As we've mentioned before, Blue Nation Review, was bought by ex-Republican smear artist-turned Hillary smear artist David Brock and transformed into a transparent Clinton propaganda tool.
Back in the summer of 2014—when Blue Nation Review was a fledgling blog dedicated to creating “a place where progressives can debate where we want to be as a movement,” per the website’s mission statement-- it treated Sanders as a liberal hero.

This was 18 months before BNR, as it’s known, started attacking the 74-year-old Sanders with a zeal normally associated with the Republican assault on Benghazi and the former secretary of state’s private email server. These days the blog celebrates all things Clinton and relentlessly blames the socialist senator from Vermont for nearly every misguided, corrupt, hypocritical, or wretched thing in American democracy-- though it does admit, from time to time, that he’s no Donald Trump.

Even before Sunday night’s CNN-sponsored Democratic debate had ended, BNR’s lead story was accusing Sanders of rudeness and sexism under the headline “Women React to Bernie Sanders Telling Hillary ‘I’m Talking.’”

BNR is “the pond scum of American politics,” said Democratic political consultant Tad Devine, a top strategist for Sanders’s campaign against the Democratic frontrunner. “I’m sure they’re going to do whatever it takes to throw mud at Bernie and discredit him and lie about him, and deceive people. And that’s their business. That’s what they do for a living.”

...As with an increasing number of political whodunits during this election cycle, the fingerprints of Hillary hit man David Brock are all over the crime scene.

There's no chance you'll find the PolitiFact analysis of one of Hillary's most recent smears (Tuesday in Florida) on Blue Nation Review. The Hillary lie: "The Clean Power Plan is something that Sen. Sanders has said he would delay implementing." Of course he never said anything like that, but Hillary, a recipient of legalistic bribes from pollution industries and a career-long foot-dragger on Climate Change, must have felt she had no choice but to lie about Sanders' record. Like her friend and crony, Donald Trump, she doesn't know how to debate without lying. It's what all conservatives of her ilk do. Linda Qiu analyzed the smear for PolitiFact Thursday: Hillary Clinton wrongly says Bernie Sanders wants to delay the Clean Power Plan.
Debating in a city where rising sea levels are a concern, Hillary Clinton suggested Bernie Sanders wants to set back a major climate change policy of the Obama administration.

"The Clean Power Plan is something that Sen. Sanders has said he would delay implementing, which makes absolutely no sense," Clinton said.

"What? Tsk," Sanders said, laughing and shaking his head incredulously.

"Wait, what?" was our reaction too.

Looking at statements and actions by Sanders, Clinton’s statement is misleading.

Briefly, the Clean Power Plan aims to cut carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants by 2030 by 32 percent from 2005 levels, promoting clean(er) energy sources instead. This plan, hailed and criticized as a historic environmental initiative, was put on hold on Feb. 9, 2016, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

We searched Google, LexisNexis and CQ for comments Sanders has made on the plan and found no evidence that Sanders has said he wants to delay the implementation.

The Clinton campaign referred us to Sanders’ Feb. 21 interview with Grist, an environmental online magazine, in which he laid out what President Sanders would likely do on climate change.

Sanders said he would change the Clean Power Plan to incentivize renewables instead of gas and extend a two-year program for wind and solar credits all the way to 2030. And beyond carbon, he would also regulate methane through the plan.

...A day before it was unveiled, Sanders said in a press release, "It sounds to me like a step forward in ending our dependence on fossil fuel, and I support that effort.

" He also tweeted that day, "Pres Obama knows climate change is the great planetary crisis facing us & we must move boldly to transform our energy system #CleanPowerPlan."

And in November, Sanders voted twice against legislation to block the Clean Power Plan.

"It is an embarrassment that with few exceptions Republicans refuse to recognize the reality of climate change, and even fewer are prepared to do anything about it," he wrote in a press release following the effort to repeal the plan. "Today’s vote to block the Clean Power Plan is a stark reminder that instead of worrying about the future of our planet, Republicans are more concerned with their campaign contributions."

Our ruling

Clinton said, "The Clean Power Plan is something that Sen. Sanders has said he would delay implementing."

Sanders advocates for more ambitious action on climate change, which some experts argue could delay the plan. But Sanders himself has never said what Clinton is suggesting, and he has supported the Clean Power Act in words and action.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.
The environmental PAC, Climate Hawks Vote, polled their members about who to endorse in the presidential race. There were over 22,000 votes and 92% of those votes were for Bernie. I guess not enough people are reading Blue Nation Review... or maybe they are-- and seeing right through it. I don't look forward to a debate between Hillary and Herr Trumpf which will be analyzed based almost entirely on who is the bigger and more vile liar. Doesn't America deserve better? Let's make sure the more electable candidate is the Democratic nominee:
Goal Thermometer

Labels: , , , , ,


At 6:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such blatant lying won't register with Hillarybots, for "It's Her Turn" no matter the evidence that she will betray her followers just as soon as Obama did his - immediately after the election should she win. She will turn back to supporting the passage of TPP and the provisions it contains to force changes in our laws more stringently that was the recent repeal of Country of Origin Labelling.

There are at least 150 million reasons why Hillary is clearly a corporatist, and the wants and needs of the people don't add up to even a small fraction of that value to Hillary.

At 6:41 AM, Blogger J Reynolds said...

Liar! Liar! Pants suit on fire!

At 7:51 AM, Anonymous Tracy B Ann said...

I do think many of us are tired of voting "against" the Republican Party. We would like to vote FOR someone. With Bernie I have that chance.

But,if Hillary wins the primary you can damn well better believe I will be voting for her, because her worst policies are better than a Republicans best policies.

Especially for the poor, women, children and most importantly, for people of color.
Wealthy white men may be able to withhold their vote or vote for a 3rd party, because either way, it won't effect them much. They are wealthy white men.

People of color don't have that luxury and until they do I'm voting for the Democratic candidate EVERY time no matter how sucky they are.

The lesser of two evils really is LESS evil.

When people of color first won the right to vote (many being beaten and dying in the process) they had no good candidates to vote for. They were choosing between shitty and shittier. And each election the choices would get a little less shitty, but only a little.

In 2016, they still may not have much of a choice so less shitty is still the way to go.

At 9:18 AM, Anonymous OldVet said...

The Clintons MUST win. The Clintons MUST win at any cost. The Clintons MUST win at any cost to the American working classes.

Everyone knows that Bernie is a DINO because a DINO is a person who is not a 'real democrat' as evidenced by party membership. 'Real democrats' must be long time party members and not just a Johnny-come-lately who espouses actual policies that are consistent with historical democratic party policies. 'Real democrats' can espouse republican economic policies as long as they have been party members for a long time. After all, party uber alles.

Everyone knows that Bernie can NOT win the general election. It takes hundreds of millions of $$$ to win the general election and it is just a small price to pay to get a (D) in the White House that the (D) must be beholden to Wall Street, the 1/10th of 1%ers, and AIPAC. After all, SCOTUS. After all, the lesser of great evil (Hillary) and extremely great evil (The Donald / Crazy Ted) is only great evil.

VOTE FOR HILLARY - She will slow the journey to oblivion of the middle class.
VOTE FOR HILLARY - She will express sorrow that the poor and working poor will keep getting poorer, but that is just the price of progress.


Post a Comment

<< Home