In Politics, There's A Difference Between Authentic And... Counterfeit

Authentic-- opposite of Trump

Authenticity matters. Sure, on one level I’m glad when careerist office holders with no core beliefs-- take Kirsten Gillibrand as the perfect example-- see the progressive path as something that will help their career. The opposite is much worse and the perfect example is… Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Blue Dog who went from being an socialist and a Green to being the single most right-wing fake-Democrat in Congress. One thing is sure… neither Kirsten-- who wants to run for president-- nor Kyrsten-- who wants to run for Senate-- belongs in public office. You can’t believe anything either one says and what one says today could easily shift with the winds tomorrow, as their past statements and positions have… many, many times.

And, of course, both are steeped in corruption. Both are creatures of corruption. Gillibrand takes more from Morgan Stanley than any other Democrat in Congress. And Sinema has used her position on the House Financial Services Committee to extort huge amounts of money from the banisters. In fact Gillibrand has taken $9,151,324 from the Financial Sector, more than anyone else currently serving in Congress other than presidential candidates John McCain and Marco Rubio and notoriously corrupt members Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). So far this cycle, more Wall Street bribes have flowed to Gillibrand than to anyone else in either house besides Paul Ryan. As for Sinema, the banksters are giving her more money than any other Democrat in the House (so far $710,656) and last cycle she took in $1,008,140 from the Finance sector, more than any Democrat currently serving in the House other than Wall Street whore Joe Crowley ($1,085,673), who the banksters intend to make Democratic House Leader when Pelosi and Hoyer finally step down.

Politico’s Elana Schor reported over the weekend that a half-dozen Trump foes are racing to embrace the liberal zeitgeist, occupying space Bernie Sanders once had to himself. I think it’s a requirement on the Politico job application that you have no knowledge of politics when you seek employment there as Schor demonstrated when she babbled nonsense about how Jeff Merkely-- the former Speaker of the Oregon House, where he had an incredible record of progressive leadership-- and Elizabeth Warren-- whose impeccable progressive credentials were in everyone’s face for over a decade before she ever even ran for office--have moved left. They didn’t move left; Warren and Merkley are part of what has been defining the left for years before Schor decided a job at Politico was part of her own career trajectory. She did manage to get it partially write though-- pointing out that Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) are trying to bite and claw their way to the front of the progressive parade and pretend to be leading it.

Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley are progressives. Gillibrand, Harris and Booker are… well, respectively, just Gillibrandists, Harrisians and Bookerites. They don’t stand for anything at all expect opportunism an d their own careers. “First,” wrote Schor, “they flocked to Sanders’ single-payer health care proposal. And then, almost in unison, they adopted two other stands popular among the Democratic base: Refusing to vote for any budget plan that didn’t include help for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, and calling for Donald Trump’s resignation over sexual harassment claims leveled against him last year by multiple women. The six Democrats also have been the most frequent foes of Trump’s nominees earlier this year.” Again, 3 of the 6 are real-- and 3 are opportunists. There’s a difference that’s too… subtle? for Politico, which is obsessed, though utterly out of touch with the grassroots energy outside the Beltway, in ginning up some contention over 2020. How’s this for the core stupidity and cluelessness that has always defined Politico from the day it was born?

The clustering could make for a crowded lane of very progressive candidates in 2020, a space that Sanders had virtually to himself in 2020. And if the trend continues and extends to other topics and candidates, it could allow Trump to more easily attack his reelection opponents as puppets of the activist left.

…Part of the reason the six liberal Democrats have moved so fast on debates that capture the anti-Trump zeitgeist is the current era’s emphasis on “rewarding authenticity,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the liberal group Progressive Change Campaign Committee and a leading organizer around the single-payer health care push.

OK, so Bernie, Warren and Merkley are authentic and Gillibrand, Harris and Booker are… what’s the polar opposite of authentic? Opportunistic? Fake? Untrustworthy? Counterfeit? Ungenuine? Implausible? They all work. Oh, yes, and Roget’s suggests “corrupt” as the top antonym for authentic. Awesome!

“On each of those issues, I feel very strongly about the importance of being a voice that reflects the voice of California,” Harris said in an interview after joining most of her fellow Democratic senators in opposing the government funding legislation.

Though none of the six Senate Democrats cited has formally declared intentions for 2020, each is on the list of potential candidates. And all six-- particularly Warren and Sanders, who also have seats at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) leadership table-- are poised to play an even bigger role in shaping the party's agenda ahead of the 2018 midterms.

What list is that? The “I’m a Beltway ‘tard who writes for Politico” list?