Saturday, December 30, 2017

The Establishment Would LOVE To Use Bernie's Age To Disqualify Him. Listen To A Big Pharma Lobbyist Bring It Up


On Thursday, former DNC chair Howard Dean was on Morning Joe telling viewers that: “The DNC did good job In Virginia but we won Virginia because of groups like Run For Something, and Indivisible and Color of Change and Voter Latino… The question is how do you coordinate all these groups. Because these kids don’t believe in institutions but they’re unbelievbly powerful.” In response to a mumbly-humbly question from Scarborough’s sidekick, he then went on to say that he thinks “progressives are in the process of informally taking over the Democratic Party.” I suppose he hasn’t taken a look at the wretched collection of corrupt conservative candidates the DCCC has recruited this cycle. What you see are Republican-lite self-funders, Pelosi cronies, hapless and clueless careerists, not progressives. Progressives are running under the auspices and with the help of anti-DCCC/anti-party groups. The DCCC and it’s shitty candidates are trying to run the same old lesser of two evils campaign— and progressives want no part of it.

Back to Dean: “I think the country has moved to the left. It’s shocking to me but a majority of Americans think that Medicare-For-All is a good idea. Frankly, Bernie gets a lot of credit for that. I don’t think he’s gonna be the next nominee… but he could be. I’m very much for somebody who’s younger. I think my generation has got to get the hell out of politics, start coaching and start moving up this next generation.” He then went on to name a pack of unaccomplished newcomers known only to insiders and lobbyists like himself— Chris Murphy, Kamala Harris ‘of course,’ Kirsten Gillibrand, Eric Garcetti… and there’s tons of other young people.”

Dean’s kick is that the next nominee has to be in their 50s… what a criterion! Let me reiterate something I talked about in regard to Kamala Harris last summer:
I'm old. New Rule: When you're old you don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils any more. Now if a candidate isn't offering me something I want, I won't vote for them. I've never voted for my Democratic congressman, Adam Schiff, who was, until recently when he switched to the almost-as-bad New Dems, a Blue Dog. I never voted for Dianne Feinstein-- which includes when she ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and, later, for mayor-- and last year I didn't vote for Kamala Harris in either the primary or the general. I don't hate Kamala Harris. I don't even have much against her-- other than her generally mediocre job as Attorney General. The problem was that although her opponents were much worse, she wasn't offering anything to me that I thought worth me voting to give her the incredible job of senator from the best state in the union. Now they-- the powers that be-- want her, for some unfathomable reason, to be considered as a candidate for president. She's hasn't done a fuckingthing, not.a.fuckingthing. Yes, she's a woman. She's she's got a bunch of races in her bloodstream. Very nice. But that isn't how I pick who I'm going to vote for for president. Elizabeth Warren is accomplished and has done a lot. I'd die happy if I could vote for her and see her become leader of our great country. Or Bernie. But Kamala Harris? Are you kidding? She shouldn't be a senator. I don't even know if she'd be a good City Council member. Maybe. But why don't we wait and see what she does before we start nattering like a bunch of imbeciles about her as a presidential candidate! This is insane!

Writing for the New Republic last week, Sarah Jones asserted that Harris is widely considered one of the party’s rising stars. Widely? Really? By someone who isn't on her payroll? By people with 3-digit IQs? I never met or spoke to one person who sees Kamala Harris as a potential 2020 candidate other than people who have something to directly gain financially by that prospect. Not one! It's beyond comprehension why this is even a discussion that doesn't involve identity politics and demographics.

Jones writes that it's "a problem for the left" that Harris is being considered. Thank God, someone is awake! Recently Ryan Cooper wrote that "Harris is mistrusted by the left mostly because of her roots as a prosecutor" and he also criticized two other heavily self-promoted theoretical candidates, Senator Cory Booker and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Establishment liberals who have invested in these three went crazy. Some have their futures tied up in their futures. But as Jones pointed out, "Harris has a deeply troubling record: As a district attorney, she implemented a law that penalized the parents of truant children with a fine of up to $2,000 and a year in jail. Later, as California’s attorney general, Harris fought a transgender prisoner’s attempts to access necessary health care. And her record on prosecuting financial crimes is poor, particularly her decision to refrain from going after OneWest Bank for allegedly breaking foreclosure laws. And she’s not the only one-- as David Dayen wrote for the New Republic, virtually the entire Democratic Party has been criminally negligent when it comes to taking on corporate malfeasance during the housing crisis.

It's too soon for #NeverKamala... and it's too soon for #Kamala2020. Maybe Kamala will turn out to be great; let's give her some time to prove herself-- a decade or so should do. Maybe she won't turn out to be a flip-floppin' opportunist. Maybe even Kirsten Gillibrand won't, although that's really a stretch. Meanwhile, we have some political leaders who already have... you know, proven themselves. Jones mentioned Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, Keith Ellison, Mark Pocan-- all good people with records of accomplishment. I'd add Ted Lieu and Alan Grayson. As for president... the Kings Landing establishment and their egg-sucking minions hate Bernie-- just totally loath him-- but real Americans love him and the hatred from an Establishment stinking of unspeakable corruption makes him even more attractive as a presidential candidate against Trumpanzee or Pence. If he doesn't run... Elizabeth Warren-- or after his term, she could run, hopefully having been Bernie's VP. Impossible? A dream? Insane? Really? More so than candidate Kamala Harris or candidate Cory Booker or Andrew Cuomo as 2020 nominees? Wake up.

One of the commenters, Mark Gisleson, noted that “Harris, Booker and Patrick exist as candidates solely because Hillary Clinton never had to answer for her electoral malpractice. Clinton's book of excuses will be out soon, and needs to be fact-tased into a late night comedian's monologue ASAP.” Hey… that’s Howard Dean III’s candidate you’re talking about. He’s 69. Here’s some other Democratic politicians’ ages he’s not saying need to “get the hell out of politics.” Random list:
Dianne Feinstein- 84
Eddie Bernice Johnson- 82
Alcee Hastings- 81
Nita Lowey- 80
Steny Hoyer- 78
Nancy Pelosi- 77
Jim Clyburn- 77
Bill Nelson- 75
Ben Cardin- 74
Chuck Schumer- 67
And some of the youngest members are some of the very worse and most useless Democrats in Congress— like Kirsten Sinema (Blue Dog-41), Pete Aguilar (New Dem-38), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-39), and Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-42). In fact, things are going in a different direction from what Dean is asking for. Today the average American is 20 years younger than their representative in Congress. This should come as no surprise, considering that over the past 30 years the average age of a Member of Congress has increased with almost every new Congress. In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. The average age of the Democratic House leadership is 72 years old, whereas the average age of Republican House leadership is 48 years old. This trend continues in House committee leadership with Republican chairmen averaging 59 years old and ranking Democrats averaging 68 years old.”

Unless we’re talking about senility— as in Trump’s case— age can be just another identity group. “We need fresh blood” or “We need wisdom and experience” are both true within the context of "We need excellent, ethical members of Congress with good ideas." Look at the Blue America-endorsed candidates this cycle. Two of the youngest happen to be two of the best, Kaniela Ing, a three-term state Rep in Hawaii with a wealth of experience and accomplishment (age 28) and Austin Frerick, a brilliant and courageous economist who served in Obama’s Treasury Department (age 27). But what about the experience David Gill—who has been building the Illinois progressive platform before these guys were born! Would Bernie make a better president than Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand or Eric Garrett? Not a tough question to answer if you have followed the political careers of these four.

Labels: , , , ,


At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too many elderly DINO-Whigs, too little connection to the Millennials who are now the largest voting demographic. The Millennials are already hostile to the elderly (read: Boomers) and will gladly throw us overboard by ending Social Security if the Republicans promise them a reduction in taxes proportional to that given to the plutocrats.

At 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, 2:33, this might be the first bit of non-horrible news about the democraps.
We all know the Clintons et al led the movement to corrupt them all 36 years ago. Maybe that generation of useless corrupt motherfuckers won't perpetuate their corrupt poison beyond their own gen. (hint: yes they will)

If that's true, all we have to do is wait for them all to die... maybe another 20 years. And maybe the Jayapals and Lieus and maybe the Bryces will stick around into their own dotage until they can actually wield some influence.

Except we don't have 20 years. If the revolution doesn't start in the next 5 years, it will never happen. Elections will be stopped after pence's first term, climate change will guarantee the earth will become Venus in a decade and there will be 15 billion humans bumping into each other everywhere and starving in 25.

At 5:36 AM, Anonymous Hone said...

To 4:39 yes, yes, yes

What you mentioned at the end about the population explosion is critical to the planet, hand in hand with global warming. Yet it is rarely mentioned, and we know why, don't we? Religion. The big bug-a-boo schmeared all over the world in one form or another. God (says the people "representing" him in the material world) wants everyone to procreate and bring more and more believers into the world. Even if we get a handle on global warming, which is questionable, population control will NEVER happen. It will ruin the planet and many species besides ours will suffer enormously. Science cannot save us on its own. People need to take responsibility for their procreation and the chances of that are not even slim to none, just NONE. Just one example, if you will. I read that the average birth rate in Nigeria is over 7 children per woman. This country has more than half the population of the USA. But we stopped sending birth control to Africa, didn't we? Good old religion at its best.

Yes, we are screwed. We are a science fiction book living in reality - politics and religion doing us all in with insanity.

At 5:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good ol' Howard Dean! The M.D. who sold his soul to Big Pharma. In the end, he wanted the money. My cousin's daughter worked for his campaign. Another traitor to progressives.

At 6:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hone, thank you.
China (via their totalitarian regime) implemented the 1-child policy, yet their population still grew. Just recently they rescinded that policy.

Religion isn't the only thing in the way. Social norms are also contrary to population control. But capitalism itself, which demands ever-increasing demand from increasing populations of consumers also self destructs should humans ever collectively control their own procreation.

With one or two easy and cheap means, humans could stop over-reproducing while still enjoying the sex.. probably a lot MORE sex. But between social norms, religions and stupidity, it'll never happen.

We double in numbers about every 40 years. In 2045, we'll be 14 billion. In 2085, we'll be 28 billion.
Earth can sustain only about 1.5 billion comfortably and perpetually.

so there you go. Humankind *IS* like a cancer... that consumes until it kills its host organism (earth) and itself. The cure is built into the disease.

At 9:14 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

So, Millennials "hate" Boomers, huh? Funny that I haven't run into any of them. I get along just fine with Millennials and every other younger generation, but then, we share most of the same ideals.

I've watched the establishment, via their paid media shills, trying to drive a wedge between the generations for at least the last two years, and anyone else can see the pattern if they take the time to do a little reading. Part of it is right-wing propaganda to persuade the young they should dump Social Security and Medicare in favor of private investment, of course; but the liberals took up the refrain right around the time it became clear that old fella Sanders was making headway.


Post a Comment

<< Home