Wednesday, January 03, 2018

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?

Labels: , , ,


At 6:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Warren may be a force to be reckoned with at scummer's table of corruption. But Bernie isn't. He's not even a democrat.

And authentic? Both were EXTREME hypocrites in '16 when they choked down all their "principles" and endorsed and campaigned for the anti-progressive corrupt lying possibly treasonous bankers' whore and purveyor of misery.

You can write how authentic they both are millions of times, but the one time it was critical for the nation, they refused proving they aren't. That is a fact. And that fact cannot ever be undone... though with your help it probably will be forgotten.

At 7:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wall Street whore Joe Crowley ($1,085,673), who the banksters intend to make Democratic House Leader when Pelosi and Hoyer finally step down.

How can one advocate changing the DINO-Whig Party from within in the face of evidence like this that such efforts are doomed before they can even begin?

At 8:26 AM, Blogger Chris Roberts said...

bernie is the progressive choice. he has been doing all possable to fight trump's agenda. as for not a democrat talk from hilarists he has cauced with dems throughout his house and senate carrer. and back in 2012 the gop attacked him for voting with obama and reid 97% of the time.

he has chaired the veterans committee and is ranking member of budget committee. he is also dem outreach chair.

as for warren let's ignore 2016 as i am attempting to move on inless bernie and his supporters including me are attacked she voted for 800 billion pentagon budget. bernie didn't.

as for people can't blame bernie and his supporters for trump winning and then blame bernie for endosing clinton.and doing more for her than she did for obama in 08.

as for gillibrand i am on to her. she is moving bernie lite to try to run for president. Harris is hilary as woc.and she is pick of dem donors. as for booker he is wall street's boy. in 2012 as an obama surrogate he defended bain capital from obama's attacks on romney.

At 8:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Sanders has proven that a politician doesn't need big bank and corporate campaign donations to run for political office. Voters would have "owned" him if he hadn't been screwed out of the nomination by the crooked and money-hungry democratic party. They "tipped the scales" toward their best big-donor fundraiser instead...and we saw how well that worked out.

Haven't heard a peep out of any of the so-called dollar-drenched "progressive" wannabes about campign reform...Warren included. She has a lot to say at this time, but not a peep out of her during the nomination in support of Sanders, who would have easily beaten Trump. As far as I'm concerned, they had their chance to profoundly change this country for the better in 2016...and they blew it. The moment has passed.

At 10:08 AM, Blogger Ten Bears said...

Charlatan. Pretty sure that's the word you're lookin' for. Charlatans.

I want the three authentics, certainly my senator, whom I actively blogged and campaigned for and have a connection to that only third and fourth generation Oregon boys can have, to stay right where they're at, where they can be more effective. If the charlatans want to take themselves out of the senate to run for pResident, where if elected they will be pretty much ineffective ... well, yeah, what can I do to help? [snark, not an endorsement]

Perhaps they could consider running someone who doesn't glitter.

At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Ann. I imagine that if Warren had endorse Bernie early in the primary process, it might have made the DNC unable to goon results enough to make $hillbillary their nom.

I then wonder what $hillbillary and the DNC promised her to NOT endorse Bernie. Certainly a ton of money for her 2018 re-run. But also maybe the promise of some choice position in the $hillbillary admin. Maybe Sec Treasury? Whatever it was, it proves that EW can and has been bought. Bernie's turtling betrayal to all his "principles" after the convention proves that he's also been bought or hasn't the stomach for real revolution or both.

If I lived in either state, I'd likely still vote for them for senator. But I'll never support either one for prez or veep ever again.

At 1:03 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Hi Anonymous...I don't think Sanders had a choice of anything else but to throw his support to $hillbillary and hope for the best. If he had broken away from the dollar-drenched dems and run as an independent...and lost...he would have been finished as a politician. He was smart enough to know that he couldn't win because of, not only the big bucks behind Clinton, but also because of her hardcore supporters...both voters and members of Congress.

One thing that he did do was prove that the dirty dems are as crooked and money-hungry as the crazycons. Progressive voters got the message and now, all of the faux-progressive, dirty dem POTUS wannabes are jockying to get into position with a lot of false promises...and lots of corporate and banking big bucks...but they have no genuine progressive platform and voters know this. As bad as Trump and the crazycon administration are, dems are still struggling to come up with a more meaningful message other than "we're not Trump". HAH!

Hope Sanders runs as an independent in 2020. He'll get my vote for sure.

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

Ann, he had a choice. But that choice depended on what he is.

He wrote a book with "revolution" in the title, which he proved is a lie. A revolutionary would have told the DNC to go fuck themselves, marched out of the convention inviting everyone who wanted a democratic republic instead of a fascist oligarchy to follow him. He could have raised enough money to make it interesting. But most of all, if he made it interesting, he could have:
1) gotten attention to the truth of the democraps and the Clintons in particular
2) shined a light on all the ills of every admin since Reagan in '80, with solutions for all of it offered.
3) given Independents a reason to get up on election day
4) if/when it was clear that $hillbillary would not win, demand $he and her corrupt democraps ENDORSE HIM, and withdraw.

This is the catalyst the country needs. But Bernie was never up to that task. It turns out he was just an opportunist hoping for a miracle.

If he runs in 2020, I will NOT support him.

At 9:16 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Anonymous - I really believe Sanders thought that when he stepped aside, Clinton would win the election, since Trump was plainly so awful...and she did win the popular vote. The whole democratic "machine" thought she'd win...but surprise, surprise!

I don't know if a third-party candidate will ever win an election...especially in this polarized political climate. Seems that loyalists in both parties will remain matter how rotten their candidate is, since those big campaign dollars are all that matter. I voted for Stein and was surprised that she got such a small percentage of votes.

Sanders might try for the democratic nomination again in 2020, but if he doesn't, I don't see any other truly honest progressive coming out of that crooked party, so who do we vote for?

At 6:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ann, if Bernie believed as you speculate, that only proves he's a total hypocrite and a poser. $hillbillary is an anti-Bernie in deeds on nearly all issues except perhaps womens' issues. As I said, anyone with belief in his principles would never accept the opposite on everything.

Do you remember Anderson and Perot 3rd-party runs? The latter gave us bill Clinton... twice. It isn't as unusual as you think. Anderson was trying to prevent the poser-radical Reagan from winning. Perot was a malignant narcissist billionaire, but he did make very good points on several issues, mainly NAFTA.

Actually, Stein pulled half-again more than in the previous election. I was surprised by that. Normally, the Greens and all others get a total of about 1%. Then she and the greens tried to fund a recount in the key swing states (courts consistently find that counting votes may damage the declared winner, so it should not be done) which got her some pub. But their problem is always money and perceived relevance. That's where Bernie had a chance. He had the name and money. But he rebuffed the greens' overtures -- he had no stomach for a truly left party nor a run outside of the money monopoly.


Post a Comment

<< Home