Posts tagged democrats

Don’t run, Hillary. Don’t run.

Now, we are in a moment of existential crisis as a country. As we recover slowly from the Great Recession, we’ve discovered that we don’t much like what we see. Only 28% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction. Some 67% are dissatisfied with the wealth distribution in this country. And as corporate profits soar to new heights, working folks get the shaft sharing in virtually none of the gains of the recovery.  In fact, 95% of the income gains over the recovery years have gone to the top 1% of income earners.

It is clear now that we have two economies: one for a thin slice of educated elite and one for everyone else. That is the moment we are in now. So I ask you, does Hillary Clinton sound to you like the right person for this moment?

In a time when corporations have hijacked our politics enabling them to reap all the profit without feeling any compunction to do right by their workers, is someone who sat on the rabidly anti-union board of Walmart for six years the right person to restore worker’s rights?

In a time when we are still reeling from a global financial disaster brought on by foolhardy bank deregulation, is someone who recently took $400,000 to give two speeches at Goldman Sachs the person we need to wrest control of the asylum back from the banking inmates?

Keep in mind that at those paid speeches, Clinton wasn’t giving tough love to these masters of the universe. On the contrary, she said that “the banker-bashing…was unproductive and indeed foolish.” Of course, it was her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who did much of the deregulating that got us into trouble including ending the Glass-Steagall prohibitions on mixing traditional banking with speculative investment banking. 

More to the point though, in a time when we badly need to be inspired, rallied, and made to believe that America can once again be true to the American dream, we desperately need someone who is mission driven. We need someone who is clearly passionate, who is living and breathing and feeling in their bones the plight of the worker and the middle class, and who is unafraid to stand up to the Wall Street titans. That person is not Hillary Clinton. It is Elizabeth Warren.

Warren is, for good reason, the public official most feared by Wall Street. Since coming to the Senate, she has aggressively questioned banking regulators on why Wall Street banks were not being vigorously prosecuted. She’s argued for expanding Social Security, for increasing the minimum wage, for using the infrastructure of the post office to provide basic banking services to the poor. Most recently, she pressed the Obama administration to nominate more judges who come from a background in public interest work rather than from big corporations. She’s been fearless, determined, and relentlessly true to her roots as an advocate for the middle and working classes.

Some argue that Warren is too liberal to get elected. To me, this analysis is both shallow and cowardly. The causes that Warren champions from consumer protections to expanding Social Security to increasing the minimum wage are quite popular. I would be proud to back Warren in a battle over the real future of the middle class, the working class, and the American Dream. I would be delighted to have that argument any day. And if I believed that Clinton was ready for that fight, I’d be all in.

I just don’t think that’s where Clinton’s heart is though. I think she is safe, careful, constantly evaluating her positions, drawn to the center, wherever that happens to be at the time. To be clear, I would back Clinton with all my heart against any Republican, and I would even support her over most Democrats. But she is much less than ideal.

Despite all her talents, Clinton is not the woman to address the deep inequality, corporate political capture, and middle class rot afflicting our country. So although I deeply admire and respect Secretary Clinton, I must say: Don’t run Hillary. Don’t run. 

So this is what Schumer is suggesting: let’s pass the bill now and don’t really follow it until 2017, so in the meantime, the “broken” immigration system that the Democrats continue to push will stay “broken” for another three years and we can still have record deportations and separation of families going on at a record clip. And yes, Obama earns kudos for record deportations.

Wow, how’s that historic 2012 Latino vote for President Obama and the Democrats really working out on the immigration issue? But hey, this is Schumer talking, the same Schumer who likes to call the undocumented the “illegals” on national television and no one says anything, because why upset those so-called immigration “allies.” And the same Schumer who is a border security hawk.

This is very simple: the Democrats think that the U.S. Latino vote is a lock because they aren’t feeling the pressure, and the Republicans don’t care about immigration reform. Meanwhile, deportations continue to occur every day at a record pace, and the community gets fooled.

In the end, Democrats have no backbone, national Latino organizations that side with Democrats have no backbone and it is the true immigrant rights voices out there that are trying to change the dialogue and focus. A note to the Democrats: stop leading with fear of Republicans and stop playing the U.S. Latino community. Don’t assume that we will side with you because the other team doesn’t get it. Democrats need to lead and be bold right now. Call the GOP’s bluff, because that is what it is, a bluff.
Sen. Chuck Schumer Reveals His True Colors with Bizarre “Meet the Press” Immigration “Compromise”

For decades, even as far back as Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America, Schumer has proven himself to be indifferent to injustices endured by Latin Americans.

The DCCC that I saw in 2006 and 2008 had a smart strategy of finding the right Democratic candidates that matched their district, and doing everything necessary to get these candidates to run and then give them the resources they needed to win.

Now, several cycles removed from Emanuel and Van Hollen, it seems that the DCCC and its leadership have completely lost their way. They no longer know how to recruit or back the right candidates. It feels like they are using a bastardized version of the ‘06 and ‘08 strategies, but like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, it’s almost impossible to tell what the original actually was.

Now, the strategy seems to find the Democrat who’s the closest to being a Republican, and fully back them without doing do diligence or the hard work on the ground to find out who is the best candidate to win.

it’s people like Steve Israel who keep me from ever registering as a Democrat again.

Half the Republicans You Know Are Insane

William River Pitt writes an essay where Democrats are innocent of doing nothing and having disdain to interact with our nation’s interior, allowing the nation’s politics to fester.

"Liberals Break With Obama on 'Clean' CR - 218"...

from the Roll Call article:

…Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairmen Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota said they would whip their nearly 75 members against any CR that maintains the sequester.

“I think the stance should have been, ‘This is the time to turn around the economy, and this is what we need to do, it’s reflected in my budget, it was reflected in the original Senate budget,’ the president could have said,” Grijalva said. “I wish [Obama] had taken a different position.”

Liberal appropriators complain that Obama has become complicit in keeping the sequester in place.

“I disagree with the White House and I have told the White House that I disagree,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said. “$988 billion makes us complicit in the sequestration. … I don’t believe Democrats should stand for that [and] I think the White House should not be complicit either.”

Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., who like DeLauro is a senior appropriator and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Thursday he was “surprised” at the president’s position and that he was “wrong” to take that stance.

Nancy Pelosi

I get the feeling that people don’t care about what Pelosi says and does or her history as much as she is a figure head, a symbol to partisan centrists and liberals.

(The 2 Aug 13) release of the July unemployment numbers is a case in point. “Today’s employment report provides further confirmation that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression,” the White House blog proclaimed, noting the headline unemployment number had fallen from 7.6 to 7.4%.

However, about half of the rather meager 162,000 jobs created were in the low-wage areas of retail, leisure, travel and dining, and just under two-thirds of the new positions were part-time. It’s an ongoing trend. More than three-quarters of jobs created this year were less than full-time work, according to an analysis by the Associated Press.

Lowly pay scales are also part of our post-2008 reality. As Pat Garofolo reminded me, the National Employment Law Project reported in 2011 that the majority of jobs lost during the Great Recession paid between $13.53 and $20.66 an hour. The majority of their replacements, however, offer pay between $7.51 and $13.52 per hour.

These are the sorts of jobs that not only don’t replace previous salaries, they all too frequently leave workers dependent on government and social service programs, ranging from food stamps to Medicare.

Run tell that to Democrats who crow about Obama’s economic recovery. Remind them that it’s not a chocolate / vanilla problem: it has to do with the political duopoly, it has to do with systemic flaws in our political system and their illiteracy about Keynesian economics.

Obama is rumored to be considering nominating former White House Economic Adviser Larry Summers to replace Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Uygur noted that Summers had pushed to deregulate the banking industry during his time in the Clinton administration, where he served as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and later Secretary of the Treasury. Summers supported the successful repeal of a key provision of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, removing barriers between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies and securities firms.

Though the deregulation of Wall Street lead to an financial collapse in 2008, Summers has said he wouldn’t do much different in retrospect.


liberalsarecool:

Cleaning up after Republicans is a full-time job.

So is reminding Democrats on the internet that this isn’t much to brag about.
Are voters who are obsessed with the debt myth but non-partisan (apartisan? is that a word? how about voters who think themselves to be fiscal conservatives?) worth wooing? I have a real hard time seeing that this is an electorate that Democrats can rely upon to vote for them. Is it not worth it to challenge the economic paradigm they are operating under (and I’m being super generous suggesting that they do work under a paradigm) that debt isn’t a bad thing, particularly with the poor state of the economy? I wouldn’t be surprised if that cynical pragmatic Democratic operatives thought “yes” and “no” to those questions respectively (I don’t expect them to level with anyone on the outside - certainly not with a journalist, academic or a disaffected Green like me). But that’s just the operatives. My rhetorical question(s) is/are for the activists, the partisan Democrats.
Do you guys get this? I’m working with basic, college level micro and macro economics. What about you? Have you been bamboozled by ideologues mascarading as academics merely insulting Keynesian theory, not disproving it? What is it about markets that you don’t understand? Am I expecting too much of partisan Democrats to have the intellectual capacity to understand these concepts or are all partisan Democrats conspiring not to utter Keynes name, let alone his theories? Why do you block me from your Facebook pages when I call you out for this?

liberalsarecool:

Cleaning up after Republicans is a full-time job.

So is reminding Democrats on the internet that this isn’t much to brag about.

Are voters who are obsessed with the debt myth but non-partisan (apartisan? is that a word? how about voters who think themselves to be fiscal conservatives?) worth wooing? I have a real hard time seeing that this is an electorate that Democrats can rely upon to vote for them. Is it not worth it to challenge the economic paradigm they are operating under (and I’m being super generous suggesting that they do work under a paradigm) that debt isn’t a bad thing, particularly with the poor state of the economy? I wouldn’t be surprised if that cynical pragmatic Democratic operatives thought “yes” and “no” to those questions respectively (I don’t expect them to level with anyone on the outside - certainly not with a journalist, academic or a disaffected Green like me). But that’s just the operatives. My rhetorical question(s) is/are for the activists, the partisan Democrats.

Do you guys get this? I’m working with basic, college level micro and macro economics. What about you? Have you been bamboozled by ideologues mascarading as academics merely insulting Keynesian theory, not disproving it? What is it about markets that you don’t understand? Am I expecting too much of partisan Democrats to have the intellectual capacity to understand these concepts or are all partisan Democrats conspiring not to utter Keynes name, let alone his theories? Why do you block me from your Facebook pages when I call you out for this?

One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.

In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)

The lobbying campaign shows how, three years after Congress passed the most comprehensive overhaul of regulation since the Depression, Wall Street is finding Washington a friendlier place.

The cordial relations now include a growing number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, whose support the banks need if they want to roll back parts of the 2010 financial overhaul, known as Dodd-Frank.

This legislative push is a second front, with Wall Street’s other battle being waged against regulators who are drafting detailed rules allowing them to enforce the law.

And as its lobbying campaign steps up, the financial industry has doubled its already considerable giving to political causes. The lawmakers who this month supported the bills championed by Wall Street received twice as much in contributions from financial institutions compared with those who opposed them, according to an analysis of campaign finance records performed by MapLight, a nonprofit group.