AOC: The Democratic Party Is Center-Right

[Frank Underwood]

 

[Michael Torrance]

She is absolutely right. But that is also the reason why someone like Sanders did not get the nomination in 2016, and I doubt he will get it in 2020. It is not because some Illuminati in the party are pulling strings to block him, but because he does not have the party members' votes.

 

[Frank Underwood]

She is absolutely right. But that is also the reason why someone like Sanders did not get the nomination in 2016, and I doubt he will get it in 2020. It is not because some Illuminati in the party are pulling strings to block him, but because he does not have the party members' votes.

The hacked DNC emails were definitive proof that there's operatives in the party pulling strings to block him. The media also viciously attacks him far more than any other candidate.

If the Democratic base was indeed center right, why do Bernie's policies currently have mainstream support? And what about the victories of people like "the squad" and Ro Khanna?

CNN put out a poll today that had Sanders in the lead at 27% . The Democratic establishment caters to corporate and militaristic interests, but that doesn't mean the base is with them. Obama understood this in 2008 and exploited it to his benefit. He knew people wanted change after eight years of Bush, and Hillary was the perfect foil for him because she's the poster child for the status quo. Obama promised bold change from a lefty point of view, and won handily. The way he governed was a different story, of course, but he knew what to say to win.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The hacked DNC emails were definitive proof that there's operatives in the party pulling strings to block him. The media also viciously attacks him far more than any other candidate.

If the Democratic base was indeed center right, why do Bernie's policies currently have mainstream support? And what about the victories of people like "the squad" and Ro Khanna?

CNN put out a poll today that had Sanders in the lead at 27% . The Democratic establishment caters to corporate and militaristic interests, but that doesn't mean the base is with them. Obama understood this in 2008 and exploited it to his benefit. He knew people wanted change after eight years of Bush, and Hillary was the perfect foil for him because she's the poster child for the status quo. Obama promised bold change from a lefty point of view, and won handily. The way he governed was a different story, of course, but he knew what to say to win.

I do tend to think , however, that Obama went in sincerely --- that's my instinct. But was cowed by the structural opposition.

Executed journalist Michael Hastings, much reviled by the press corps, even upon his death, for actually doing his job, described Obama as "naïve" and "very intimidated" by the generals and Joint Chiefs.

Now, of course, he's just smug and flushed with status. I used to like Michelle. Now I don't at all.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I do tend to think , however, that Obama went in sincerely --- that's my instinct. But was cowed by the structural opposition.

Executed journalist Michael Hastings, much reviled by the press corps, even upon his death, for actually doing his job, described Obama as "naïve" and "very intimidated" by the generals and Joint Chiefs.

Now, of course, he's just smug and flushed with status. I used to like Michelle. Now I don't at all.

He may have went in sincerely, but it's become increasingly difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt because he's so smug and flushed with status these days.

All of Obama's former operatives hate Bernie, and it came out today that Obama is considering attacking Bernie publicly. Obama and Hillary would rather sabotage Bernie and reelect Trump than have a progressive come in and lay waste to their neoliberal legacy. Obama's dismissive attitude towards the progressive agenda he once championed is an absolute betrayal.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Yes, and for all of Trump's bombastic, faux-orange flatulence, he's really just another rich-man's president posturing as a populist, and we've had that many, many times.

And they quietly vote for his policies while impeaching him, albeit for good reason, endlessly.

But Bernie is the potential agent of change they revile, and the one Obama wanted to be but, for the most part, failed at.

 

[Frank Underwood]

She is absolutely right. But that is also the reason why someone like Sanders did not get the nomination in 2016, and I doubt he will get it in 2020. It is not because some Illuminati in the party are pulling strings to block him, but because he does not have the party members' votes.

"A Who's-Who" of People Against Progressive Agenda: DNC's Perez Under Fire for Convention Committee Picks
Former Congressman Barney Frank, who wrote a 2015 op-ed entitled "Why Progressives Shouldn't Support Bernie," is among those nominated.

Progressives raised alarm this weekend after Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez released his picks for the 2020 Democratic National Convention committees.

The list of nominees, Sunrise Movement political director Evan Weber said Sunday, looks like "a who's-who of people explicitly opposed to the progressive agenda."

Kevin Gosztola, managing editor of Shadowproof, sparked a flurry of responses when he shared Perez's list on social media Saturday afternoon.

Gosztola's Twitter thread delved into the backgrounds of a number of candidates, including Bakari Sellers, who's nominated to sit on the Platform Committee.

"Sellers drafted letter and spearheaded effort in 2016 to ensure the DNC platform did not adopt language Bernie Sanders supported, which would've acknowledged responsibility to confront humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians in Gaza," Gosztola added.

Gosztola wasn't alone in criticizing Sellers's placement on the list.

Carol Browner was on the list for the Platform Committee as well. Browner, as "a Clinton delegate, during the 2016 Platform Drafting Committee meeting, voted against a ban on fracking, Medicare For All, opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), keeping fossil fuels in ground, and measure to halt abuse of eminent domain by fossil fuel industry," wrote Gosztola.

Perez also nominated former Congressman Barney Frank to be co-chair of the Rules Committee.

Frank, as Gosztola pointed out, has argued against the Green New Deal and sits on the board of directors of Signature Bank in New York, which a New York Times report showed "was a go-to lender for President Donald Trump's family, as well as Jared Kushner's family." Frank also penned a 2015 Politico op-ed entitled "Why Progressives Shouldn't Support Bernie."

Political analyst Lauren Martinchek, in a Sunday post on Medium, also highlighted concerns with Perez's list. She wrote:

"Even more controversial and dangerous than Barney Frank is John Podesta, also on the Rules Committee, who said in the infamous leaked DNC emails that they needed to make sure Bernie is 'ground to a pulp,' and asked 'where would you stick the knife in?' If this process was even remotely designed to be fair, this man would not be allowed anywhere near this convention.

Another incredibly questionable choice is Alex Padilla, Vice-chair of the Platform Committee. Padilla gained notoriety for refusing to count 2 million votes in the 2016 California primary, a move that undeniably favored Clinton and handed a massive disadvantage to the Sanders campaign. He was sued for this."

Win Without War executive director Stephen Miles and Sanders foreign policy advisor Matt Duss suggested the list shows that the DNC is out of touch with its base.

The list of Perez's nominees, Andrew Cockburn, Washington editor of Harper's Magazine, wrote Sunday on Twitter, represents "The true, grim, face of the Democratic establishment."

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ssive-agenda-dncs-perez-under-fire-convention

Hillary was asked in November if she would support the Democratic nominee 100%. She said "Yeah, cause I think I know who they're likely to be" She then let out her infamous, creepy cackle. The interviewer then asked her who she thought it would be, and she replied by saying "I'm not gonna go there." I suppose it's a coincidence that Perez put her operatives in charge.

 

[Michael Torrance]

If Hillary Clinton and some shady operatives had such unlimited power, she would already have been the nominee in 2008.

 

[Frank Underwood]

If Hillary Clinton and some shady operatives had such unlimited power, she would already have been the nominee in 2008.

Or maybe she learned from that loss and decided to never let it happen again. This is the second election cycle where the DNC has actively worked to undermine the progressive in the race.

Here's an interesting article on just how Hillary took over the DNC in 2016: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

 

[Frank Underwood]

Bernie Sanders Campaign Co-Chair Nina Turner: DNC Should Be “Ashamed”

 

[Frank Underwood]

The Dem establishment is pissed off at AOC for saying the party is center right. Perhaps they should be pissed off at themselves for proving her right.

DNC Stacks Convention Committees w/ Corporate Bernie Haters

DNC Caught Attempting To Sabotage Bernie Sanders

 

[Frank Underwood]

She is absolutely right. But that is also the reason why someone like Sanders did not get the nomination in 2016, and I doubt he will get it in 2020. It is not because some Illuminati in the party are pulling strings to block him, but because he does not have the party members' votes.

Once again:

DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.

DES MOINES, Iowa — A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

“I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well,” one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules.

Owen, who declined to identify the member, said the member added in a text that “It would be hard though. We could force a meeting or on the floor.”

Even proponents of the change acknowledge it is all but certain not to gain enough support to move past these initial conversations. But the talks reveal the extent of angst that many establishment Democrats are feeling on the eve of the Iowa caucuses.

Sanders is surging and Joe Biden has maintained his lead nationally, but at least three other candidates are widely seen as viable. The cluster raises the specter of a convention requiring a second ballot.

If Sanders wins the Iowa caucuses on Monday and continues to gain momentum, it is possible he could arrive at the convention with the most delegates — but without enough to win the nomination on the first ballot. It is also possible that he and Elizabeth Warren, a fellow progressive, could arrive at the convention in second and third place, but with more delegates combined than the frontrunner.

If, on the second ballot, superdelegates were to throw their support to someone else, tipping the scales, many moderate Democrats fear the upheaval that would cause could weaken the eventual nominee.

Conversations about a potential rules change picked up as Sanders ascended in the primary, but they have not gained traction to this point within the DNC.

“There’s talk about somehow trying to change this rule at this convention — just casual conversation, and I have participated in it some,” said Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman from South Carolina who opposed the DNC’s decision in 2018 to strip superdelegates of much of their power in the presidential nominating process. “But I want to be clear that I would not be a party to any effort to do that in the 2020 convention … It’s bad sportsmanship.”

Fowler said, “I think it would be not in good faith if those of us who lost that fight in committee would somehow regenerate that fight in a national convention.” If they did, he said it would result in “the most hellacious fight you’ve ever seen at the Democratic convention.”

Fowler declined to identify members participating in the conversations, and the DNC itself dismissed the idea.

"[DNC Chairman] Tom Perez fought tooth and nail to ensure our nominee would be chosen by pledged delegates, not automatic delegates,” David Bergstein, a DNC spokesman, said in an email. “The DNC passed these reforms unanimously. These rules make our party stronger and help ensure our eventual nominee has the full support of the party behind them."

The decision to relegate superdelegates — now called “automatic delegates” — to the second ballot in a contested convention consumed the DNC for nearly two years after the 2016 election. Superdelegates overwhelmingly sided with Hillary Clinton, infuriating Sanders’ supporters.

The rule change was widely viewed as a major victory for the Democratic Party’s left flank. At the time, Perez called the delegate overhaul “historic,” while progressive Democrats and many moderates lauded its appeal to young voters skeptical of centralized party power.

One DNC member who has advocated for the change in discussions with other members described the effort this week as an “uphill battle.”

But the member, who declined to be identified, said the convention body is the “ultimate authority of the party, so the convention body can do anything they want to.”

He added, “We haven’t had the first vote in the primary yet. Let’s see how the panic sets in as this thing progresses.”

More likely is a bid to rewrite the rules after the convention in Milwaukee — not for this year’s nominating contest, but for 2024.

Fowler said that “there’s a great anticipation that after this convention, there will be an effort to adopt the old rules … There are a lot of people who are interested in that.”

Following the publication of this report, Perez responded on Twitter: "Absolutely not. We put in the work to ensure power was returned to the grassroots, we will be following the rules set forth by the DNC. We will not bend on this, we will not change our rules."

And Sanders senior adviser Jeff Weaver, citing the party's "multiyear process to reform the nominating contest," said in a text message that "trying to undo those reforms would be a serious mistake.”

Even many vocal opponents of the move to dilute the power of superdelegates after 2016 aren't interested in revisiting the decision.

“My side, including me, we lost the debate,” said Donna Brazile, a former DNC chairwoman who sits on the body’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. “I don’t believe it’s wise to re-open a wound once it has healed.”

By 2024, she said, the rules will once again be “fair game, just like it was” after the 2016 presidential election. “But right now, we should be comfortable with the process,” she said.

Owen, who also opposed reducing superdelegates’ influence, said Friday that any rule change now would constitute a “slap in the face to the people who voted to change it.”

“I want our team to win,” he said. “And the way a team wins is through unity, not through division.”

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083

 

[Frank Underwood]

 

[Michael Torrance]

If he has the delegates, there is nothing anyone can do. If he doesn't, I am sure his supporters will find a million excuses for it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

If he has the delegates, there is nothing anyone can do. If he doesn't, I am sure his supporters will find a million excuses for it.

While others suggest Sanders isn't liked by the Democratic base, despite him leading, and ignore all of the blatant examples of the DNC trying to sabotage him.

After all, they cease to be excuses when you bring the receipts, and I've brought many. Here's another to add to the pile:

The DNC was sued for favoring Clinton in the 2016 primaries. The suit was thrown out, but not before a DNC lawyer told the court "If you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."

Last I checked, rules are meaningless when you don't have to abide by them.

 

[Michael Torrance]

While others suggest Sanders isn't liked by the Democratic base, despite him leading, and ignore all of the blatant examples of the DNC trying to sabotage him.

After all, they cease to be excuses when you bring the receipts, and I've brought many. Here's another to add to the pile:

The DNC was sued for favoring Clinton in the 2016 primaries. The suit was thrown out,

 

[Frank Underwood]

It was thrown out for being outside the purview of the federal courts. Either way, it's rather telling that you left off what the lawyer said since it proves their "rules" are voluntary.

Also, the judge said “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent." An easy assumption to make, of course, after seeing the DNC's emails and hearing from the DNC's lawyer.

Could Sanders have lost legitimately in 2016, and can he lose legitimately now? Of course. I just think it's incredibly delusional to believe the DNC isn't pulling strings to block him, regardless of whether they're effective or not. There's just too many examples to cite for it to be the ramblings of Sanders supporters. Now that he's surging, the meddling has begun again.

You can't expect the DNC to receive none of the blame when they pull shit like this.

 

[Frank Underwood]

AOC rode into Congress as a populist reformer who wasn't afraid to stand up to the leadership of her own party. Now she's calling Nancy Pelosi the "mama bear" of the Democratic Party.

When AOC said we don't have a left party in the US and that the Democratic Party is center-right, it was meant as a critique. These days, it seems AOC has chosen to embrace that.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

As it turns out, AOC voted against the bailout bill.

 

[Zable]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, that "bailout bill" that is doling out more than 2 trillion USD is the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief & Economic Security) Act.

Let's not lose sight that it's an umbrella piece of legislation, bringing together legislation for various areas of concern in this pandemic era under a specific banner; among them:
1. COVID-19 Pandemic Education Relief Act of 2020;
2. Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act;
3. Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act of 2020;
4. Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Health Response & Agency Operations;
5. Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act;
So the 2 trillion dollar stimulus package is being shared among all these groupings.

The CARES Act gets its name from the Senate bill, which when it was first introduced by the House was known as the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal bill 2019. The intention then was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage".

What I've noticed about AOC's and Bernie Sanders' voting records is that AOC is more likely to vote against a bill if there is just one thing in it she doesn't like/opposes even if she is supportive of other parts; while Sanders is more likely to do the opposite.

I think The Intercept has a misplaced sense of priorities (not to mention language): "It's a scandal that we don't know who supported the coronavirus bailout," one of its headlines screamed. ....It was a socially-distant by voice-vote, very prudent in this stay-in-shelter pandemic times. I presume the vote count determination was done by tallying the responses at least. Truly, how scandalous will it be if the public should never get to see the name behind each vote?

Some folk were speculating about behind the scenes tension over the final bill because no Democrat was present when Prez Trump signed the bill into law with key members of his inner-circle present. I'm not losing sleep over it. Maybe, like the reason for the by voice vote, no Dem cares to be out-of-shelter at this time.

My eyes are now on CARES 2, officially Phase 4 of the pandemic relief roll-out, which some among POLITICO's contributors have taken to calling Phase 3.5.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/pelosi-phase-4-coronavirus-relief-package-163072