consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Yes, but will it at all appear sincere.

This Reuters link.

Make of it what you will. To me it brings sadness. Absent something real, not platform stuff which is easily forgotten, it has a look of both premature capitulation, and sell-out. Waiting out the convention for any real news makes sense. But for now HOPE is as empty a word as it was over the last two presidential terms.

UPDATE: Two Wikipedia entries, with footnotes, here and here. Two other links, a policy interview, and an interesting Nation item from a few years back. Conscience is as conscience does. Progress comes, not surprisingly, from true progressives.

The BERN's burned out? Don't feel it no more. Do you? It's seeming more and more a we've been taken for a ride again feeling. Ashes are left blowing in the wind toward New Hampshire, and onward. There had better be something REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL at the Dem's convention, or else the bottom line remains: Dr. Stein surely has not endorsed any money taker with secret paid-for Wall Street transcripts in hiding. Dr. Stein is against war mongers. Dr. Stein wants corrupting money out of politics, not used for her advantage in politics.

This link. From the linked pdf item, the opening page:

click to read

Corrupting money: Here, and for me and probably others a surprise, here. Note that for those numbers opensecrets.org below the bar charts states:

METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, June 27, 2016.

_____________UPDATE______________
Interestingly, openecrets.org, here, in its blue background top banner states:

2016 Presidential Race

The contest to become the nation's 45th president is the first since 2008 in which there's no incumbent on the ballot. That historic election brought the U.S. its first black commander-in-chief. In 2016, American voters could elect the first female president, or a billionaire businessman.

What is left unsaid, both candidates to succeed a 1%'er are 1%'ers, a female millionaire of dubious wealth sources; and a male billionaire, also of dubious wealth sources (Trump vodka?), are the offerings of the two dominant parties.

It would be great to have our first female president. One with integrity. One worth our trust. Jill Stein.

That's a big rock some progressives might wish to try to push uphill; while others can comfortably watch the Bernie and Bill's Wife show. One wonders how close to two peas in a pod that might actually evolve.

No comments: