consultants are sandburs

Thursday, February 09, 2017

New York Times is selling stale bread.

Don't want David Brock.

Don't want Susie Tompkins Buell.

Unless they'd be good, well behaved passengers in the car driven by progressives. And that means no millionaire/billionaire money accepted, no corporate money accepted.

Don't want Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, except staying in Chicago. We had enough Mayor Daley in '68. Don't want Rahm in any way, shape, or form other than, "Stay there!" His stuff is not - never has been - progressive. As much a bully as Daley in '68. Bye, Rahm, Rham, however you spell it.

This NYT link. Those are stale goods. Starting to mold. To fester, unless they Phoenix from their ashes to be helpful. Otherwise, stand aside.

Contribute, it is how winning will work. But contribute to Justice Democrats. Contribute to Our Revolution. Let the Clintons and their minions work their own things out. Bubba can have more lunches with Blankfein for all anyone cares. Fact is, Blankfein does not need Bubba. Will take him to lunch, will not consider him a sound investment, hopefully. We always need HOPE, don't we?

Broom time. Those who can adapt to progessives in leadership with an agenda for the people will be allowed in; it's not a closed tent; but ownership of the tent will have to be worked out by who gets the money from grassroots, because who gets that gets the votes.

The entrenched Dems in the south - they were a MAJOR BIG PROBLEM in the Clinton cramdown disaster. They have a disproportionate party voice in candidate selection; while their states deliver electoral votes Republican. They need to learn and reform, or be bypassed. Ellison can work with them. They'd rather Perez, and surly surely Perez would work with them; but that would be death to any national ticket hopes. L-E-A-R-N. [Caught a freudian slip there, by proofreading]

It's evolution or extinction time. The DNC will either reform to where the money goes to the hustings instead of the beltway, or the party will sink into deeper doldrums. And the spoils. There will be none, Perez-wise, and that's the end of the story.

MINNESOTA: Whichever Dem Gov hopeful will run as a Justice Democrat will have my full backing. Less, fend without me.

UPDATE: Had enough second rate. Will fully support first rate. Second rate or less; good luck, but not my dog in any hunt. That's what being a progressive INDEPENDENT means. Not married to the party; not seeking after any of any spoils; so not willing to grin and bear it. That's for the spoils seekers, bless their souls.

The reform of the Democratic Party may take many election cycles. It may not happen in my remaining lifetime. But compromise over a few more disastrous outcomes - eight insteand of four Trump years; eight of Pence after that; whatever it takes, hold out for it, without compromise. The compromise can only be in allowing openness in a progressive party; not progressive rump status in any version of the corrupt status quo. The insult of Clinton spouses becoming multimillionaires as a pair of politicians on the take does not inspire, not one iota, so reform or die in pepetual minority party status; which does mean Republican abuses will have to be suffered; but imposed by actual Republicans; not Repubican-lite folks calling themselves Democrats. Gotta, gotta end.

FURTHER: Readers, by comment, help on that "David Brock" and "Susie Tompkins Buell" pair, trotted out by NYT as pundits to honor; are they not the brand of DNC consultants that sucked money out of the DNC that should have been used to help the hustings? Are they not brigands? And, are they not embracing Tom Perez for DNC chair? ANSWER: A websearch on each: Here for Tompkins Buell, and Here for Brock. Neither appears to be taking fees out of the DNC, not in that band of counterproductive hustlers. Apparently. Whether the DNC budget is public and how DNC money has been spent has NOT been researched before posing that question. Each of that pair appears to head fund-raising political influence efforts, without being obviously ill-motivated. HOWEVER: If inclined to contribute for real change, look to candidates running to reform, not to ancillary operatives who arguably misdirect money from those where the money would be most effective; the candidates and their campaigns. REMEMBER: Ancillary money talking is the heart of the Citizens United shame in the nation, so avoid temptation away from direct contributions to candidacies, or to Our Revolution and Justice Democrats, which beyond doubt have progressive aims ONLY.

That is said knowing a strong family liking exists for League of Conservation Voters. However, family members can hold strong beliefs that are close but not congruent. Financial progressivism - take care of the people first for justice and reform - other issues second, is but one viewpoint, and clearly so; and is the viewpoint suggested as wisest, here. The overlap of progressives and environmentalists is great, as is the overlap of Trump Republicans and coal, Big Pharma, military and mining interests. There are nuances in any politics, but some generalities need voicing, with nuance being an unstated but understood predicate. The generality here, reform the Democratic Party, from within if feasible, from outside as needed, has been consistently advocated. And that closed primaries and superdelegate "loading the dice" are counterproductive evils.

For readers inclined toward "what ifs" consider the Bobby Kennedy assassination. More a drag than John Kennedy's assassination, a chance at better snuffed out with Nixon being handed a sad nation being the story of perhaps our greatest national tragedy, Reagan and Trump being less tragic? And the piling on that McGovern suffered by party and institutional press hacks, which included the genesis of superdelegate stiffling of popular voices; all that was a part of the Bobby Kennedy assassination's full playing out. The mood of '68 did not die a natural death. It was brutally murdered. As brutal an affront as the Kent State and Jackson State unprosecuted murders of young people only wanting a decent and fair nation. That opening linked item - Schumer actually believed, apparently, that young people would buy into the Clinton big lie. At any rate, he said so. Let us hope it was out of wrong belief, too much beltway and Wall Street; and not a willful deceit that failed to sell.

No comments: