consultants are sandburs

Monday, May 22, 2017

Does any reader know, is Jon Ossoff's LSE Masters Thesis "on trade relations between the United States and China" online anywhere?

The thesis is mentioned online multiple places, e.g.,Wikipedia's Jon Ossoff entry.

Nobody seems to care enough about what the thesis said to have put it online, or am I wrong and it is online?

Perhaps Ossoff should post the document as a pdf on his campaign page. That would help inform the nation and the world on who he is, where he's been.

It appears a book review written and published online by LSE is his sole writing online. It is interesting as it stands with readers urged to follow this link. It appears he made no effort at publishing his thesis as a book; while being critical of the book he reviews as banal in part, better in other parts. Trade policy being a key issue, a hope would be some clarity. His issues page is what might be called circumspect.

He's a waffle on Single Payer at a time when waffleship on that defining issue may be unhelpful. In facing the runoff he has an opportunity to sharpen his positions. With national Dem money flowing in before the runoff to the tune of around eight million dollars, there must be something there the donors like, but it is difficult to discren beyond a hope at capturing a Congressional seat previously held by a Republican.

Not wanting to leave a suggestion that too many of Ossoff's policy positions are equivocal, it is important to flag what is not:

Jon will introduce legislation to reform campaign finance laws and reduce the toxic and corrupt impact of money in politics. He is opposed to the Citizens United decision allowing unchecked, anonymous money in politics.

While there is some suggestion that a Constitutional amendment may be necessary, legislation can constrain the reach of a bad thing. The unequivocal commitment is good. Also -

Jon will defend women’s access to contraception and a woman’s right to choose and fight any legislation or executive action that would allow insurance companies to discriminate against women.

Planned Parenthood provides essential preventative and reproductive health care services like cancer screenings, STD testing and low-cost birth control to millions of American women. Jon will defend Planned Parenthood in Congress.

Phrases missing from his issues page: "two states" and "wall street" which seem omissions of intent and not neglect.

He articulates no tax reform intent. The word "income" is used only once, the word "disparity" is absent, and "income" is mentioned apart from any disparity considerations. Those are disturbing things to see.

Then on the plus side:

Jon will oppose legislation or executive action that undermines Americans’ access to private communications and strong encryption.

A strong position on net neutrality would be welcome, but is absent at present. He posts:

Jon’s mother is an immigrant who became a small business owner, an American citizen, and a champion for women’s rights. America needs a strong border policy that protects American citizens and American jobs. We should welcome those strivers who, like our own forebears, seek the opportunity to work hard, play by the rules, and build better lives in America.

Jon believes it is a violation of core American principles to slander entire religious groups and that it’s unconstitutional to ban anyone from entering our country on religious grounds.

That is a clear stance on immigration, but it could be less circumspectly worded.

OpenSecrets info on PAC spending in Georgia's CD6 was not found per a cursory search. Interesting OpenSecrets pages:

Here, re Ossoff and others.

Here, re "Health Care Overhaul." Impediments to progress can be identified, top of list downward. Following the money is maddening, with McConnell and Hatch deserving "For Sale" tattoos on the forehead. Schumer and Wyden being high on the list is informative. Bipartisanship?

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Super waffle:

Jon will oppose unnecessary military intervention overseas and will only support the use of force where US national security is at stake.

From that you'd also expect wife beaters and child molesters would be disapproved; since "unnecessary" is as much a weasel word in that context as any, but he's compelled to want to please everybody by fudging to indeterminate obfuscation.

Does he favor goosing up the military-industrial budget, or lowering it? That statement is about as bad as it gets. It is an entirely content-challenged thing that might as well have been omitted. It is gratuitous and offensively so.

No comments: