consultants are sandburs

Monday, May 08, 2017

May 21, days before Montana votes, the California Democratic Party will face a vote on a resolution that candidates of the party not take PAC or lobbyist money.

A video. Congressman Ro Khanna supports the pledge/resolution. He believes every Democrat running should take the pledge. He also has beliefs about interventionist war. In the video he specifically drops the May 21 date. Up front.


UPDATE: Another video. Is this guy wrong? If so, how?

Is there the stench of sameness to what Politico says the lady is about? Failed sameness? Stale? "Onward Together"? Huh?

Unclear from reporting, was there a red-white-and-blue balloon drop with a tacky background song blaring as a part of her announcement? Use same soundtrack, dub in "Onward" and wow. There it is.

And as the man in the video says, donor-this, donor-that, whose movement will "Onward Together" be? Who's to be together on this? A small staff, public input unmentioned, do the word search on the item. Donor input talks, others walk.

Once mentioned, "public spotlight" and not "public voice" or "public issue consensus." How else can you read it?

A bit of honesty, please. Call it "Big Money Donors Together," and then go somewhere obscure and fade away. Go count foundation money, it's still there, enjoy that, but, fade away. Please. Your hour's past.

The item mentions "her main goals" but what's that mean besides her, Chelsea, the Foundaiton? Worse scenario, "main goals" means another run for any public office anywhere. For her or for Chelsea. Or the son-in-law.

FURTHER: taking FOX/Hegseth to task for something arguably the same as the video mentioning and critiquing Onward Together, and the commentary added here about it. Let's think things through.

FOX/Hegseth in the newshound item makes no argument against corporatism and channeling donor cash/wishes into the driver's seat as if ever possible, recall the Bill Clinton presidency, and the direction the Democratic Party was taken then, as into a wilderness, not out.

It is admitted, newshound watches FOX bcause I will not, so this is second hand as a critique.

FOX/Hegseth merely gets snarky without getting to a heart of real criticism because FOX/Hegseth is comfortable with two parties each standing for the same control structure over the nation's people that has not been good for any but a few.

Clinton/Podesta do not want to give up. They are Tom Perez and Tom Perez is them.

Since the beginning of the first day Bill Clinton was in office to today, Obama's span included, healthcare for all as a right has not happened. Income disparity has widened. Students suffer greater debt loads and now Erik Prince's sister is about to try to kill public education. Through it all, Clinton tried here hand with Huma in Libya. There is evidence.

She failed to defeat Donald Trump. George W. Bush has seen his time and has faded away. That is in his favor.

The Clintons need to see their time and fade. Hanging on, hanging around helps nobody except the donor class she's served with six-figure speeches and a presidential run where no single populist/progressive thing was within her agenda; womens's health issues perhaps, but little care to boost a fifteen buck minimum wage when she stood atop a pile of millions of dollars.

Attained from nothing but being a career politician. She lacks an entrepreneurial grounding, as Gianforte in Montana at least has in his resume. Zippo that way and a ton of money so go figure who the Clintons really are.

Ms. Clinton should have the decency to fade away. Hegseth agreeing, for his reasons and with his motives aside, she should. That coincidence should not weaken the reasoning here about what is or is not an ongoing difficulty that can be avoided.

Onward Together, as a name in a historical context deserves mockery.

Other names were available. Choosing that one showed how tone deaf a person can be. For all we know, Robbie Mook might have suggested the name, Podesta saying yes, and so on.

LAST: In retrospect it was error to combine the Ro Khanna video info with the Onward Together stuff.

The idea of not taking corporate and lobbyist money is easy to juxtapose with the poster child for taking it, the more the better in being out of touch with much else, but -

Ro Khanna's message and approach is forward looking entirely, and not a retrospective complaint about anybody. Muddying up that fact was error. He has that as his personal policy and he has won election to Congress while remaining true to the stance.

The man deserves nothing but praise, independent of and apart from what others have done. Juxtaposition is easy but sometimes wrong and weakening something strong. Again, I admit I was in error.

No comments: