consultants are sandburs

Monday, May 22, 2017

While awaiting the Montana vote this Thursday, the rally Tom Perez neglected to attend. Biden too.

Start at min 40 for the tail end of the Elizabeth Warren intro by the union official who served as the Sanders Massachusetts campaign head in 2016. Before that much of the video touches local issues.

Somewhere in there once Warren has begun and progressed in talking, the future of the nation's young being the future of the nation seeps through so inescapably that Perez, had he been there, would have had an epiphany as if on the road to Damascus. But he was not and it is likely his eyes remain closed and his mood beholden. Yet presume he has a learning curve of some degree and that it presently hovers at a point aware that the real and cognizant grassroots are known as necessary for the Democratic Party to have a moral future. Or any future whatsoever.

You Don't Need an Oracle to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

No balloon drop. No Podesta participation. Back in his counting house or wherever. Write off Podesta and the lobbyists and beltway elites and do hope that Perez is not, ultimately, a Podesta at heart.

Putting faces and names into play helps. Which way does Ossoff face? After Montana, that will be the question.

____________UPDATE____________
There is unneeded confusion of where Elizabeth Warren is on healthcare, is she a Single Payer advocate, coverage for all as a right, or less? This undated item suggests a hedge. This is important because she's a potential 2020 presidential candidate, and would be a good one.

This video is interesting. In a townhall reported end of March, this year; i.e., prior to the Our Revolution rally noted as the primary focus of this post Warren said, "Yes," and explained the political reality of what Obama put together and got passed without saying it was all that was feasible with Dem majorities in both houses and Obama in the White House because of Dem foot-dragging because too many of the corporatist Dems were bought and owned by Big Pharma and Big Insurance. A majority of seats did not mean a majority to fix a crazy-bad system where special interests in the best reform would be rendered less special.

Watch that last linked video, and Warren is clear as to if the Republicans put it all on the table by being Paul Ryan clones up and down the line, then it's time to push single payer. This other short video buttresses the Warren position. It's time to move on it now, Paul Ryan handed over the chance to go the full hundred yards and score a touchdown. No better opportunity in the future is likely.

And this is why Jon Ossoff should not be allowed to do a straddle. On board or otherwise, but declare.

One thing the insurance discussion ignores, they get healthcare coming and going. Besides being temple gatekeepers at present, they also insure malpractice, and suck profits from both ends of things.

Without knowing the Canadian system on the malpractice question, a guess would be something similar to workman's comp exists to prevent the money waste from that end of things too.

That and a stronger way of pulling licenses to practice would be needed when bad actors now get priced out of practice by the insurers, so that there is no actual and effective public mechanism to police. Something sucking fewer dollars from the system would be needed to replace trial lawyer skill being the determinant of who continues in medicine and who is riffed.

Warren doing the Our Revolution rally in her home state with Bernie pretty much seals her as a supporter of Single Payer. Whether as a practical matter she'd go with improvements to the status quo short of that, if feasible, is a hypothetical so long as it seems the Democratic Party might be cajoled and primaried into no other policy posture, or not, for the 2018 elections. If the DC Dems believe they can dance "Trump's a disaster, our turn" and win without guts to go Single Payer, they will be gutless and stay bought since the present DC Dem view seems to define a viable candidate as one who can raise big money traditionally, not as Bernie and Quist have done, grassroots vs. big donor.

If Quist wins the Montana seat, and Ossoff declares strong on Single Payer and wins, the die may be cast. If Ossoff keeps a waffle stance and loses, will that trigger any unanimity? That's murky.

Last, what in the hell is Tom Perez up to? He's painfully clear on refusing to commit to single payer; and his DNC mandate is to take corporate money, so, what's his story and why is he not being pressed by the press to clarify? Why is he being cut so much slack?

_______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
The Clintons are polarizing figures, having channeled the Democratic Party wrongly in the 1990's into the minority status and policy failure it presently is. Republican-lite has not sold once the flavor was tasted and it was proven bad for one's health. That said, Young Turks have published a video critique of a Warran tweet [really Twitter is the devils work if anybody takes it seriously], with that tweet voicing support of a kind toward the Hillary Onward Together PAC stuff. Warrem might better have been silent toward it as Bernie is, but Jeeze, it's only a dumb tweet and to some the big sin is using Twitter at all for anything instead of being substantial.

Make of it what you will. It can be seen as Warren not unnecessarily making enemies, and saying it is being done, there is no law against it, and if it adds votes on organizing a majority in either house, bless it. Similar to the feeling here toward the Ossoff candidacy. It can help. In ways, Young Turks notice this, it can hurt.

But grassroots litmus tests this early are counterproductive. Warren stands up and gives her voice as she does. A tweet not unfavorable toward the Clinton spouses is not earth shaking from a Democatic Senator in the same party. Bernie, as an Independent caucusing with the Dems can more easily stay silent. Clinton saying womens' issues will be a main focus of her PAC money, wherever raised, cannot be viewed as a thing where Warren would say the stated aims are not important to her.

As noted in the video, at the start, Warren's commentary highlighted the aims of support of the Hillary still-on-PAC-money thing; and Hiam Saban being mentioned as a start-up fundraising dinner factor (the Young Turks commentator properly flags the Saban spouses as the force that slandered Keith Ellison during DNC Inner Party voting days), that part of the video is extremely appropriate. Deserving a capital letters BRAVO. See this websearch. If the first fat cat donor the Clintons turn to in attempting to stay relevant is Saban, that is a credibility point to weigh in weighing the PAC itself, and the Clintons. They are unsavory and best fading away, which they by their inner natures, decline to do.

No comments: