Controversial DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz To Face Progressive Tim Canova In An August Primary

Yves. Oh frabjous day! Tim Canova, who is challenging the rancid Debbie Wasserman Schultz. is a really good guy. I saw him give a speech years ago at the Roosevelt Institute on a paper he’d written on a chapter of Fed history that is never discussed, World War II, no doubt because, for a brief time, the central bank was democratically accountable. Canova summarized his argument in the American Prospect in The Federal Reserve We Need.

Let everyone you know in Florida know about this campaign. Even if they aren’t voters in the 23rd Congressional district, they may have friends and colleagues who are.

By DownWithTyranny. Cross posted from DownWithTyranny

Missing

An Axis of Evil inside the Democratic Party is suddenly on the defensive. Steve Israel was forced to announce an early retirement for reasons that are still murky. Rahm Emanuel can barely show his face in Chicago and, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, all his cronies and allies are jumping off that sinking ship. And now it’s looking like Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s rotten self-serving career is finally catching up with her. As we mentioned, Tuesday, Roots Action has a petition drive to force her out of the DNC— with over 30,000 signatures already. And then yesterday, CREDO launched another petition drive to get her out of a position she never should have been in in the first place. I don’t like signing petitions but I eagerly signed both of these. The Democratic Party will never be a force for real progressive change with careerist power mongers like Steve Israel, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer controlling it.

>When we rooted her out of the DCCC “Red to Blue” program in 2008– after she sabotaged 3 south Florida Democratic candidates to help her right-wing Republican amigos, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart– she wormed her way back into power, with a big assist from Emanuel, and wound up as head of the DNC, a catastrophe for the Democratic Party, Getting her out of that position would be an absolute mitzvah… but getting her out of Congress would mean a lot more.

She’s an influential member of the Wall Street-owned New Dem caucus and is a constant pull on the Democrats in a rightward direction. Oh, don’t get me wrong… Debbie’s fine on certain issues: women’s issues, LGBT issues, gun issues… but anything that involves economics, watch out. There aren’t that many Democrats as transactional as Debbie Wasserman Schultz when it comes to serving the interests of the wealthy people who have financed her political rise, from the sugar barons and private prison industry to the alcohol distillers. In fact, her destructive jihad against legalizing medical marijuana directly serves the bottom line interests of both the private prison industry and the booze-pushers. Point is, petitions may help, but voting her out of office is the ultimate solution. And that’s where Tim Canova comes in. An attorney and professor at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law, he declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Florida’s 23rd congressional district, the district Wasserman Schultz originally drew for herself when she was in the state legislature.

>canova-timothyWasserman Schultz’s support for the dysfunctional corporate trade agreements like TPP very much motivated Canova to make the difficult decision to take on one of the House’s most vicious gutter fighters. “People are just tired of being sold out by calculating and triangulating politicians,” told us back in October when he was thinking about running. “Wasserman Schultz has become the ultimate machine politician. While she stakes out liberal positions on culture war issues, when it comes to economic and social issues, she’s too often with the corporate elites. On too many crucial issues– from fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the war on drugs and medical marijuana and mass incarceration, to her support for budget sequestrations and austerity– Wasserman Schultz votes down the line with big corporate interests and cartels: Wall Street banks and hedge funds, Big Pharma, the private health insurers, private prisons, Monsanto, it goes on and on.”

He’s been fleshing out his points about the powerful congresswoman, who most people in the district know very little about: “It’s easy to say you’re for doing something about climate change and the environment, for pay equity, raising the minimum wage, or getting money out of politics, but it’s mostly just talk when you’re taking so much corporate money at the same time. That’s why the TPP is so insidious. It will shift the costs of environmental protection, health and safety and labor standards from corporate wrongdoers and wealthy investors to the taxpayers who have been taking it on the chin for so long. In many ways, Wasserman Schultz no longer has a choice. She’s become an establishment machine politician who has to turn her back on taxpayers, working folks, students and the elderly poor, unfortunately it’s all to line the pockets of the same corporate interests that are funding her campaigns. In today’s politics, the worst have no convictions, which may explain all their flip-flops on big issues, from Hillary Clinton on Keystone Pipeline to Wasserman Schultz’s indecision on the agreement with Iran. After playing Hamlet for weeks and blocking a DNC resolution, she finally came around to support the Iran agreement, but only when it became pretty clear she would have lost her post as DNC chair, a message apparently delivered in person by vice president Biden. It must be exhausting to have to constantly answer to wealthy campaign donors and corporate lobbyists when making these decisions.”

Blue America has endorsed Tim– we’ve been vetting him since September, so this isn’t a snap decision just because he’s running against an odious opponent. Please help us get his campaign underway. Wasserman Schultz is loaded with establishment and special interest corporate cash and Tim will be depending on the resources of people who want to see this become a better and more equitable society. You can contribute to the Tim Canova For Congress campaign here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

CYIJmIvUQAAf5q7

Print Friendly
Tweet about this on Twitter0Digg thisShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Google+21Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

65 comments

  1. jgordon

    women’s issues, LGBT issues, gun issues… but anything that involves economics

    This is important. Initially I started out not having much of an opinion on LGBT and women’s issues. However, the more I saw corrupt neoliberal politicians advocating for these issues (wasn’t Obama trying to make Lloyd Blankfein the ambassador for LGBT issues or something a couple of years ago?) the more I started associating them with corruption and evil.

    This isn’t rational at all, but whenever I see HRC or Obama advocating for some particular culture war issue, the more I despise the groups and causes they’re advocating for and the more I want to fight against them. Why aren’t these people in the LGBT and women communities vocally and continually disowning these corrupt politicians? It’s like having a serial killer come out in support of you.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      These pols have played very successfully on out-groups’ fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. That is particularly true with gay men, who outside a handful of big cities, face open discrimination and risk of physical harm.

      1. jgordon

        I understand that, but there is something in psychology called “shared distinctiveness”. LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head. As I said that’s not a rational process, but it’s real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they’re in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them.

        1. willf

          The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they’re in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them.

          Okay, but do you immediately think of the corrupt politicians when you look at car dealers, bank financiers, policemen, sports team owners, or any member of the armed forces?

        2. DJG

          I think that you will have to do some mental house-cleaning here. It sounds as if you are seriously disposed toward dismissing the complaints of LGBT people and women anyway. So you want to hang it on some business of “corruption burshes off on them,” as if LGBT people hadn’t been charged throughout history with being agents of corruption. (Kind of like Jews and poisoning wells: Ever hear of that?)

          At least you didn’t write, “But I have black friends.”

          It is one thing to have a problem with tactics–and there are plenty of dissidents among women and among gayfolk who don’t buy into the corporate Democrats. All you have to do is go to Michelangelo Signorile’s site and follow his analysis of the feckless Human Rights Campaign. You might also try reading Roxane Gay’s essays. Try following the careers of the BLM founders or Deray McKesson. There’s the ACLU. There’s Urvashi Vaid. And a fair portion of the leadership in the struggle against Rahm comes from women, gays, blacks, and Hispanics. There’s the indomitable Karen Lewis, the teachers union president (who also happens to be Jewish).

          But it is another thing not understand the history of discrimination and oppression in the USA. Gloria Steinem has a new book out. Sure, she’s persuaded herself that Hillary Clinton is acceptable. Try reading about Steinem’s other positions and the coalitions that she is involved in.

          In short, I’m not buying into the validity of a politics of resentment, which is what you advocate. That’s Tea Party Lite.

          1. DJG

            For your mental-housecleaning needs:

            Gay history:
            Angels in America. Rent the version directed by Mike Nichols. Tony Kushner is a leading leftist.

            Big Sex, Little Death by Susie Bright.

            My Father and Myself, by J.R. Ackersley. Living in the U.K. when sexuality is illegal. If you can find the book, which may be long out of print.

            Current ideas about acceptance:
            It’s Not Over by Michelangelo Signorile.

            Fresh ideas about feminism.
            Bad Feminist, by Roxane Gay.

          2. jgordon

            I have black friends… Hmph, like I would say something like that.

            In fact, I do know gay people, but I’m not friends with them and I don’t particularly like being around them. I don’t have anything against them and don’t want to know anything or want to know anything about what they are doing. I also think they should be able to get married or do whatever else they want to do together. I simply don’t care. Why am I supposed to care? It offends me that someone else is telling me that I should care about something that I don’t and won’t care about.

            That said, I am willing to support gay right in an alliance if they’re willing to support ending all the wars, ending illegal government spying, ending the murderous drone programs, etc. But often enough they aren’t. A lot of these people want respect for being super involved in their only little social issues, and are utterly oblivious when I mention drone murders and illegal wars. Then they’re offended when I inform them that I don’t give a crap about what they’re worried about. Well I’m offended that they’re so ignorant and self absorbed! Like I’m going to work with this kind of person on any sort of issue at all.

            1. Praedor

              You and me both. You spoke my own thoughts on the subject. The LGBTers are like too many rank-and-file Democraps: they vote for the odious corporate scumbag the party has pushed front-and-center because they certainly wont vote for the GOPer…so they choose a GOPer with a “D” next to their name instead. This crap is why the Democrap Party wont change: they have gotten too many people and interest groups believing they are actually a real and better alternative to the GOP opponent and that there’s just no other way.

              Bullcrap. You do NOT vote for the establishment politician. You keep doing this expecting things to change but they don’t and wont. What you get with the establishment criminal is pure business as usual. Corporations and the rich gain more power and wealth and you slide by the wayside and get to see your future Social Security, healthcare, etc, die a slow corporate death on Wall Street.

              I will NOT go along with the LGBTers until they actually start supporting the right candidates and go beyond single-issue politics. Same with too many “Dem” women. They want Hillary because she’s a woman! A DEM woman so, natch, she MUST be great. Except we know for a fact she is not. If Margaret Thatcher were to become an American citizen, run for Senate with a “D” next to her name, these same assclowns would vote for HER simply because she’s a woman with a “D” next to her name…so she MUST be good. Right?

              NO! THEY’RE ALL REPUBLICANS. They ARE the robber barons and bankster fellators. They are business as usual, meaning more privatization, less public good, more private profit, more commoditization of EVERYTHING including wildlife, life itself, the elderly, the young, workers, etc.

      2. jgordon

        Well, anyway–I think these marginalized groups collectively are making a big mistake by allowing these politicians to use them. These people that vote according to their pet social issues, while ignoring things like war, civil liberties, and economics–I have no issue with their cause, but I despise them for thinking that I should care about their pet issues when they’re totally willing to throw the stuff I care about under the bus. Not that all are like that, but plenty are.

        1. different clue

          Maybe they despise you for thinking they should care about your pet issues when you’re totally willing to throw the stuff they care about under the bus.

        2. Angelofclay

          civil liberties, and economics are at the very core of the LGBT movement. It is your need to separate yourself, instead of finding common ground that dose the greatest damage. A PEOPLE UNITDED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED Your divisive attitude wil;l be our undoing.

          1. Praedor

            Then they CANNOT vote for Hillary or any self-same candidate because the “economics” aren’t there with Hillary…unless you have a large 1%er-style stock portfolio, a home in the Hamptons, an offshore bank account or two, own a vacation home in a tax dodge country, and own a Lexus.

          2. Semper Fi

            Someone fed you a BIG line! Civil liberties and economics is not at all the core of the LGBT movement! Their movement is their OWN liberty and the hell with any other civil liberty. They have NO interest in working something out together with people who are not members of their little 5% community and they could care less about any minority group that doesn’t fit in their 5%. It isn’t his divisive attitude, it’s theirs! And quite frankly, it’s people like you accusing people like him when you have no clue what you’re talking about. THEY were divisive! Their common ground is whatever THEY want and to hell with everyone else. I know what I’m talking about because many years ago we reached out to them and tried working with the LGBT group, banding together, getting minority groups together so we have a stronger punch for civil liberty (even though their issue isn’t a civil liberty issue). They pretty much told us where to go and what to do on the way. Funny thing about that civil liberty. A civil liberty covers race, sex (male or female not who you have sex with), age, religion. LGBT says it’s civil liberty, but it isn’t! It has nothing to do with civil liberty! I’m with JGordon. After what we went through with them, I don’t care about their issues, don’t want to know about their issues, and I’m not going to help with their issues. Mine are covered by law, screw them and their self centered narcissistic problems. Divided they failed, WE didn’t!

    2. Uahsenaa

      Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, “middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace,” which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer).

      bell hooks, on the other hand, doesn’t mince words at all, when she shows how questions of racial and gender oppression are expressly linked to economics/class and militarism. You can’t tackle any of them without tackling all of them, so the DCCC’s take that you can be liberal on “social” issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        I wouldn’t even say Team Blue is there. Pelosi and other prominent Team Blue women held a mock panel to get to the bottom of why Rush Limbaugh was mean to a Georgetown Law school student who was photogenic. This has been the sum total of Team Blue’s defense of feminism since GDub except to cynically conclude young women will rush to Team Blue because Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008.

        1. Uahsenaa

          Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can’t even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave.

          That said, I’ve noticed a denigrating tone directed toward what gets labeled as “identity politics” of late, and I just wanted to make clear that current proponents of things like critical race theory and what have you are more in line with the NC commentariat than I think people give them credit for.

      2. polecat

        Lets NEVER forget “taking impeachment of the table” & “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”

        1. different clue

          I was going to mention that myself. Pelosi is still the most hateful woman in America to me.
          If Wassershcultz can be deleted from office, lets hope an effort can be made to delete Pelosi next. If only to expose yet again the broad scope of her Limousine Liberal Shit-heel support base.

    3. PlutoniumKun

      Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. Here in Ireland the Irish Labour party, in coalition with a centre right party, used up every bit of political credit they had to push for gay marriage. Like most people I was very happy it was legalised, but they were patting themselves on the back for this while simultaneously supporting vicious austerity.

      Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I’ve met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor.

      1. wbgonne

        Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious.

        I think the explanation is quite simple, at least in the U.S. (which has effectively exported its political dysfunction to other developed democracies). When the Washington Consenusus formed around corporatism (neoliberalism for the Democrats, conservatism/economic libertarianism for the Republicans), there was no longer meaningful economic distinction between the parties. So culture war/identity politics issues are all that remain for brand differentiation. Obama’s recent Academy Award performance on guns is a harbinger of how the Democrats will run in 2016 if Clinton is the nominee. Plus Planned Parenthood and gay marriage and a few additional poll-tested non-economic issues that the professionals calculate will garner marginally more votes than they will cost. If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular platform of economic populism. (I’d say this is probably true in Britain with Corbyn and Labour as well, and probably in France and Italy as well, where the nominal leftists parties have been infected by neoliberalism.) It seems clear at this point that the Democratic Party is more committed to Wall Street than it is to the middle class, and is quite prepared to lose political power to keep its place at the financial trough. Obama’s reign is solid evidence and the fact that Clinton remains the frontrunner and the establishment’s darling shows they are doubling down, not changing course.

        1. PlutoniumKun

          You are quite right in what you say, even if the processes are slightly different in every country. In the UK in particular, I think there is a huge problem with the Labour Party in that it was effectively taken over by middle class left wing student activist types who have only the most theoretical notion how poor or working class people live. It is inevitable that they start to reinterpret ‘left wing’ and ‘liberal’ in a manner which suits the people they socialise with. I.e. seeing social progressivism as far more important than economic justice.

          Back in the 1990’s I shared a house in London with a lawyer who qualified in Oxford – many of her friends were the first generation of Blairites. They were intelligent, enthusiastic and genuinely passionate about change. But talking to them it was glaringly obvious the only connection they had with ‘ordinary’ people was when they first had to canvass on the streets. I remember one young woman expressing horror at the potential constituent who came and insisted that she sort out her welfare entitlements, because thats what a politician is supposed to do. She had simply never met someone from the ‘underclass’ if you want to put it that way. It was all too obvious that people like her would shift rapidly to the right as soon as they achieved power, they had no real empathy or feel for regular people.

          In my own country, in Ireland, it is far more cynical. Its no secret that the traditional main centre left party, Labour, realised it would lose its core working class base if it supported austerity. They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were ‘unclaimed’ by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election.

          1. wbgonne

            it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election

            I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. Can the forces of reform win? Can the people take control of the political systems back from the plutocrats? Can they do it in time to avoid catastrophic global warming and socially-destructive wealth inequality? We’ll see.

            1. PlutoniumKun

              I’m more inclined to see it as a race to see whether its the centre right or the centre left that loses control first. Unfortunately, I think there is a large non-political floating vote out there which will gravitate to a strong populist message. It might be to a Sanders/Corbin figure, or it might be to a Trump/Le Pen

              1. wbgonne

                Unfortunately, I think there is a large non-political floating vote out there which will gravitate to a strong populist message. It might be to a Sanders/Corbin figure, or it might be to a Trump/Le Pen.

                Excellent point. Populist sentiment can easily be manipulated by demagogues, as Trump is doing. Xenophobia. Fascism. These often arise from “populist” Upswellings. Populism is only a necessarily positive phenomenon when anchored by a progressive core like economic populism, i.e., anti-corporatism. That’s what Sanders is running on.

            2. Praedor

              In answer to your questions: Can the people take control of the political systems back from the plutocrats? Can they do it in time to avoid catastrophic global warming and socially-destructive wealth inequality?

              No.

              The self-same plutocratic liberals and conservatives in current power are working like mad to make SURE that TPP, TTIP, TISA, etc, are passed so there is NO WAY to roll back their neoliberal policies or protect the environment without saddling real people with a huge debt to pay off the looters (via ISDS). Global warming will NOT be stopped or controlled at 2 degrees, it will go beyond it. Workers and the poor will be completely stripped of any and all protections and powers before they manage to wrest control back from the looters. In the end, the entire mess will be self-corrected by nature itself. All the looted wealth in the world cannot save a single 1%er from crashing and burning with the rest when global temps rise well beyond 2 degrees, when all the major fisheries, other ecosystems, collapse below the point of being able to sustain even them. Take comfort in the fact that the bastard plutocrats will die like everyone else and hugging their stock portfolio wont give them a single second of extra life.

        2. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

          Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.

          Bernie Sanders isn’t perfect, but he’s so much better than Hillary in every way.
          ~

          1. wbgonne

            Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.

            True, but there is one glaring difference between the 90s and today. In the 90s one could make a plausible if not persuasive case that the electorate did not want economic populism and was content with the Third Way’s neoliberal economic royalism. So, Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” was actually designed to secure votes and win elections (as well as pad Clinton’s pockets, of course.). Today, things are very different, with the people since 2007 overwhelmingly clamoring for economic populism but the Democrats refusing to provide it and indeed castigating those who want the party to turn left.

            Bernie Sanders isn’t perfect, but he’s so much better than Hillary in every way.

            No doubt. And I am very pleased to say that I appear to have been wrong in thinking that Sanders was fading. I’m not saying Sanders will win, but it looks to me like he may stick around long enough for Hillary to (very possibly) implode, since she is and always has been a bad politician.

            1. Yves Smith Post author

              Bernie raised nearly as much money as Hillary last quarter.

              That’s the gross fundraising amount.

              Given that Bernie’s fundraising costs very little (small donations on the Web) while hers is costly (dunno what % in fundraisers, but it had to be meaningful, and they aren’t cheap), he very likely raised more than her net.

              But the flip side is she keeps getting all sorts of free MSM coverage while he is largely frozen out.

              I agree with your implosion thesis. Her health is a big risk. She’s clearly had a stroke. If she has a fumble and mumble like Yellen did, for instance, the Republicans will be all over it.

              1. Praedor

                Wha? I haven’t watched her, haven’t listened to a single word she says. I turn off the radio or change the channel if/when any GOPer or establishment Dem is presented, but…why do you think she’s had a stroke? What’s the tell you see?

        3. ex-PFC Chuck

          In re:

          “If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular platform of economic populism.”

          I don’t think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters.

          1. wbgonne

            Yup. The DC Democrats were relieved to lose the 2010 mid-terms. They want to win just enough to maintain political credibility and keep the money flowing, no more. The DC Dems have no actual policy goals — none they would admit to anyway, neoliberalism being despised — so they are just funneling money to themselves and maintaining power for the corporatists.

          2. Praedor

            They LIKE having just the presidency and the Senate (OR the House but NOT all 3). That way they get to set minor tone and policy targets but don’t actually have to produce for the people. They can roll out endlessly the excuse that they don’t control the House (or Senate when that’s the case) so they can’t get what WE want through. They can only get the corporate/Wall Street friendly policies and laws passed because they “have to work with GOP colleagues”.

            Convenient. For them. They all get big paychecks from their stock portfolios and their corporate sponsors, get to PRETEND they are fighting for the people who voted for them while not actually having to do so.

            Ideally, the ENTIRE Dem party should be replaced by clones of Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Martin O’Malley, and Elizabeth Warren. The rest should put their mouth where their money is and just officially switch to the Republican Party.

    4. Pavel

      What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it — surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen.

      So I guess HRC and the others think Americans need all these rights but people in the Mideast can just go stuff themselves. Because, you know, ISIS, and TERRORISM, and OIL…and arms sales.

      Why the fsck doesn’t Bernie point out these contradictions? Hillary apparently is blaming him for being “weak on gun control” while she has been a member of one of the most militaristic, bombing-and-droning administrations since, well, George W. Bush’s.

      Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: “Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?”

      /rant

      1. Local to Oakland

        Thank you for saying this.

        Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders’ position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances.

        1. Jim Haygood

          ‘re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders’ position will help him in rural states.’

          In 2015, Hillary Clinton’s New York was rated worst in the country by Guns & Ammo for gun owners, while Bernie Sanders’ Vermont — with its three-century tradition of unregulated “Vermont carry” — was ranked No. 2, pipped only by Arizona.

          Highlighting this distinction would give Bernie Sanders serious street cred in flyover states, as well as demonstrating that his administration would not be “Obama’s third term” (the kiss of political death, for sure).

          Question is whether Sanders is at liberty to buck D party orthodoxy, dictated by its big money donors from the New York – Chicago – Hollywood anti-gunner axis.

          1. Yves Smith Post author

            I’d love to know what % of gun owners in Vermont are hunters. They have utterly different habits than trigger happy suburbanites who have no practical experience with what a gun does to living flesh.

            IMHO, the difficulty of getting a gun should be proportional, or even a power law function, of population density.

  2. andyb

    DWS is my Congressperson. She is adored by elderly Jewish women, reluctantly accepted by Democrats (an overwhelming majority in her District), and loathed by all others. Whenever she appears on local or national TV, she regurgitates an obvious rote memorized list of talking points that she refuses to stray from. She will never engage in a true debate, and avoids answering any substantive questions. She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.

    I’m thrilled that there is a candidate that could derail her.

    Readers should be aware that some years back a local politician used her picture as a target at a local gun range. There was considerable uproar in the media, somewhat offset by a cottage industry providing actual pictures of her superimposed over a standard target.

    1. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

      She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.

      And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to.
      ~

    2. polecat

      I seen to recall that Jane Hamsher & and crew over at FireDogLake were ALL over that incident, and constantly saying what a great progressive DWS was and how she should be supported………Yeah….sure!

      1. allan

        It’s hard to say exactly what you’re referring to,
        but saying that FDL’s regulars and commenters were DWS fans is totally off base.
        Typical coverage (from 2009):
        Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Won’t Draw “Lines in the Sand” – Except When She Does

        … when she says it’s more important for her to be in a leadership position fighting for a public plan than it is to make a commitment to vote against a bill that doesn’t have one, I think that’s a luxury she can afford:

        DWS: I’m planning to reform for a health care reform plan that includes a robust public option.

        Mike Stark: Those are … we’re calling them “weasel words” over at FDL just because it does give you a huge loophole to back out of .

        DWS: Well I’m not someone who draws lines in the sand.

          1. Praedor

            Hamsher and friends have long been pretty solid and well-considered in their support or lack thereof of politicos. She’s savvy.

  3. JTMcPhee

    And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a “superdelegate,” and under DNC rules, wiki reports that “The chairperson is a superdelegate for life.”

    Wiki also reports that the DNC plays no role in “policy.” Just writes the platform every so often. Really?

    While they live, they rule, and to re-coin an old legal chestnut, we have buried the Rulers we unelect, but they rule us from their graves…

    1. different clue

      If she loses the primary, she doesn’t get to be a Representative any more. So she can’t vote on legislation any more.

  4. Carolinian

    Isn’t a name missing from the above rogue’s gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I’m not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege.

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Nancy is a Lex Luthor caliber villain. She doesn’t warrant being lumped with henchmen or the Kitemans of the world.

    2. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

      Obama’s name is missing.

      He’s the one who picked her to head the DNC.
      ~

      1. wbgonne

        Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That’s Obama’s modus operandi and it’s worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon.

        1. Pavel

          Part of that strategy seems to be a definite preference for staying ignorant and uninformed. How many times has he claimed not to be aware of something going on until it’s in the MSM? Of course hard to keep up when one is on the golf course so much of the time.

          1. wbgonne

            Obama has been so unchallenged that he hasn’t even had to defend himself against anything except silly right-wing clowns with nonsensical attacks. When was the last time Obama was meaningfully challenged from the Left, on anything, by anyone? Gay marriage? That’s about he only thing I can even think of. And what did Obama do about it? Nothing. He gave a speech. They say Reagan was like Teflon. Obama is like a computer virus. You can’t even tell what he is doing or the harm he is causing until it’s too late.

            1. different clue

              I wonder how many of those “right wing attacks” were false-flag Obama operatives to gain sympathy for Obama?

              For example, how many people with nasty racist signs at those Town Hall protests were secret Obama agents?

  5. mad as hell.

    You could see which way her wagon was headed almost four years ago if not longer from Greenwald’s article.

    >www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

    Schultz’s is one of those unfortunate people to have a bullshit aura circling her where ever she steps.

  6. flora

    Great news!

    How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems?
    One seat at a time.

  7. Jess Beinhere

    My personal hero has got to be Jane Harman. Her name will be forever synonymous with WMD’s and Conflicts of Interest in the form of BIG MILITARY CONTRACTS! Whatever you say about the global shadow economy and the perpetual war state, it’s ordinary little people like Jane that made/make it all possible. She clearly belongs in…that place.

  8. John Wright

    While we are mentioning harmful Democratic politicians, Dianne Feinstein should make the list.

    She voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and was a great defender of the Military-Industrial-Surveillance industry.

    She supports most foreign military operations.

    She even voted for George W. Bush’s attempt to secure elderly votes for Republicans by voting for Medicare Part D drug plan.

    And one cannot forget support her support for the TPP.

    And her long term support for increased copyright and patent protection.

    Feinstein seems to have a Teflon coating similar to Reagan and Obama.

    The other CA senator, Barbara Boxer, is not viewed as having as much “gravitas” as Feinstein, but her voting record is much more progressive.

    I believe Feinstein is aging out and will not run next time.

    How much damage will she do before she leaves?

  9. polecat

    I wonder how the future might have turned had Dan White just killed himself,…..before attempting to shoot George Moscone ???

    1. John Wright

      Here’s some more on Feinstein from http://www.projectcensored.org

      http://www.projectcensored.org/23-feinsteins-conflict-of-interest-in-iraq/

      This makes it appear a critical story about Feinstein that was to appear in the Nation Magazine was killed by Katrina vanden Heuval just prior to Feinstein’s re-election.

      Seems to be The Nation making certain Feinstein would win. She eventually won with 59.43% of the vote against a Republican who had never held a statewide elected position (Richard Mountjoy).

      In 2012, Feinstein won against a Republican candidate identified as an “autism activist” with a 62.5% of the votes cast.

      One can view a summary of her votes on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

      I see the voting record of a Teflon covered Neo-con, while the media casts her as a “moderate”.

      BTW, I don’t want to disparage Teflon by association, it is a very handy material in the electronics industry.

Comments are closed.