Summer is a prime example of what happens when someone has more money than they know what to do with.
A 92 year old man who obviously has a problem with aging gracefully spends his days living in a constant state of denial by paying two (not one but two) women to make believe he is not a wrinkled up old geezer by pandering to the philanderer.
Pathetic, considering all the other options open to someone with that much cash to throw around. World hunger. Curing cancer. housing the homeless, just to name a few.
Now he's being asked to demonstrate that he is "mentally competent" while it's blatantly obvious by his behavior he is far from it.
Rather than wasting more time trying to convince people otherwise Summer might consider doing the right thing(s) and clean up his act before checking out.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Thursday, May 5, 2016
WHY BERNIE IS THE VOTERS CANDIDATE
The political Establishment is terrified of Bernie Sanders; and rightly so.
He is the voters candidate; not special interests and the political apparatus that represents them.
The Establishment politicians, who Hillary Clinton is the "inevitable" choice, are complaining that Bernie is hurting the cause because he is taking on the more "sensible" candidate (Hillary).
More sensible? If that's the best reason to nominate Hillary then the Establishment is selling the American voter out which is all the more reason Bernie Sanders is exactly where he needs to be.
Sanders’s determination to press on is causing consternation in the Clinton camp, and in the Democratic Party establishment. Eager to avoid alienating Sanders’s large body of supporters, most Party figures have avoided publicly calling on him to quit, but some are citing Trump’s victory as a reason to unify behind Clinton. “If [Sanders] wants to stay in and discuss the platform, that’s obviously his right,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served in Bill Clinton’s Administration, told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent. “But at this point, we’re on the verge of a choice between someone eminently sensible and qualified, and someone who is a real wild card. It’s a little frightening having him out there trying to take down the sensible candidate.”
In the weeks ahead, the calls for Sanders to wrap up his campaign are likely to become more explicit. He seems certain to ignore them, and he has at least four reasons to do so. First, most of his supporters want him to keep going. Second, he still has a (very) slim chance of obtaining the nomination. Third, there isn’t much evidence that his dropping out would affect the result in November. And fourth, back in 2008, Clinton herself did something very similar to what Sanders is doing now, extending her primary contest with Barack Obama well beyond the point at which most commentators had concluded that she had no chance of winning.
The result in Indiana confirmed what we already know: Sanders is very popular among younger Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, and particularly among white voters.
He is the voters candidate; not special interests and the political apparatus that represents them.
The Establishment politicians, who Hillary Clinton is the "inevitable" choice, are complaining that Bernie is hurting the cause because he is taking on the more "sensible" candidate (Hillary).
More sensible? If that's the best reason to nominate Hillary then the Establishment is selling the American voter out which is all the more reason Bernie Sanders is exactly where he needs to be.
Sanders’s determination to press on is causing consternation in the Clinton camp, and in the Democratic Party establishment. Eager to avoid alienating Sanders’s large body of supporters, most Party figures have avoided publicly calling on him to quit, but some are citing Trump’s victory as a reason to unify behind Clinton. “If [Sanders] wants to stay in and discuss the platform, that’s obviously his right,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served in Bill Clinton’s Administration, told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent. “But at this point, we’re on the verge of a choice between someone eminently sensible and qualified, and someone who is a real wild card. It’s a little frightening having him out there trying to take down the sensible candidate.”
In the weeks ahead, the calls for Sanders to wrap up his campaign are likely to become more explicit. He seems certain to ignore them, and he has at least four reasons to do so. First, most of his supporters want him to keep going. Second, he still has a (very) slim chance of obtaining the nomination. Third, there isn’t much evidence that his dropping out would affect the result in November. And fourth, back in 2008, Clinton herself did something very similar to what Sanders is doing now, extending her primary contest with Barack Obama well beyond the point at which most commentators had concluded that she had no chance of winning.
The result in Indiana confirmed what we already know: Sanders is very popular among younger Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, and particularly among white voters.
According to the network exit poll, he carried the under-forty-five demographic by sixty-eight per cent to thirty-two per cent, and he won independents by seventy-two per cent to twenty-eight per cent. (The Indiana primary was an open one.) As usual, Clinton performed strongly among older and non-white voters, and among self-identified Democrats.
Since the primary season began, Sanders has won more than nine million votes and finished ahead of Clinton in eighteen states. (Clinton has won more than twelve million votes and won twenty-three states.) Sanders continues to attract large crowds—on Thursday he will be campaigning in West Virginia—and he seems likely to win more primaries in the coming weeks, including in West Virginia, on May 10th, and Oregon, on May 17th. If he were to end his campaign now, many of his supporters would be furious, and even some Democrats who aren’t necessarily backing him would be disappointed.
Since the primary season began, Sanders has won more than nine million votes and finished ahead of Clinton in eighteen states. (Clinton has won more than twelve million votes and won twenty-three states.) Sanders continues to attract large crowds—on Thursday he will be campaigning in West Virginia—and he seems likely to win more primaries in the coming weeks, including in West Virginia, on May 10th, and Oregon, on May 17th. If he were to end his campaign now, many of his supporters would be furious, and even some Democrats who aren’t necessarily backing him would be disappointed.
According to new poll from NBC News/Survey Monkey, fifty-seven per cent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners want Sanders to campaign until the Convention, and just sixteen per cent think he should drop out now. Eighty-nine per cent of Sanders’s supporters said they wanted him to keep going until July. More surprisingly, perhaps, twenty-eight per cent of Clinton’s supporters agreed.
BREAKING NEWS! MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLACKOUT ON HILLARY EMAIL SERVER
Interesting how the mainstream media news works. CNN, MSNBC, FOX will do anything to fill the 24 hr news cycle and resort to desperate, extraordinary tactics to get viewers to pay attention. One such gimmick is the "Breaking News" banner that they throw up on the screen for the most mundane and inexplicable reasons, highlighting events that are not even news worthy let alone deserve a "breaking news" slot.
What's just as interesting is when there is a news event like the one today that doesn't even get a whisper of a mention on the internet save this piece from the LA TIMES (Top aide to Hillary Clinton questioned by FBI in email server investigation) and that is at best a watered down version of what is going on.
Hillary continues to defend her position by saying; everyone else was doing it, so it must be OK. Sounds reasonable since there were no bans on sending and receiving emails by and between government officials using their personal email accounts.
The problem with that defense is that it's not truthful. The truth is no one was using their own "personal email accounts " to send and receive government emails and then storing them on their own "personal server" (key word is server) which is completely separate from the government network and which Hillary had sole and exclusive access to. So, in simple terms; It's the Server Stupid!
So, for what it's worth this is the news that broke today;
A close aide to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, was questioned last month by FBI agents investigating whether classified material was mishandled on the private email server used by the former secretary of State and her aides, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
Abedin was interviewed for about two hours at the FBI’s field office in Washington on April 5, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Abedin is one of Clinton's longtime confidantes and the interview is the latest indication that FBI agents have completed much of their background work and are nearing a conclusion in the politically sensitive probe.
Abedin's lawyer, Karen Dunn, could not be reached for comment. Mike Kortan, a spokesman for the FBI, did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.
Clinton said recently that the FBI has not approached her for an interview, but that she would fully cooperate if they do.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said she has offered to answer any FBI questions and remains confident that she and her aides acted appropriately.
"From the start, Hillary Clinton has offered to answer any questions that would help the Justice Department complete its review, and we hope and expect that anyone else who is asked would do the same," Fallon said in an email. "We are confident the review will conclude that nothing inappropriate took place."
It could not be determined if other aides have been questioned, or what was the scope of questions Abedin was asked.
Most legal experts, including a number of former federal prosecutors, believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State.
Using a private email system was not banned at the time, her supporters note, and other senior government officials also have used personal email to transact official business.
The FBI investigation has caused Clinton considerable political pain as Republican rivals insist her use of a private email server should lead to her indictment.
In a statement, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, accused Clinton of putting national security at risk by using the private email server.
With the “mainstream media” by and large giving Hillary Clinton a pass on her past, few Americans realize how many Pinocchio faces need to be tacked onto many of her statements. Clinton is said to be “unquestionably” the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, essentially the presumptive nominee. That is unquestionably true – but only because she has not been questioned with much rigor at all. And on those few occasions when she has been asked hard questions, she has often ducked them.
For example, at the March 9 debate in Miami, Jorge Ramos, the longtime anchor for Noticiero Univision, asked Secretary Clinton whether she would quit the presidential race if she were indicted for putting classified information on her private email server.
She replied: “Oh, for goodness sake, it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?”]
Not so fast, Madame Secretary. It is looking more and more as if you will, after all, have to answer that question.
Read More; A Need to Clear Up Clinton Questions
What's just as interesting is when there is a news event like the one today that doesn't even get a whisper of a mention on the internet save this piece from the LA TIMES (Top aide to Hillary Clinton questioned by FBI in email server investigation) and that is at best a watered down version of what is going on.
Hillary continues to defend her position by saying; everyone else was doing it, so it must be OK. Sounds reasonable since there were no bans on sending and receiving emails by and between government officials using their personal email accounts.
The problem with that defense is that it's not truthful. The truth is no one was using their own "personal email accounts " to send and receive government emails and then storing them on their own "personal server" (key word is server) which is completely separate from the government network and which Hillary had sole and exclusive access to. So, in simple terms; It's the Server Stupid!
So, for what it's worth this is the news that broke today;
A close aide to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, was questioned last month by FBI agents investigating whether classified material was mishandled on the private email server used by the former secretary of State and her aides, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
Abedin was interviewed for about two hours at the FBI’s field office in Washington on April 5, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Abedin is one of Clinton's longtime confidantes and the interview is the latest indication that FBI agents have completed much of their background work and are nearing a conclusion in the politically sensitive probe.
Abedin's lawyer, Karen Dunn, could not be reached for comment. Mike Kortan, a spokesman for the FBI, did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.
Clinton said recently that the FBI has not approached her for an interview, but that she would fully cooperate if they do.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said she has offered to answer any FBI questions and remains confident that she and her aides acted appropriately.
"From the start, Hillary Clinton has offered to answer any questions that would help the Justice Department complete its review, and we hope and expect that anyone else who is asked would do the same," Fallon said in an email. "We are confident the review will conclude that nothing inappropriate took place."
It could not be determined if other aides have been questioned, or what was the scope of questions Abedin was asked.
Most legal experts, including a number of former federal prosecutors, believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State.
Using a private email system was not banned at the time, her supporters note, and other senior government officials also have used personal email to transact official business.
The FBI investigation has caused Clinton considerable political pain as Republican rivals insist her use of a private email server should lead to her indictment.
In a statement, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, accused Clinton of putting national security at risk by using the private email server.
As the Democrats glumly line up for Hillary Clinton’s belated coronation, the risk remains of potential criminal charges over her Libyan testimony or her careless emails, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern describes.
By Ray McGovern
“Some people think they can lie and get away with it,” said former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with feigned outrage. And, of course, he has never been held accountable for his lies, proving his dictum true.
The question today is: Will former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Teflon coat be as impermeable to deep scratches as Rumsfeld’s has proven to be?
By Ray McGovern
“Some people think they can lie and get away with it,” said former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with feigned outrage. And, of course, he has never been held accountable for his lies, proving his dictum true.
The question today is: Will former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Teflon coat be as impermeable to deep scratches as Rumsfeld’s has proven to be?
With the “mainstream media” by and large giving Hillary Clinton a pass on her past, few Americans realize how many Pinocchio faces need to be tacked onto many of her statements. Clinton is said to be “unquestionably” the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, essentially the presumptive nominee. That is unquestionably true – but only because she has not been questioned with much rigor at all. And on those few occasions when she has been asked hard questions, she has often ducked them.
For example, at the March 9 debate in Miami, Jorge Ramos, the longtime anchor for Noticiero Univision, asked Secretary Clinton whether she would quit the presidential race if she were indicted for putting classified information on her private email server.
She replied: “Oh, for goodness sake, it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?”]
Not so fast, Madame Secretary. It is looking more and more as if you will, after all, have to answer that question.
Read More; A Need to Clear Up Clinton Questions
I THOUGHT SUPREME COURT SAID RACISM WAS DEAD?
Racism in America? Of course not so says the Supreme Court so what's all the fuss about?
Harmless Article On College Choice Of President’s Daughter Shows Racism Going Strong
President Obama’s oldest daughter Malia has decided to attend Harvard but will take a gap year before beginning her college education. While the college announcement of a president’s daughter is not life-or-death news, it has been deemed as newsworthy by the media and will receive a short story on most sites. Fox Newsmirrored the brief AP story on their site and you would think it wouldn’t receive a ton of attention from the Obama-hating racist trolls. And you would be horribly wrong.
If you take a look at the Fox News post, you might notice there is no comment section at the bottom of the article. The reason: they had to take down the avalanche of racism that ensued below the harmless story.
Related: ‘Get ‘Em Out Of Here!’: Trump Camp Sued For Violence, Racism On Campaign Trail
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
ONLY AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT OUTSIDER CAN WIN
And if the Democrats are naive enough to let Bernie slip by thinking that Hillary can beat Trump, then let's prepare for a Trump Administration in January 2017.
What Establishment Republicans have already found out the hard way and Establishment Democrats are still trying to stay in denial of is that voters want a real change in politics and they are making that clear in the way they have staunchly supported both of the anti-establishment outsiders in this race: Sanders and Trump.
Given that stark reality Democrats might be wise to rethink who their nominee will be.
Bernie Sanders may have won the Indiana primary Tuesday night, but his victory is unlikely to save his political revolution. After this week, it is mathematically impossible for Sanders to reach the number of delegates necessary to win the Democratic nomination using pledged delegates alone.
This means the Vermont senator will have to rely on his strategy of winning over superdelegates — party leaders and elites who can back the candidate of their choice — who have already decided to back his rival Hillary Clinton. But Clinton has so far won 520 superdelegates to his 39, making it unlikely that he can move forward down this path.
Sanders' campaign has said he will stay in the race until the Democratic National Convention in July, and has argued that his supporters’ enthusiasm and his electability could be enough to win party leaders over to his side.
“It's virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 with pledged delegates alone,” Sanders said Sunday, according to theWashington Post. “She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, the convention will be a contested contest.”
It's true that the convention probably will be contested, but that is because Sanders will contest it.
What Establishment Republicans have already found out the hard way and Establishment Democrats are still trying to stay in denial of is that voters want a real change in politics and they are making that clear in the way they have staunchly supported both of the anti-establishment outsiders in this race: Sanders and Trump.
Given that stark reality Democrats might be wise to rethink who their nominee will be.
Bernie Sanders may have won the Indiana primary Tuesday night, but his victory is unlikely to save his political revolution. After this week, it is mathematically impossible for Sanders to reach the number of delegates necessary to win the Democratic nomination using pledged delegates alone.
This means the Vermont senator will have to rely on his strategy of winning over superdelegates — party leaders and elites who can back the candidate of their choice — who have already decided to back his rival Hillary Clinton. But Clinton has so far won 520 superdelegates to his 39, making it unlikely that he can move forward down this path.
Sanders' campaign has said he will stay in the race until the Democratic National Convention in July, and has argued that his supporters’ enthusiasm and his electability could be enough to win party leaders over to his side.
“It's virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 with pledged delegates alone,” Sanders said Sunday, according to theWashington Post. “She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, the convention will be a contested contest.”
It's true that the convention probably will be contested, but that is because Sanders will contest it.
TRUMPS FIRST NAIL FOR HILLARY'S COFFIN
One only needs to look at how Trump trounced all of the 11 GOP
candidates into dust to get a preview of what he will do to Hillary once
he turns his attention to just her.
Ted's dad a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination? That drove Ted clean off the rails after only a few comments from the Donald.
Imagine what he can do with Hillary. She has enough baggage to fill the belly of a jumbo jet.
The upcoming possible court order to put Hillary on the stand "under oath" is the beginning of the end for her and a great place for Trump to launch his campaign against her. History shows that Hillary has as big a problem as Bill (if not bigger) in being honest and truthful.
A federal judge said Wednesday he may order Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server as secretary of state to evade public records disclosures.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed an order granting a request from the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch to question six current and former State Department staffers about the creation and purpose of the private email system. Those on the list were some of Clinton’s closest aides during her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy.
Also set to testify is Bryan Pagliano, the agency employee who was tasked with setting up the clintonemail.com server located in the basement of the New York home Clinton shares with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Pagliano has previously refused to testify before Congress, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Based on what might be gleaned in those interviews, which are to be conducted over the next eight weeks, Sullivan says in his order a sworn deposition from Hillary Clinton “may be necessary.”
That raises the possibility that Clinton could be ordered to testify in the midst of the presidential race. A campaign spokesman did not respond Wednesday to messages about whether Clinton would oppose any order to testify.
Ted's dad a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination? That drove Ted clean off the rails after only a few comments from the Donald.
Imagine what he can do with Hillary. She has enough baggage to fill the belly of a jumbo jet.
The upcoming possible court order to put Hillary on the stand "under oath" is the beginning of the end for her and a great place for Trump to launch his campaign against her. History shows that Hillary has as big a problem as Bill (if not bigger) in being honest and truthful.
A federal judge said Wednesday he may order Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server as secretary of state to evade public records disclosures.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed an order granting a request from the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch to question six current and former State Department staffers about the creation and purpose of the private email system. Those on the list were some of Clinton’s closest aides during her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy.
Also set to testify is Bryan Pagliano, the agency employee who was tasked with setting up the clintonemail.com server located in the basement of the New York home Clinton shares with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Pagliano has previously refused to testify before Congress, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Based on what might be gleaned in those interviews, which are to be conducted over the next eight weeks, Sullivan says in his order a sworn deposition from Hillary Clinton “may be necessary.”
That raises the possibility that Clinton could be ordered to testify in the midst of the presidential race. A campaign spokesman did not respond Wednesday to messages about whether Clinton would oppose any order to testify.
HILLARY SINGED IN INDIANA; THE OUTSIDER'S IN TOWN
The writing is on the wall. Even though both the Mainstream media and Establishment politicians won't it's becoming crystal clear that voters; both on the left and right, want to clean house in Washington. Politics as usual has been replaced with politics ala voters choice.
The GOP has finally got the message as TRUS-TED and company packed up and left the stage for the last time. Even with GOD on his side Ted was booted out by none other than the voters; to Hell with the Establishment.
Now, let's see if the Democrats are hearing the message that in order to win the White House they will need the "outsider" at the helm; the voters choice; to Hell with the Establishment. .
As Noam Chomsky recently observed: “We have this phenomenon where someone is taking positions that would have been considered pretty mainstream during the Eisenhower years that are supported by a large part, or considerable majority of the population, but he’s dismissed as radical and extremist. That’s an indication of how the spectrum has shifted to the right.”
Calling Sanders radical or an extremist would be laughable in the UK or Germany. But in the US it can be an effective fear-mongering tactic; the people who use it are often the same people who control the mainstream media and stuff money into the pockets of unprincipled politicians.
To say that, “Bernie has substantively — even profoundly — changed American politics for the better,” as Jim Hightower has written, is perhaps wishful thinking. But his comment that “it’s a chance for voters who have been disregarded and discarded to forge a new political revolution that will continue to grow beyond this election…” is indisputably true.
It’s the first real chance we’ve had in decades. We have to hope it won’t be the last.
At one point not long ago even an undaunted optimist like Chomsky expressed the opinion that “in our system of mainly bought elections, [Sanders] doesn’t have much of a chance.” Indeed, the belief that Bernie didn’t have a chance was pervasive from the start year and it’s been a huge hurdle ever since.
But the scoffing and ridicule suddenly stopped, the cognoscenti fell silent, and the Democratic party establishment teamed up with the big news organizations to boost Hillary’s position as the heir apparent and to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, a sense of inevitably. Surely, we were told, Hillary will win the nomination and go on to win in November.
But Hillary has not been the story so far in this election year. The voters have rallied around two candidates. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Whatever else might be said of Trump, he has clearly tapped into a deep reservoir of anger and discontent. But Trump is the anti-Sanders; he is all ego and bluster and bull.
Sanders and Trump have certain obvious things in common. Both are outspoken. Both speak the peoples’ language. Both take risks and “let it all hang out”.
But Sanders is different in every way that counts. He speaks truth to power, he doesn’t pretend he has the power to create his own truth. He isn’t a billionaire and doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but he’s not afraid to talk about real problems. Problems the others chose to ignore.
We can’t fix what we won’t admit.
Sanders has raised roughly $186 million to Clinton’s $262.7 million. Virtually all of the Sanders campaign financing has come from small donations. That’s democracy in action, folks.
Hillary has gotten $76 million from super pacs and other pacs. That doesn’t mean she isn’t infinitely preferable to Trump or Ted Cruz (she is), but it does speak volumes about the mood of the electorate.
Sanders has proven that he has more than a chance. Whether or not he has a chance to win the nomination in a sclerotic political party system in dire need of campaign finance reform is still an open question. But what’s even more important for the nation’s future is this: Sanders has seized the chance to change the way we think about what is possible in this country. To show that votes and voters can make a difference. That we can change this corrupt and corrupting system. And in the process save it from the fate of the other one-time superpower.
Save it, that is, from self-destructing.
The GOP has finally got the message as TRUS-TED and company packed up and left the stage for the last time. Even with GOD on his side Ted was booted out by none other than the voters; to Hell with the Establishment.
Now, let's see if the Democrats are hearing the message that in order to win the White House they will need the "outsider" at the helm; the voters choice; to Hell with the Establishment. .
Can Bernie Save America?
Until Bernie Sanders appeared on the scene, we have had nobody with an effective voice to speak for the public interest – the common good – for so many years that most voters had all given up on the possibility, all but forgotten what a real-deal representative of the people looks or sounds like. Of course, that’s every plutocrat’s idea of the perfect political order.As Noam Chomsky recently observed: “We have this phenomenon where someone is taking positions that would have been considered pretty mainstream during the Eisenhower years that are supported by a large part, or considerable majority of the population, but he’s dismissed as radical and extremist. That’s an indication of how the spectrum has shifted to the right.”
Calling Sanders radical or an extremist would be laughable in the UK or Germany. But in the US it can be an effective fear-mongering tactic; the people who use it are often the same people who control the mainstream media and stuff money into the pockets of unprincipled politicians.
To say that, “Bernie has substantively — even profoundly — changed American politics for the better,” as Jim Hightower has written, is perhaps wishful thinking. But his comment that “it’s a chance for voters who have been disregarded and discarded to forge a new political revolution that will continue to grow beyond this election…” is indisputably true.
It’s the first real chance we’ve had in decades. We have to hope it won’t be the last.
At one point not long ago even an undaunted optimist like Chomsky expressed the opinion that “in our system of mainly bought elections, [Sanders] doesn’t have much of a chance.” Indeed, the belief that Bernie didn’t have a chance was pervasive from the start year and it’s been a huge hurdle ever since.
But the scoffing and ridicule suddenly stopped, the cognoscenti fell silent, and the Democratic party establishment teamed up with the big news organizations to boost Hillary’s position as the heir apparent and to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, a sense of inevitably. Surely, we were told, Hillary will win the nomination and go on to win in November.
But Hillary has not been the story so far in this election year. The voters have rallied around two candidates. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Whatever else might be said of Trump, he has clearly tapped into a deep reservoir of anger and discontent. But Trump is the anti-Sanders; he is all ego and bluster and bull.
Sanders and Trump have certain obvious things in common. Both are outspoken. Both speak the peoples’ language. Both take risks and “let it all hang out”.
But Sanders is different in every way that counts. He speaks truth to power, he doesn’t pretend he has the power to create his own truth. He isn’t a billionaire and doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but he’s not afraid to talk about real problems. Problems the others chose to ignore.
We can’t fix what we won’t admit.
Sanders has raised roughly $186 million to Clinton’s $262.7 million. Virtually all of the Sanders campaign financing has come from small donations. That’s democracy in action, folks.
Hillary has gotten $76 million from super pacs and other pacs. That doesn’t mean she isn’t infinitely preferable to Trump or Ted Cruz (she is), but it does speak volumes about the mood of the electorate.
Sanders has proven that he has more than a chance. Whether or not he has a chance to win the nomination in a sclerotic political party system in dire need of campaign finance reform is still an open question. But what’s even more important for the nation’s future is this: Sanders has seized the chance to change the way we think about what is possible in this country. To show that votes and voters can make a difference. That we can change this corrupt and corrupting system. And in the process save it from the fate of the other one-time superpower.
Save it, that is, from self-destructing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)