Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Cliff Varnell]

2020 election is shaping up as a referendum on the kind of government Americans will live in:  Democratic Socialism or Theocratic Fascism.

It's an asymmetrical battle in that Democratic Socialists are proud of the name but Theocratic Fascists dispute their fascism.  It's up to Bernie's people to make the case that Trump is imposing a fascist dictatorship on the USA. 

Bernie lost in 2016 because 3.5 million black voters picked Hillary.  Nothing will stop him from the 2020 Dem nomination --  not the DNC, not Bloomberg.

Gear up for the fight of your lives, folks.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and a big win in Nevada yesterday.  This could be over on Super Tuesday. 

Bernie is set to romp.

On March 4 will the anti-anti-Trump Left RussiaGateDeniers finally join the Resistance and begin to bash Trump consistently?

I bet they will! 

Hell, I bet there will be some who'll pretend to lead the Resistance!  Bless 'em...

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

I have to say that article that Dennis and Joe linked to by that Lockhart guy shows us just how nutty the Clinton forces are to deprive Sanders of the nomination.

Lockhart used to be the press secretary for Bill Clinton.  In that article he actually wants Bloomberg to start spending his millions to knock out Sanders.  The assumption being that an internecine war will help the Democrats and that Bloomberg would be the better candidate. 

This is part of the leftover rubbish from 2016.  Mr. Lockhart, I hate to remind you, but after sabotaging Bernie through DWS, HRC lost the election. And now you want to go ahead and hurt the Democratic base again, so they will not show up in key states? From what I have seen, Bernie still polls the best against Trump--and he will do fine in those rust belt states that HRC lost in 2016.  As shown in his debate performance, Bloomberg has a big target on his back.  And those negatives align with Trump's.  But this Lockhart guy is one of those Clintonites who would actually prefer the Democrats lose rather than move back toward FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK.

BTW, has anyone heard that story that I think Ray McGovern tells?  During Obama's second term, when everyone realized he was essentially another Bill Clinton--after all look who had been his secretary of state--someone asked him, "What happened to hope and change?"  Obama reportedly replied with, "You saw what happened to Reverend King didn't you?" 

Talk about Jung.

[Cliff Varnell]

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have to say that article that Dennis and Joe linked to by that Lockhart guy shows us just how nutty the Clinton forces are to deprive Sanders of the nomination.

Lockhart used to be the press secretary for Bill Clinton.  In that article he actually wants Bloomberg to start spending his millions to knock out Sanders.  The assumption being that an internecine war will help the Democrats and that Bloomberg would be the better candidate. 

This is part of the leftover rubbish from 2016.  Mr. Lockhart, I hate to remind you, but after sabotaging Bernie through DWS, HRC lost the election. And now you want to go ahead and hurt the Democratic base again, so they will not show up in key states? From what I have seen, Bernie still polls the best against Trump--and he will do fine in those rust belt states that HRC lost in 2016.  As shown in his debate performance, Bloomberg has a big target on his back.  And those negatives align with Trump's.  But this Lockhart guy is one of those Clintonites who would actually prefer the Democrats lose rather than move back toward FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK.

BTW, has anyone heard that story that I think Ray McGovern tells?  During Obama's second term, when everyone realized he was essentially another Bill Clinton--after all look who had been his secretary of state--someone asked him, "What happened to hope and change?"  Obama reportedly replied with, "You saw what happened to Reverend King didn't you?" 

Talk about Jung.

Back to DiEugenio's regular Democrat bashing.

The DNC didn't cost Bernie the 2016 election and they won't cost him the 2020 election...You folks don't get it? 

Bernie practically cinched the nomination in Nevada yesterday!

Bernie Sanders/Stacey Abrams 2020

Save America from Trump's fascist dictatorship!

Edited February 23, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

This is fine with me.  Where is the petition?

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/television/chris-matthews-compares-sanders-win-in-nevada-to-nazis-occupying-france-faces-calls-to-resign

I did not know this other thing he said.  If Sanders won, there would be executions in Central Park?  Talk about bonkers.  And this guy used to work for Tip O'Neill.

[Cliff Varnell]

How is it people who rarely get worked up over Trump’s dictatorial power grab (other than blame it on Dems) get so bent out of shape over something Tweety Bird said?

Tweety Bird. That’s what we used to call Matthews on FIREDOGLAKE back in the day...

Edited February 23, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Is this catching on?

I hope so.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-chris-matthews-compares-sanders-nevada-win-to-frances-fall-to-nazis-draws-calls-for-his-firing?fbclid=IwAR1LsYiAK9heLR7uJJJtNM82AZv3EQ2GjioQi7BlOZnP4HI-yugpKqmQb7s

He would probably go to Fox. Where he belongs

Edited February 23, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, Chris hit the big leagues on the back of Oliver Stone.  First by attacking Nixon, and then by going after JFK indirectly.

He tried to say that somehow Haldeman did not mean what he wrote with that referral to the Bay of Pigs in his book The Ends of Power.  He did this by not consulting with the co author Joe DiMona.  Gary Aguilar did, and showed just how bad Chris's research was. The book went through five drafts and Haldeman never asked to take it out.

In 1996, he wrote a book called Kennedy and Nixon, which was a back handed attack on Stone since it clearly implied that somehow JFK and RMN had a lot in common and were actually chums:. Therefore Kennedy was not the liberal icon Stone made him out to be. This one was so bad the LA TImes had Oliver review it. Chris wrote a letter in reply.  It began with, "Oliver stone doesn't like me."  Question: Who does? ( I always found it odd that Tony Summers liked this book and referenced it in his biography of Nixon.)

On his show, he takes numerous opportunities to attack those who deny the WR.  And he sucks up to GOP thugs.  He stood by Tom DeLay until the end, and even beyond.

If he went, i have little hope that he would be replaced by someone better.  Chris Hayes and O'Donnell are Ok, but they got rid of the person i thought was their best years ago.  Melissa Harris Perry resigned in 2016 when they cut back her time during the primaries that year.

So I don't have a lot of hope if this effort succeeds.  But man, comparing a Jewish candidate's primary victory  with the fall of France to the Third Reich?  Shows how far they think they can go for propaganda purposes; clearly a scare tactic.  But it also shows who they really are.

Edited February 23, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Ross]

Since nobody here is anywhere close to being on-topic:  HRC/Bloomberg at a brokered convention to oust Sanders/?.  Could it happen?  Sanders is only pulling about half of the dem voters, so if you collapse all the moderates into a single group . . .   I just don't see anyone else pulling it off and I don't think the "moderates" will let Bernie have it.  What's the alternative?

No, I haven't been drinking.  But, I'm not even sure if it is legally possible.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Kirk Ross said:

Since nobody here is anywhere close to being on-topic:  HRC/Bloomberg at a brokered convention to oust Sanders/?.  Could it happen?  Sanders is only pulling about half of the dem voters, so if you collapse all the moderates into a single group . . .   I just don't see anyone else pulling it off and I don't think the "moderates" will let Bernie have it.  What's the alternative?

No, I haven't been drinking.  But, I'm not even sure if it is legally possible.

Ask yourself this: has there ever been an instance in modern American politics where the winner of the first 3 contests was denied the nomination?

[James DiEugenio]

Well, look, its possible Kirk.

If you look back at say 1992, Bill Clinton did not win either Iowa or New Hampshire.  In fact, the whole Gennifer Flowers thing exploded around that time.

It was not until Super Tuesday that he really did well, since many of those states were in the south.  

So I don't think anyone should underestimate Bloomberg.  He made a mistake appearing on stage when he did not have to.   But his ads are well done and effective.  And Biden is still hanging around, as is Buttigieg. I soon expect that they will all be attacking Sanders.  We will see then how strong Bernie really is.

Edited February 23, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Ross]

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ask yourself this: has there ever been an instance in modern American politics where the winner of the first 3 contests was denied the nomination?

I don't see how that's relevant.  Have we ever been anywhere that looked anything close to being like where we are  at now?  I say we are in uncharted territory.  You don't agree?  For Christ sakes, Cliff, you yourself are talking about Democratic Socialism v Theocratic Fascism face off.  When's the last time that happened?

Edited February 23, 2020 by Kirk Ross
comment

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, Kirk Ross said:

I don't see how that's relevant.  Have we ever been anywhere that looked anything close to being like where we are  at now?

Any time we’re dealing with numbers.

Bernie has the lead, the momentum, the money and the organization.

Bernie is winning. People vote for winners.

8 minutes ago, Kirk Ross said:

 

  I say we are in uncharted territory.  You don't agree? 

We’re facing an opponent who isn’t running for President — he’s openly running for Dictator.

That doesn’t change Sander’s delegate math.

The claim the DNC rigged the 2016 nom is pure bullshed.

8 minutes ago, Kirk Ross said:

 

 

For Christ sakes, Cliff, you yourself are talking about Democratic Socialism v Theocratic Fascism face off.  When's the last time that happened? 

Theocratic Fascism has been on every Prez ballot since ‘80.  Only now it is out in the open, proud and ready to supplant democracy entirely.

Monumental escalation, grant you that.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I soon expect that they will all be attacking Sanders. 

Quite a prediction!

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

We will see then how strong Bernie really is.

Popular vote wins in the first 3 contests don’t show how strong Bernie is?

[Kirk Gallaway]

54 minutes ago, Kirk Ross said:

I don't see how that's relevant.  Have we ever been anywhere that looked anything close to being like where we are  at now?  I say we are in uncharted territory.  You don't agree?  For Christ sakes, Cliff, you yourself are talking about Democratic Socialism v Theocratic Fascism face off.  When's the last time that happened?

Kirk make some good points. These are very exceptional times.

Barring anything unusual, I think Bernie will have a clear plurality, but will the Democrats close ranks behind Bernie? It bares a likeness to 2016 with Trump, as you remember lots of Republicans first talked of defecting from Trump but they came back into the fold. And they were rewarded beyond their belief when Trump won, but of course didn't win, but that's the way the game's played. But the problem with the Democrats are that they are more into bickering, litmus tests and identity politics and are harder to unite.

All the old style Democrat politicians ,political pundits, and media advocates are steeped in political dogma. Some of it is that they do represent the power structure, but some just eagerly want to beat Trump and don't think Bernie can do it. I do think it's true, with a greater voter turnout of young people and with these signs of the black and minority communities warming to Bernie, the Dems could take a chance and come out ahead for a generation considering the awful position the Republicans have put themselves in their allegiance to Trump purely out of fear of not being re elected. But are they ready to take that chance?

I'd say Bernie will clearly have a plurality, but right now I think it's 50-50, he will get a majority. He has to count on Warren, his ideological twin,  throwing her delegates to him, maybe for a cabinet post as Secretary of Labor or the Treasury. Warren is losing votes and that doesn't appear to be enough to make a majority, so they have to be able to count on moderates who will see Bernie as maybe not the best choice but the only real working choice to save the party and defeat Trump.

Right now Bernie's on a roll though it's difficult to say if he's just gaining by making promises to  his constituency that is starting to believe that they can all  come true. Even with a Democrat sweep, he's not going to pass medicare for all with prescription and dental, which is currently not part of Medicare per se. He seems to be saying that on top of that, their would be no premiums. But for the younger crowd here, they should know that present day medicare requires premiums. Bernie with free education, and forgiving education debt would be a feat beyond imagination. Though perhaps they could  initiate programs of voluntary service to repay debt.

Many of us see Bernie in terms of a reprioritization of national concerns away from excessive spending on geo political militarization and a gain of added revenue from a  fairer tax burden being placed on the wealthy as it's apparent to the great many now,  that free market capitalism has gone completely out of hand. But how the brave new world, and it's emphasis on saving the environment as well, will play out in all of it's stages is really anybody's guess.Nobody in the U.S. really has the resolve for  sacrificing for any period of time in hopes of a better day, but in reality, economic sacrifices are made in the short term by less powerful countries all the time. Any change is always going to be difficult. And there will be forces putting on the brakes all the time. There's always that saying, however much you subscribe to it or not. Does it have to be done, or you can really afford not to do it?