Charlie,
Rose colored glasses, absolutely! I voted for Bernie, but he was certainly
not perfect. His foreign policy was dreadful, albeit not as dreadful as
Hillary's. Hillary? She's certainly not good. She's a war hawk and a tool of
Wall Street and the corporations that supply our war machine with the arms
that are destroying the world. The difference between Hillary and Donald is
that Hillary isn't a crazy narsacist and he is.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Crawford
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:16 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
Hi Bob, Frank, and all,
Well first I need to say that I am fresh back from Louisville, Colorado
where I went to a most beautiful and uplifting wedding of a niece to a
really great guy. So I admittedly may be seeing things through rose colored
glasses, but here goes.
Hilary Clinton has her flaws and Trump in my mind is an embarrassment to
intelligence. I voted for Sanders and I still believe in the tenants of his
philosophy.
I have been both an academic and a practical student of politics all my life
and if there is one thing I know is true, change in this nation only comes
in increments and massive sudden changes are only the results of extreme
circumstances. The great depression and World Wars to name a couple of
those extreme circumstances.
So like it or not, we are faced with a choice between the good, the perfect,
and the unthinkable. Hilary is good, although not perfect, Bernie is mostly
perfect although not acceptable to enough people to get elected, and Trump
is unthinkable.
All other discussion in my view is interesting, but nevertheless fanciful
conjecture. So what is my bottom line?
Don't make the good, e.g. Hilary, the enemy of the perfect, e.g. Bernie, and
totally forget Trump. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
Charlie Crawford.
----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
Hi Frank,
OK, now I see where you're coming from.
1. I said that if we take consideration of the AHCA and selection of Supreme
Court justices out of the equasion, Trump may not be a whole lot worse than
Clinton. Those are very big issues and I can asure you that if Trump wins
and the AHCA is repealed, it will have a good bit of direct impact upon
Donna and thus me as well. Also, if Trump gets to pick justices of SCOTUS,
that could have a major negative impact on many Americans including
minorities and women.
I do see your point regarding minorities given all of Trumps blather. But,
in terms of the rich vs. poor issue, Clinton has not scored well in my book.
Do you really think that Clinton will fight for all she's worth for a $15.00
minimum wage? Do you think that her recent flip flop on trade issues is
genuine? Do you think that she'll fight to reign in the practitioners of
high finance who paid her so handsomely for all those speeches? I hope I'm
wrong here but I believe that the answers to all of these economic questions
is a resounding no. Do recall that much of banking deregulation, including
the repeal of Glass Steagall was done with the approval of then President
Bill Clinton. Hillary played a major role in his administration. If she
behaves as I suspect she will, it will not likely mean economic good times
for anyone other than the rich and that sure does include minorities.
Frankly, I wish that more members of minority populations had voted for
Bernie Sanders; then Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination and we
wouldn't be having this particular discussion.
Now for the war on terror. There is little doubt that Clinton is more of a
hawk than Obama and I don't see how that can be good for minority
populations.
Bottom line here, Trump would be unaccceptibly terrible, but Clinton might
be pretty bad for the poor and minorities. Finally, income inequality has
actually increased under Obama who was supposed to be a champion of the poor
and minorities.
Peace
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:45 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
Bob, go back and read your message. You actually said that you think things
wont be much worse under Trump. While that may be the case with (*you*, sure
won't be for minorities or the working class.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:41 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
Hey Frank,
ARE you calling me a limousine liberal? I'm pretty damned sure you have way
more resources than do I.
I'm guessing you believe that I don't think that Trump would be that bad. I
believe that Trump would be horrible, but I don't think that Clinton is any
kind of champion of the working class. WE have two rotten apple choices this
time as far as the two corrupt and powerful parties go and there is no doubt
that Trump is worse than Clinton.
Incidentally, it is folks like the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barrak
Obama and Bebbie Wasserman/Schultz who are limousine liberals. A good
example of a true liberal who is not a hypocrite is Michael Dukakis. .
I can asure you that I've spent very little time in a limousine. Actually, I
only had that privilege once when I was lucky enough to win 8 luxury box
seats for a Redsox game over 20 years ago.
I will remind you one more time that, as much as I dislike Clinton, I will
vote for her if I believe that Trump has any chance of winning here in
Massachusetts. Pasted below my name, please find a Wikipedia article
defining and describing limousine liberals.
Bob Hachey
Limousine liberal and latte liberal are pejorative United States Politics
terms used to illustrate perceived Hypocrisy by a political Modern
liberalism in the United States of Upper class or Upper middle class
status; including calls for the use of mass transit while frequently using
Limousines or private jets, [1] claiming Environmental consciousness but
driving Fuel economy in automobiles sports cars or SUVs, attacking income
inequality while being wealthy themselves, or ostensibly supporting public
education while actually sending their children to private schools.
[2]
"Limousine liberal" is also a reference to celebrities who use their fame to
influence others into agreeing with their political and societal points of
view. Such celebrities' critics (including proponents of the pejorative)
assert that their wealth and status keeps them out of touch with the
American
American middle class
and lower middle classes they purport to support, and that they are
typically blind to this disconnect.
Contents
[hide]
1 Formation and early use
1.1 Procaccino campaign
2 Later use
3 See also
4 References
Formation and early use[
Edit section: Formation and early use
]
Procaccino campaign[
Edit section: Procaccino campaign
]
United States Democratic Party
New York City
Mayor
hopeful
Mario Procaccino
coined the term "limousine liberal" to describe incumbent United States
Republican Party Mayor John Lindsay and his wealthy Manhattan backers
during a heated New York City mayoral election, 1969.
It was a
Populism
and
Producerism
epithet, carrying an implicit accusation that the people it described were
insulated from all negative consequences of their programs purported to
benefit the poor, and that the costs and consequences of such programs would
be borne in the main by Working class or Lower middle class people who
were not so poor as to be beneficiaries themselves. In particular,
Procaccino criticized Lindsay for favoring unemployed blacks over
working-class
Ethnic white.
[3]
One Procaccino campaign memo attacked "rich super- Assimilation (sociology)
people who live on Fifth Avenue and maintain some choice Mansions outside
the city and have no feeling for the small Middle class shopkeeper, home
owner, etc. They preach the politics of confrontation and condone violent
upheaval in society because they are not touched by it and are protected by
their Courtiers".
[4]
The Independent
later stated that "Lindsay came across as all style and no substance, a
'limousine liberal' who knew nothing of the concerns of the same '
Silent Majority (Politics)'
that was carrying
Richard Nixon
to the White House at the very same time."
[5]
Later use[
Edit section: Later use
]
In the 1970s, the term was applied to wealthy liberal supporters of
open-housing and Forced busing who didn't make use of public schooling.
[6]
In
Boston,
Massachusetts,
supporters of busing, such as Senator
Ted Kennedy,
sent their children to private schools or lived in affluent Suburb.
To some
South Boston, Massachusetts
residents, Kennedy's support of a plan that "
Racial integration"
their children with blacks and his apparent unwillingness to do the same
with his own children, was hypocrisy.
[7]
By the late 1990s and early 21st century, the term has also come to be
applied to those who support Environmentalist or "green" goals, such as
Mass transit, yet drive large SUVs or literally have a limousine and
driver.
The Weekly Standard
applied the term to
Sheila Jackson-Lee
for being "routinely chauffeured the one short block to work--in a
government car, by a member of her staff, at the taxpayers' expense."
[8]
The term was also used disparagingly in a 2004 episode of Law & Order by
Fred Thompson 's character, Arthur Branch, to criticize the politics and
beliefs of his more liberal colleague, Serena Southerlyn.
South Park'
s creators
Trey Parker
and
Matt Stone
poked fun at the tendency of some liberals to be more concerned with image
than actually helping the earth in the episode "
Smug Alert!"
The
New York Observer
applied the term to 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards
for paying $400 for a haircut and, according to the newspaper, "lectures
about poverty while living in gated opulence".
[9]
In 2009, the term was applied by many commentators to former Senate Majority
Leader and then-Obama cabinet appointee Tom Daschle for failing to pay back
taxes and interest on the use of a limousine service.
[10]
[11]
The term has often been applied to documentary filmmaker Michael Moore over
the years by both critics on the left and right due to his habit of
traveling around New York City in a limousine.
[12]
[13]
Al Gore
is often called a limousine liberal by his critics for his use of private
jet planes [14] and SUVs, [15] while giving speeches calling for
reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions.
[16]
In the May 16, 2007 edition of TIME magazine, the term was used in the
allegation that that "His (Gore's) Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the
electricity used by the average American home"
[17]
"Lexus liberal" is a variant on the term, used to describe an upper-middle
class individual who supports the same ideas of the limousine liberals, but
is still out-of-touch with the actual poor they purport to feel for. The
term "Lexus" is used as these liberals are wealthy enough to afford a luxury
car or high-end vehicle, such as the Lexus.
See also[
Edit section: See also
]
. Champagne socialist
(or
Chardonnay socialist)
. Chattering class
. Elitism
. Gauche caviar
. Ivory tower
. Liberal elite
. Propaganda
. Radical chic
. San Francisco values
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:37 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
After reading this comment it is obvious that the white limousine liberal
mentality really does exist. I'm out of here. Long live the working class.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:25 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
Hi Carl,
No, I'm pretty pieved as well when I read stuff like this and the earlier
one on the Nuclear War Party.
Let's face it folks. IF we remove the appointment of SCOTUS justices and the
fate of the AHCA, how much worse would life really be under Trump? Yes I
know things would be terrible under Trump, but they may be pretty bad under
Clinton who may be more effective than Trump at getting some of what she
wants from a very corrupt Congress.
GADZ!
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:23 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate
Presidency Foretold
Yawn!...this is no news, news. Hillary Clinton could well make Barak Obama
appear to be a moderate Liberal, once she has put her mark on the white
house oval office.
But even knowing that she is talking out both sides of her mouth, I get
steamed over the idea that Hillary Clinton thinks my people, the working
class Americans, are so stupid we will actually take her words over her past
actions. Am I the only one who froths at the mouth over being lied to? Why
do we allow this sham of a thing called a National Presidential Election
take place, at the cost of a billion dollars?
Why don't we simply let the Oligarchy have their own little election, and
the rest of us go about setting up a truly representative People's
government?
Carl Jarvis
On 8/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate Presidency Foretold PublishedHillary Clinton.
on Monday, August 22, 2016 by Common Dreams Clinton's Transition Team:
A Corporate Presidency Foretold by Norman Solomon
Hillary Rodham Clinton is introduced by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.,
center, and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter before Clinton speaks in the
east Denver suburb of Aurora, Colorado, Oct. 24, 2008. (Photo: David
Zalubowski/AP) Like other Bernie Sanders delegates in Philadelphia a
few weeks ago, I kept hearing about the crucial need to close ranks behind
"Unity" was the watchword. But Clinton has reaffirmed her unity withpolitical gusher.
corporate America.
Rhetoric aside, Clinton is showing her solidarity with the nemesis of
the Sanders campaign-Wall Street. The trend continued last week with
the announcement that Clinton has tapped former senator and Interior
secretary Ken Salazar to chair her transition team.
After many months of asserting that her support for the "gold standard"
Trans-Pacific Partnership was a thing of the past-and after declaring
that she wants restrictions on fracking so stringent that it could
scarcely continue-Clinton has now selected a vehement advocate for the
TPP and for fracking, to coordinate the process of staffing the top of
her administration.
But wait, there's more-much more than Salazar's record-to tell us
where the planning for the Hillary Clinton presidency is headed.
On the surface, it might seem like mere inside baseball to read about
the transition team's four co-chairs, described by Politico as
"veteran Clinton aides Maggie Williams and Neera Tanden" along with
"former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and former Michigan Gov.
Jennifer Granholm." But the leaders of the transition team-including
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, who is also president of the
Clinton-Kaine Transition Project-will wield enormous power.
"The transition team is one of the absolute most important things in
the world for a new administration," says William K. Black, who has
held key positions at several major regulatory agencies such as the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Along with "deciding what are we
actually going to make our policy priorities," the transition team
will handle key questions: "Who will the top people be? Who are we
going to vet, to hold all of the cabinet positions, and many
non-cabinet positions, as well? The whole staffing of the senior
leadership of the White House."
Black's assessment of Salazar, Podesta and the transition team's four
co-chairs is withering. "These aren't just DNC regulars, Democratic
National Committee regulars," he said in an interview with The Real
News Network.
"What you're seeing is complete domination by what used to be the
Democratic Leadership Council. So this was a group we talked about in
the past. Very, very, very right-wing on foreign policy, what they
called a muscular foreign policy, which was a euphemism for invading
places. And very, very tough on crime-this was that era of mass
incarceration that Bill Clinton pushed, and it's when Hillary was
talking about black 'superpredators,' this myth, this so dangerous
myth."
Black added: "And on the economic side, they were all in favor of
austerity.
All in favor of privatization. Tried to do a deal with Newt Gingrich
to privatize Social Security. And of course, were all in favor of
things like NAFTA."
As for Hillary Clinton's widely heralded "move to the left" in recent
months, Black said that it "was purely calculated for political purposes.
And all of the team that's going to hire all the key people and vet
the key people for the most senior positions for at least the first
several years of what increasingly looks likely to be a Clinton
administration are going to be picked by these people, who are the
opposite of progressive."
In that light, Salazar is a grotesquely perfect choice to chair the
transition team. After all of Clinton's efforts to present herself as
a foe of the big-money doors that revolve between influence peddlers
and government officials in Washington, her choice of Salazar-a
partner at the lobbying powerhouse WilmerHale since 2013-belies her
smooth words. That choice means the oil and gas industry just hit a
On both sides of the revolving doors, the industry has been ablyafter the election."
served by Salazar, whose work included arguing for the Keystone XL
pipeline. His support for fracking has been so ardent that it led him
two years ago to make a notably fanciful claim: "We know that, from
everything we've seen, there's not a single case where hydraulic
fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone."
Salazar is part of a clear pattern. Clinton's selection of Tim Kaine
for vice president underscored why so many progressives distrust her.
Kaine was among just one-quarter of Democrats in the Senate who voted
last year to fast track the TPP. When he was Virginia's governor,
Kaine said that "I strongly support" a so-called right-to-work law
that is anathema to organized labor. A few years ago he faulted fellow
Democrats who sought to increase taxes for millionaires.
Clinton announced the Kaine pick while surely knowing that many
progressives would find it abhorrent. A week beforehand, the Bernie
Delegates Network released the results of a survey of Sanders
delegates showing that 88 percent said they would find selection of
Kaine "unacceptable." Only 3 percent of the several hundred
respondents said it would be "acceptable."
The first big post-election showdown will be over the TPP in the
lame-duck session of Congress. Clinton's spokesman Brian Fallon
reiterated a week ago that "she is against the TPP before the election and
But her choices for running mate and transition team have sent a verypolitical gusher.
different message. And it's likely that she is laying groundwork to
convey anemic "opposition" that will be understood on Capitol Hill as
a wink-and-nod from a president-elect who wouldn't mind "aye" votes
for the TPP.
Blessed with an unhinged and widely deplored Republican opponent,
Hillary Clinton may be able to defeat him without doing much to mend
fences with alienated Sanders voters. But Clinton's smooth rhetoric
should not change the fact that-on a vast array of issues-basic
principles will require progressives to fight against her actual
policy goals, every step of the way.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License Norman Solomon
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Monday, August 22, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Our Revolution
. Bernie Sanders
. Hillary Clinton
. Jill Stein
. Donald Trump
Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate Presidency Foretold Published
on Monday, August 22, 2016 by Common Dreams Clinton's Transition Team:
A Corporate Presidency Foretold by Norman Solomon
. 51 Comments
.
. Hillary Rodham Clinton is introduced by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.,
center, and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter before Clinton speaks in the
east Denver suburb of Aurora, Colorado, Oct. 24, 2008. (Photo: David
Zalubowski/AP)
. Like other Bernie Sanders delegates in Philadelphia a few weeks ago,
I kept hearing about the crucial need to close ranks behind Hillary
Clinton.
"Unity" was the watchword. But Clinton has reaffirmed her unity with
corporate America.
. Rhetoric aside, Clinton is showing her solidarity with the nemesis
of the Sanders campaign-Wall Street. The trend continued last week
with the announcement that Clinton has tapped former senator and
Interior secretary Ken Salazar to chair her transition team.
. After many months of asserting that her support for the "gold
standard" Trans-Pacific Partnership was a thing of the past-and after
declaring that she wants restrictions on fracking so stringent that it
could scarcely continue-Clinton has now selected a vehement advocate
for the TPP and for fracking, to coordinate the process of staffing
the top of her administration.
. But wait, there's more-much more than Salazar's record-to tell us
where the planning for the Hillary Clinton presidency is headed.
On the surface, it might seem like mere inside baseball to read about
the transition team's four co-chairs, described by Politico as
"veteran Clinton aides Maggie Williams and Neera Tanden" along with
"former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and former Michigan Gov.
Jennifer Granholm." But the leaders of the transition team-including
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, who is also president of the
Clinton-Kaine Transition Project-will wield enormous power.
"The transition team is one of the absolute most important things in
the world for a new administration," says William K. Black, who has
held key positions at several major regulatory agencies such as the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Along with "deciding what are we
actually going to make our policy priorities," the transition team
will handle key questions: "Who will the top people be? Who are we
going to vet, to hold all of the cabinet positions, and many
non-cabinet positions, as well? The whole staffing of the senior
leadership of the White House."
http://commondreams.org/omissionhttp://commondreams.org/omission
Black's assessment of Salazar, Podesta and the transition team's four
co-chairs is withering. "These aren't just DNC regulars, Democratic
National Committee regulars," he said in an interview with The Real
News Network.
"What you're seeing is complete domination by what used to be the
Democratic Leadership Council. So this was a group we talked about in
the past. Very, very, very right-wing on foreign policy, what they
called a muscular foreign policy, which was a euphemism for invading
places. And very, very tough on crime-this was that era of mass
incarceration that Bill Clinton pushed, and it's when Hillary was
talking about black 'superpredators,' this myth, this so dangerous
myth."
Black added: "And on the economic side, they were all in favor of
austerity.
All in favor of privatization. Tried to do a deal with Newt Gingrich
to privatize Social Security. And of course, were all in favor of
things like NAFTA."
As for Hillary Clinton's widely heralded "move to the left" in recent
months, Black said that it "was purely calculated for political purposes.
And all of the team that's going to hire all the key people and vet
the key people for the most senior positions for at least the first
several years of what increasingly looks likely to be a Clinton
administration are going to be picked by these people, who are the
opposite of progressive."
In that light, Salazar is a grotesquely perfect choice to chair the
transition team. After all of Clinton's efforts to present herself as
a foe of the big-money doors that revolve between influence peddlers
and government officials in Washington, her choice of Salazar-a
partner at the lobbying powerhouse WilmerHale since 2013-belies her
smooth words. That choice means the oil and gas industry just hit a
On both sides of the revolving doors, the industry has been ablyafter the election."
served by Salazar, whose work included arguing for the Keystone XL
pipeline. His support for fracking has been so ardent that it led him
two years ago to make a notably fanciful claim: "We know that, from
everything we've seen, there's not a single case where hydraulic
fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone."
Salazar is part of a clear pattern. Clinton's selection of Tim Kaine
for vice president underscored why so many progressives distrust her.
Kaine was among just one-quarter of Democrats in the Senate who voted
last year to fast track the TPP. When he was Virginia's governor,
Kaine said that "I strongly support" a so-called right-to-work law
that is anathema to organized labor. A few years ago he faulted fellow
Democrats who sought to increase taxes for millionaires.
Clinton announced the Kaine pick while surely knowing that many
progressives would find it abhorrent. A week beforehand, the Bernie
Delegates Network released the results of a survey of Sanders
delegates showing that 88 percent said they would find selection of
Kaine "unacceptable." Only 3 percent of the several hundred
respondents said it would be "acceptable."
The first big post-election showdown will be over the TPP in the
lame-duck session of Congress. Clinton's spokesman Brian Fallon
reiterated a week ago that "she is against the TPP before the election and
But her choices for running mate and transition team have sent a very
different message. And it's likely that she is laying groundwork to
convey anemic "opposition" that will be understood on Capitol Hill as
a wink-and-nod from a president-elect who wouldn't mind "aye" votes
for the TPP.
Blessed with an unhinged and widely deplored Republican opponent,
Hillary Clinton may be able to defeat him without doing much to mend
fences with alienated Sanders voters. But Clinton's smooth rhetoric
should not change the fact that-on a vast array of issues-basic
principles will require progressives to fight against her actual
policy goals, every step of the way.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License
