Hi
I don't know did you have chans to read my email few day ago,
I send email about I thanks nathen sheperd make email about
Obama,
it is email where you can wach on yootube that he will make war with Putin!!
He do it by bible.. if you want to I can try send agen
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:19 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit
Democratic Process
Today's a busy day, but I couldn't resist some comment on this article.
As far back as my 80 year old brain can recall, the Democrats and the
Republicans played politics by the same rules. In my state of
Washington, many years back, the two Parties decided to ensure that
there were only 2 Parties that could hope to control the state. After
setting conditions to make it near impossible for any upstart Party to
muscle in on the action, the two Big Boys went back to fighting among
themselves, secure in the knowledge that no matter who won an
election, the Establishment was secure.
I resigned from the Democratic Party around the time we were trying to
force voters to register as either Democrats or Republicans. I
considered myself to be a Citizen, and found no ballot for that group.
Watching the antics going on in both Parties reminds me of my
experiences in grade school class elections.
But for now, it's off to Port Angeles and some productive work.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/3/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Boardman writes: "The Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these
days, as entrenched party leaders find both their president and much of
their constituency headed in directions that the 'party' disapproves."
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee meeting in
Minneapolis,
August 30, 2015. (photo: Jim Mone/AP)
Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit Democratic Process
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
02 September 15
Rigging nominations may or not win elections, but it’s despicable
The Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these days, as entrenched
party leaders find both their president and much of their constituency
headed in directions that the “party” disapproves. From Sen. Chuck Schumer
choosing to risk war to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stifling supporters
of
her party’s president and the peace deal with Iran, to the insurgent
candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, party leaders find
themselves leading toward goals widely rejected by others.
This is actually a hopeful sign – that there’s resistance. But the struggle
to define Democratic values as more than just another oxymoron is still in
its early stages. It’s also something of a shadowy war in which the party
“leaders” seek to deny insurgents oxygen by limiting the number of debates,
thereby helping Hillary Clinton ascend to her predicted coronation as the
party’s nominee. Another way of looking at that is that the party
“leadership” is engaged in a delicate game of attempted vote-rigging by
ignorance. What about that can be good for the party, never mind the
country?
Leading up to the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) summer meeting
August 26-29, the National Journal (NJ) offered an unintentionally
hilarious
“insider” assessment of the state of the Democratic Party. “Looming” over
the meeting, NJ pontificated, was: A Bernie breakthrough? A Hillary
resurgence? O’Malley coming up on the outside? No, none of those. What
loomed over the meeting was “Joe Biden’s phantom candidacy.” Seriously,
according to NJ, Biden was getting “much of the buzz” from the party
delegates even though he wasn’t even attending the meeting. NJ quotes two
of
the DNC’s 450 members as wanting an “interesting race” and not wanting an
“anointed candidate” (the unnamed Hillary Clinton). NJ had no trouble
mentioning Clinton over and over in its story, treating her as the only
looming alternative to Biden (who had a conference call with DNC members on
August 26).
So what might these insider tea leaves mean? Apparently the party hierarchy
is pretty much solidly behind Clinton and willing to rig the rules (on
debates, for example) in her favor. And one might infer that, whatever
dissatisfaction the party leaders might have with Clinton, they have no
interest in Bernie Sanders or anyone else. NJ doesn’t even mention Bernie
till the last paragraph, and then only to say he will be speaking. NPR, on
the other hand, wonders if this is “2008 all over again?” when the
“unbeatable” Clinton lost to another insurgent. So there’s some ferment in
our official media.
Contending for the lead doesn’t make you visible in all media
Omission is a pretty odd way to treat a candidate who is competitive in the
first two primary states. In Iowa, Sanders has come from 50 points behind
Clinton to trail by just seven, and he leads her in New Hampshire. So it
looks like the party poobahs are willfully trying to ignore a candidate who
they desperately hope against hope will fade. And it seems designed to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy of the wishful calculation that Sanders “can’t”
survive Super Tuesday. But it’s still a long way to February 1 when the
Iowa
caucuses set the real circus on the road (with or without Joe Biden), when
the party begins to choose some 3,700 delegates to the Philadelphia
convention July 25-28, 2016.
To become the party’s nominee for president, a candidate will need roughly
2,242 delegate votes. That number represents one more than 50% of all the
delegate votes (4,483), representing the roughly 3,700 elected delegates
together with 450 DNC member-delegates and more than 250
elected-official/dignitary-delegates.
Democratic “leaders” are apparently indulging their dislike of Bernie
Sanders so much that their pique threatens to align them with a minority of
American voters, committed to nominating a damaged candidate with a 55%
disapproval rating, and 43% favorable (Sanders is 36% favorable, 29%
disapproval, with 33% still unsure). As the certified frontrunner, Clinton
remains well ahead of Sanders in national polling, but recently there have
been media pieces like the September 1 Huff Post story headlined:
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination.
It's Time for America to Notice.
It might also be time for the DNC decision-makers to notice, too, and to
level the playing field to allow a more democratic process to choose the
candidate. If they’re given a fair opportunity, Democratic primary voters
might even choose a truly Democratic candidate for the first time in
decades.
At the DNC meeting, campaign reps were lobbying delegates to commit to
their
candidates, but reports suggest there are few committed delegates yet.
Clinton reportedly has more than anyone else, but reporting suggests her
total may be fewer than ten.
DNC meeting hears four candidates in beauty-contest setting
Four of the five declared Democratic candidates spoke to the DNC in
alphabetical order (Jim Webb did not attend), which turned out to be in
increasing order of intensity, substance, and specificity. They were all in
agreement in a general way about basic domestic issues and “re-building the
American Dream.” They all avoided direct criticism of each other and they
all had sharp lines about Republican failures. It was all on C-Span, where
differences, both subtle and glaring, emerged, including these:
Lincoln Chaffee spoke only eight minutes (everyone else would go over
twenty), mostly in genial generalizations. But he pointedly expressed pride
in voting against Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Of Democrats generally,
he said, “We’re right on income inequality,” as well as healthcare, and
immigration, and the environment – without getting specific about any of
them.
Chaffee said he supported the Iran deal, not just on its merits – keeping
Iran from building a nuclear weapon – but also because the deal was the
result of important international cooperation among the US, China, Russia,
Great Britain, France, and Germany in negotiations that began in 2003
(joined by the US in 2006). He was alone in saying that that kind of
cooperation was needed to solve the world’s most serious problems.
And only Chaffee called for ending all American conflicts overseas, calling
them “Republican wars.” He did not offer specifics.
Hillary Clinton also spoke mostly in familiar generalities – in support of
women, children, the middle class, and working class families. She also
took
a series of shots at Republican Donald Trump. Clinton said she’s worked her
“whole life” to even the odds for the poor and middle class. She mostly
spoke in a flat, polished manner, carefully waiting at the expected
applause
lines. She made clear that she was still running as Bill Clinton’s wife.
(The New York Times falsely reported that she delivered “a fiery speech”
and
“a red-meat speech.”) Clinton hit most of the party’s major domestic policy
clichés without any strong show of passion, punctuating her points with
lots
of deadpan head nodding.
At the end, Clinton promised to help re-build the Democratic Party, a
thinly-veiled criticism of the party’s present leadership, including the
president. She promised to help candidates up and down the ticket
nationwide.
Martin O’Malley didn’t veil his criticism of the party’s leadership,
lashing
out at policy (but not naming names). He called the party’s decision to
have
only four debates before the primaries a “rigged process” that left the
Democratic Party largely silent and unresponsive to unacceptable Republican
racism and trickle-down economics. He particularly mocked the party’s
scheduling of the one New Hampshire debate in the middle of the holiday
shopping season when almost no one would watch. “This is no time for
silence,” O’Malley said, “we need debate.”
O’Malley lamented the party’s abandonment of a 50-state strategy, a
reference to former party chair Howard Dean’s effort to turn the Democrats
into a truly national party. He proclaimed that “we are the Democratic
Party, not the undemocratic party.”
But he also touted a fake populism, saying people could make change on
their
own, claiming that it was “not about big banks, big money taking over
elections – it’s about us.” That was a not-so-veiled jab at the Sanders
campaign, with O’Malley claiming he, too, has progressive values. But
O’Malley offered no justification for leaving banks too big to fail or
allowing big money to buy politicians. This seems to position him as the
“populist” alternative to Sanders, but the one who won’t do anything
serious
to disturb the status quo.
Bernie Sanders was attending his first DNC meeting. After thanking his
audience of Democrats “for what you do” for the good of the country, he
noted that his campaign “calling for a political revolution” was striking a
chord in grassroots America. He compared the current enthusiasm for his
message to the Democrats’ “abysmal” showing in 2014, when low turnout
contributed to Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress:
In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the
Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of governor
races
across the country, unless we generate excitement and momentum and produce
a
huge voter turnout. With all due respect – and I do not mean to insult
anyone here – that turnout, that enthusiasm, will not happen with politics
as usual. The same old same old will not work.
The people of our country understand that given the collapse of the
American
middle class, and given the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality
we are experiencing, we do not need more establishment politics or
establishment economics – what we need is a government willing to take on
the billionaire class …
Sanders spoke with his usual energy and intensity, enumerating many
specific
positions unmentioned by others. These included defeating the TPP,
rebuilding US infrastructure, ending “cowardly voting suppression by
cowardly Republican governors,” leading the world away from fossil fuels,
defeating the Keystone XL pipeline, providing free college tuition to all
Americans by taxing Wall Street speculation, providing quality childcare,
and expanding Social Security.
Sanders, like Chaffee, affirmed that he stands with the president on the
Iran deal.
How divisive is the Iran accord for the Democratic Party?
In the twelve years since negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons, Iran
has started no wars. Compare that record with the United States. Or Israel.
Or even Saudi Arabia. Then ask yourself why you believe Iran is part of an
“axis of evil” (if you do believe that). The reality is that Iran has been
successfully demonized beyond all rational reality. Iran is even helping
the
US and others fight ISIS.
All the same, US senators like Schumer and others are willing to turn on
their party’s president, ready to reject a pact negotiated not just by the
US but an international coalition with a wide spectrum of interests, none
of
which is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal almost as
soon as it was announced. Sanders endorsed the deal. But when an apparent
majority of members of the DNC proposed a resolution endorsing the Iran
deal, DNC chair Wasserman Schultz barred the DNC from voting on it.
The Iranian nuclear bomb program has never been much more real than
President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, yet there are those who fervently
believe in each imaginary horror who will not be swayed by any evidence of
an actual reality. With potentially game-changing opportunities of such
vitality at home and abroad, it bodes ill for democratic values for the
Democratic Party to be so heavily influenced by people so deeply in denial.
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America,
Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award
nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee meeting in
Minneapolis,
August 30, 2015. (photo: Jim Mone/AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit Democratic Process
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
02 September 15
Rigging nominations may or not win elections, but it’s despicable
he Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these days, as entrenched
party leaders find both their president and much of their constituency
headed in directions that the “party” disapproves. From Sen. Chuck Schumer
choosing to risk war to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stifling supporters
of
her party’s president and the peace deal with Iran, to the insurgent
candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, party leaders find
themselves leading toward goals widely rejected by others.
This is actually a hopeful sign – that there’s resistance. But the struggle
to define Democratic values as more than just another oxymoron is still in
its early stages. It’s also something of a shadowy war in which the party
“leaders” seek to deny insurgents oxygen by limiting the number of debates,
thereby helping Hillary Clinton ascend to her predicted coronation as the
party’s nominee. Another way of looking at that is that the party
“leadership” is engaged in a delicate game of attempted vote-rigging by
ignorance. What about that can be good for the party, never mind the
country?
Leading up to the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) summer meeting
August 26-29, the National Journal (NJ) offered an unintentionally
hilarious
“insider” assessment of the state of the Democratic Party. “Looming” over
the meeting, NJ pontificated, was: A Bernie breakthrough? A Hillary
resurgence? O’Malley coming up on the outside? No, none of those. What
loomed over the meeting was “Joe Biden’s phantom candidacy.” Seriously,
according to NJ, Biden was getting “much of the buzz” from the party
delegates even though he wasn’t even attending the meeting. NJ quotes two
of
the DNC’s 450 members as wanting an “interesting race” and not wanting an
“anointed candidate” (the unnamed Hillary Clinton). NJ had no trouble
mentioning Clinton over and over in its story, treating her as the only
looming alternative to Biden (who had a conference call with DNC members on
August 26).
So what might these insider tea leaves mean? Apparently the party hierarchy
is pretty much solidly behind Clinton and willing to rig the rules (on
debates, for example) in her favor. And one might infer that, whatever
dissatisfaction the party leaders might have with Clinton, they have no
interest in Bernie Sanders or anyone else. NJ doesn’t even mention Bernie
till the last paragraph, and then only to say he will be speaking. NPR, on
the other hand, wonders if this is “2008 all over again?” when the
“unbeatable” Clinton lost to another insurgent. So there’s some ferment in
our official media.
Contending for the lead doesn’t make you visible in all media
Omission is a pretty odd way to treat a candidate who is competitive in the
first two primary states. In Iowa, Sanders has come from 50 points behind
Clinton to trail by just seven, and he leads her in New Hampshire. So it
looks like the party poobahs are willfully trying to ignore a candidate who
they desperately hope against hope will fade. And it seems designed to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy of the wishful calculation that Sanders “can’t”
survive Super Tuesday. But it’s still a long way to February 1 when the
Iowa
caucuses set the real circus on the road (with or without Joe Biden), when
the party begins to choose some 3,700 delegates to the Philadelphia
convention July 25-28, 2016.
To become the party’s nominee for president, a candidate will need roughly
2,242 delegate votes. That number represents one more than 50% of all the
delegate votes (4,483), representing the roughly 3,700 elected delegates
together with 450 DNC member-delegates and more than 250
elected-official/dignitary-delegates.
Democratic “leaders” are apparently indulging their dislike of Bernie
Sanders so much that their pique threatens to align them with a minority of
American voters, committed to nominating a damaged candidate with a 55%
disapproval rating, and 43% favorable (Sanders is 36% favorable, 29%
disapproval, with 33% still unsure). As the certified frontrunner, Clinton
remains well ahead of Sanders in national polling, but recently there have
been media pieces like the September 1 Huff Post story headlined:
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination.
It's Time for America to Notice.
It might also be time for the DNC decision-makers to notice, too, and to
level the playing field to allow a more democratic process to choose the
candidate. If they’re given a fair opportunity, Democratic primary voters
might even choose a truly Democratic candidate for the first time in
decades.
At the DNC meeting, campaign reps were lobbying delegates to commit to
their
candidates, but reports suggest there are few committed delegates yet.
Clinton reportedly has more than anyone else, but reporting suggests her
total may be fewer than ten.
DNC meeting hears four candidates in beauty-contest setting
Four of the five declared Democratic candidates spoke to the DNC in
alphabetical order (Jim Webb did not attend), which turned out to be in
increasing order of intensity, substance, and specificity. They were all in
agreement in a general way about basic domestic issues and “re-building the
American Dream.” They all avoided direct criticism of each other and they
all had sharp lines about Republican failures. It was all on C-Span, where
differences, both subtle and glaring, emerged, including these:
Lincoln Chaffee spoke only eight minutes (everyone else would go over
twenty), mostly in genial generalizations. But he pointedly expressed pride
in voting against Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Of Democrats generally,
he said, “We’re right on income inequality,” as well as healthcare, and
immigration, and the environment – without getting specific about any of
them.
Chaffee said he supported the Iran deal, not just on its merits – keeping
Iran from building a nuclear weapon – but also because the deal was the
result of important international cooperation among the US, China, Russia,
Great Britain, France, and Germany in negotiations that began in 2003
(joined by the US in 2006). He was alone in saying that that kind of
cooperation was needed to solve the world’s most serious problems.
And only Chaffee called for ending all American conflicts overseas, calling
them “Republican wars.” He did not offer specifics.
Hillary Clinton also spoke mostly in familiar generalities – in support of
women, children, the middle class, and working class families. She also
took
a series of shots at Republican Donald Trump. Clinton said she’s worked her
“whole life” to even the odds for the poor and middle class. She mostly
spoke in a flat, polished manner, carefully waiting at the expected
applause
lines. She made clear that she was still running as Bill Clinton’s wife.
(The New York Times falsely reported that she delivered “a fiery speech”
and
“a red-meat speech.”) Clinton hit most of the party’s major domestic policy
clichés without any strong show of passion, punctuating her points with
lots
of deadpan head nodding.
At the end, Clinton promised to help re-build the Democratic Party, a
thinly-veiled criticism of the party’s present leadership, including the
president. She promised to help candidates up and down the ticket
nationwide.
Martin O’Malley didn’t veil his criticism of the party’s leadership,
lashing
out at policy (but not naming names). He called the party’s decision to
have
only four debates before the primaries a “rigged process” that left the
Democratic Party largely silent and unresponsive to unacceptable Republican
racism and trickle-down economics. He particularly mocked the party’s
scheduling of the one New Hampshire debate in the middle of the holiday
shopping season when almost no one would watch. “This is no time for
silence,” O’Malley said, “we need debate.”
O’Malley lamented the party’s abandonment of a 50-state strategy, a
reference to former party chair Howard Dean’s effort to turn the Democrats
into a truly national party. He proclaimed that “we are the Democratic
Party, not the undemocratic party.”
But he also touted a fake populism, saying people could make change on
their
own, claiming that it was “not about big banks, big money taking over
elections – it’s about us.” That was a not-so-veiled jab at the Sanders
campaign, with O’Malley claiming he, too, has progressive values. But
O’Malley offered no justification for leaving banks too big to fail or
allowing big money to buy politicians. This seems to position him as the
“populist” alternative to Sanders, but the one who won’t do anything
serious
to disturb the status quo.
Bernie Sanders was attending his first DNC meeting. After thanking his
audience of Democrats “for what you do” for the good of the country, he
noted that his campaign “calling for a political revolution” was striking a
chord in grassroots America. He compared the current enthusiasm for his
message to the Democrats’ “abysmal” showing in 2014, when low turnout
contributed to Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress:
In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the
Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of governor
races
across the country, unless we generate excitement and momentum and produce
a
huge voter turnout. With all due respect – and I do not mean to insult
anyone here – that turnout, that enthusiasm, will not happen with politics
as usual. The same old same old will not work.
The people of our country understand that given the collapse of the
American
middle class, and given the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality
we are experiencing, we do not need more establishment politics or
establishment economics – what we need is a government willing to take on
the billionaire class …
Sanders spoke with his usual energy and intensity, enumerating many
specific
positions unmentioned by others. These included defeating the TPP,
rebuilding US infrastructure, ending “cowardly voting suppression by
cowardly Republican governors,” leading the world away from fossil fuels,
defeating the Keystone XL pipeline, providing free college tuition to all
Americans by taxing Wall Street speculation, providing quality childcare,
and expanding Social Security.
Sanders, like Chaffee, affirmed that he stands with the president on the
Iran deal.
How divisive is the Iran accord for the Democratic Party?
In the twelve years since negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons, Iran
has started no wars. Compare that record with the United States. Or Israel.
Or even Saudi Arabia. Then ask yourself why you believe Iran is part of an
“axis of evil” (if you do believe that). The reality is that Iran has been
successfully demonized beyond all rational reality. Iran is even helping
the
US and others fight ISIS.
All the same, US senators like Schumer and others are willing to turn on
their party’s president, ready to reject a pact negotiated not just by the
US but an international coalition with a wide spectrum of interests, none
of
which is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal almost as
soon as it was announced. Sanders endorsed the deal. But when an apparent
majority of members of the DNC proposed a resolution endorsing the Iran
deal, DNC chair Wasserman Schultz barred the DNC from voting on it.
The Iranian nuclear bomb program has never been much more real than
President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, yet there are those who fervently
believe in each imaginary horror who will not be swayed by any evidence of
an actual reality. With potentially game-changing opportunities of such
vitality at home and abroad, it bodes ill for democratic values for the
Democratic Party to be so heavily influenced by people so deeply in denial.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America,
Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award
nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
