You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘party’ tag.
Soviet Russia misconception: Party runs everything (remember Politburo?). Russia may not be Soviet anymore, but it is run by someone who grew up under it and has its misconceptions. That’s why people taking over the US elections put so much stock in parties (hacking the DNC) and their platforms – both of them.
Think of the Bernies’ furor of changing the D platform. When did this even occur in our history? Who cares about non-binding platforms?
If you had any doubt that this was Russian inspired, think of the similar idiocy on the other side: think of the effort – and risk – to change the R platform re: Ukraine! 🍊 was instructed back in March (“we don’t want WWIII over Ukraine – JD Gordon, Russian ambassador met with his puppets in Cleveland to get it done. They actually sent the Russian Ambassador to meet with their agents in 🍊’s campaign (Sessions, Carter Page) for an inconsequential document.
also, Kizlyak met 🍊 in April
A few minutes before he made those remarks, Mr. Trump met at a VIP reception with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak. Mr. Trump warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign ambassadors who came to the reception.
WHY? Who cares about a party platform? Russians, that’s who. Former Soviet ones! In this country, changes of policy are done by law/government/SCOTUS. NEVER BY PARTIES! Parties can’t even tell a candidate what to run on, let alone what to get done if she/he wins. If you need proof that this entire election (since the primaries) was run by Russia, look no further but the party platforms battles.
The absurdity of it all is that it’s based by dinosaurs misconceptions – who didn’t catch up with the changes in Russia either. Propaganda it’s still used – at least that was the single successful product of communism. But party is dead in Russia and it was never the same in US. But Putin & co failed to get this and Bernie Bots/Trump’s Russian agents acred on this outdated misconceptions.
I am using the metaphor Wes Clark applied to NCLB and public education
I think, by the same measure, Obama was TPTB of permanently neutralizing the Democratic party as the party of the people.
Take a candidate who s “not so invested in the fights of the 60’s and the 70s” but thanks to his skin color can pretend long enough he represents democrats
Finance well and make the grassroots think they have a voice in this thing
I had glimpses of this takeover before
Make no mistake about it, the only thing the new Democratic Party has in common with the old one is the name. Itâ€s like the creature from the movie Alien. The party was forcibly impregnated by usurpers that grew from the inside out, eventually shedding its host and killing it in the process.””
And that explains the willingness of the forces that brought us Bush to support this guy
For all intents and purposes
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS OVER
and if they get away with it, the Bush times will be remembered as
THE GOOD OLD TIMES
Which in no small measure, was the point.
I always sensed throughout the primary that part of the reason the RNC, DNC and the media joined hands in this coup was to not only keep the Clintons away from the White House but erase their name from history.
It was a trend Dean started in 2004 – even without a Clinton in the race – and we know the same people manufactured bth “fresh face” candidates – Dean and Obama.
Dean started strong: The Era of Bill Clinton is Over. But the next day, USA Today published a letter Howie sent to Bill Clinton imploring him to attack Iraq. Kinda ending his anti-war bona fides. So he stopped.
It had became clear with Obama’s embrace of St Reagan while bashing Clinton. he started lumping Clinton with W in his famous “bitter ” (racist) remarks.
Last night it went on. For all Michelle’s perfunctory mention of Hillary, the narrative that emerged was that the party history in Newspeak is: Jefferson-FDR- JFK-Obama.
And then they had Mr Whtewater investigation Jim Leach speaking – did he admit yet he was wrong? Was he the talent that made it worthwhile kicking Rangel out for? or Clark?
Nothing whatsoever good happened for Democrats from JFK – until the torch was passed to Obama.
And this is a question that bugs me since February: how did “the Torch” end up with Teddy Kennedy?
last I remember, JFK had passed it to Bill Clinton. Do they think it’s a family heirloom or something?
And if you think differently you are a racist. A “white party member”. A Republican”
So, I guess the only logical choice for Clinton democrats is to conform the perception and vote Republican.
Some day, in the not some distant future, someone will wake up and really try to bring us home.
I have a message to you: nothing short of the full truth and accountability will do it.
Another CDS piece from Times UK
Tonight on stage in Denver Hillary Clinton, one of the most accomplished practitioners of the fine art of political deception, will pull off the biggest stunt of her career so far.
Nothing new, except I iked this:
The Clinton people have armfuls of polling evidence now that Mr Obama is failing to appeal to many of the voters that Mrs Clinton won in the primary campaign.
No mention of the steal. But
This number (polls on PUMA) is causing alarm within the Obama camp. They know that it is almost impossible for him to win the presidency without those voters. That explains why the candidate’s team have swallowed their fears of turning the convention into a Clinton show and agreed to such a prominent role for the First Family of the Democratic Party.
The formal roll-call vote for the presidential nomination is also tomorrow. Mrs Clinton is making a very public effort to downplay this event – magnanimously releasing her delegates to vote for Mr Obama if they wish. But if it goes ahead it could still provide an opportunity for Clinton hardliners to express their raw feelings.
And that’s what Obama fears. That and losing the roll call, obviously.
My comment to it:
“I wish Hillary would be less honorable to the party and more so to her 18 million voters. She can never do right by them no matter what she does anyway – as this article proves.”
A PUMA shoe wearing Carville says there’s no message to this convention. Not a direct one, there isn’t. The subliminal one is
YES WE CON
Politico has a 3 pages piece of propaganda about the Dean/Pelosi/Reid “strengthening” the party.
When Barack Obama accepts his nomination on Thursday, he will sit atop a Democratic Party transformed and strengthened by its time served in political exile. The future — at least until Election Day — looks limitless.
“At least until election Day” – not a hell lot of confidence here
It’s one of those pieces that will make a good read on November 6.
Wou;d a strong party do this to their own members?
That McCain can make an ad like this one belies the whole premise of the article. He wouldn’t have made the ad if he didn’t try to appeal to millions of potential – 18 millions of them.
The rah-rah-rah tone of that article neglects that little detail: the base of the party was told to go away. The working class, the baby boomers, women, Hispanics, rural democrats – not needed anymore in this “strong party.
The article mentions the Clinton name only next to the word “remnants”
While GOP names airports after their 2 termer of questionable accomplishment, the Democrats went out of their way to erase any trace of their most successful president. It was the animus behind this entire do-over – and the GOP and thir media helped gleefuly.
There’s only one problem with re-writing history like this: Clinton is still relevant to millions who remember peace and prosperity. And if you think they’ll disappear by attrition – think again – we have kids. Many of them. remember? Baby boomers?
If there was any truth to the article, then why is Obama scaling down his ad buys (just like Kerry did in 2004, BTW)
that Obama is pulling ads from certain Red States. The key word, of course, is “adjust.” This is a familiar euphemism for pulling ads from states where those ads cannot move the numbers, and the media advisers always say it’s temporary.
I don’t know what’s in the future. Super-delegates doing their job? A shake up in November and thereafter? A third party? Who knows.
The most appropriate subtitle in the article is:
And a psychiatrist shall lead them
What it’s clear is that this excellent adventure started in the same place the Donner party did, already bears more resemblances to the unfortunate pioneers: to get where they are now, they had to eat their own.
I am old enough
to remember when dems were priding themselves of not walking in goose step and being individuals who are free to make their mind on their own. Ah the good ol times!
Now, with headlines like THIS ONE and THIS ONE I see the goose step is implemented.
I remember how we were laughing at the GOP-ers who timidly tried to disagree with Bush (recently Warner, Hagel) only to be “brought back on the plantation” with as big fanfare…
In the old country there use to be a joke. They had a thing called “Reorganization” where nonsensically everyone was switching position with everyone else. Someone was asking for an explanation as to why that was.
“You see – if you have a big bag of mice – soon enough they’ll try to chew their way through and break free. So, now and then, you need to shake the bag – and this is reorganization”
I believe that the same wise man came up with the idea to pick the next dictator from the other part of the bag of mice.
I hope I am wrong.
Update The awesome Riverdaughter has weighted in the same thought – how can I not add what she says?
- And here is where Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are running into problems: The party has never been an authoritarian one. The Democrats are legendary for being unable to corral its members. It is easier to herd cats than control the members of the Democratic party. Party unification for uscan not be a top down decree. This isn’t the Unification Church and Howard Dean is no Reverend Sun Yung Moon.
- What it looks like to the typical Democrat, that loyal party stalwart, is a takeover. I don’t think Obama or his enablers would disagree with this. But they have picked the wrong party.