The Commentariat -- February 5, 2016
Whiteout. We're having quite a little winter wonderland moment today. If history provides any lesson, I may lose power. For a while. -- Constant Weader
Presidential Race
Michael Memoli of the Los Angeles Times: "A long-simmering battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders burst into public view Thursday, as the former secretary of State denounced her rival for what she said was a campaign of 'innuendo' and 'insinuation' amid a continuing fight over each other's progressive credentials. The first one-on-one debate between the Democratic presidential hopefuls delivered fireworks immediately, as Clinton delivered a spirited rebuke to the charge Sanders has been making on the campaign trail that she is not a genuine progressive." ...
... Here's the first half-hour of the debate, which might be titled "Democrats Yelling at Each Other":
... Eric Levitz of New York thought it was boffo: "One of the Best 10-Minute Exchanges in The History of American Political Debates." CW: That part of the debate, at the end of the clip above (beginning about 26 min. in), was fewer than ten minutes. ...
... Within his column Levitz notes what Jordan Weissman of Slate (and others) have pointed out: "Hillary Just Successfully Attacked Bernie Sanders for Supporting a Bill Her Husband Signed." Bill Clinton has later said his support of the bill -- "the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a bill that essentially banned the government from regulating derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that helped bring down the global economy during the financial crisis" -- was a mistake.
... MSNBC has a highlights page here. Full debate video, of the pirated sort, is here, for now. ...
... The Washington Post has an interactive annotated transcript, which includes some snark & fact-checking. ...
... David Graham of the Atlantic has a good -- and I think fair -- overview of the debate. The "Who Won?" headline sucks, but Graham isn't very interested in pursuing it. He concludes, "Sanders entered with momentum and did nothing to lose it, meaning he probably gains more from the debate -- but it's hard to make a case that Clinton lost the debate. The big winner from the night might be the American people: After months of overcrowded debates, the chance to see just two serious presidential candidates engage each other was a valuable and refreshing change of pace." Graham's analysis is followed by a fairly useful liveblog of the debate by other Atlantic writers." ...
... Jonathan Chait thinks he has a handle on the essential difference between Clinton's & Sanders' views. CW: I think he's close, but he may be painting Sanders as too much of a one-note candidate while giving Clinton a bit too much credit for a sort of enlightened pluralism, and that may be Sanders' fault as much as Chait's. ...
... Greg Sargent expands on Chait's argument. ...
... Jamelle Bouie: "The big takeaway from the MSNBC debate is that the DNC should have held more debates.... "On the main, anyone who watched the debate had a chance to see two politicians and public servants argue for their vision of the country and its future. This was a real contrast to the Republican debates, which tend to focus less on policy and more on dominance displays (Trump versus Bush, for example) and outright aggression (Cruz on carpet bombing)." ...
... CW: Josh Voorhees of Slate comments on Hillary's claim that she couldn't possibly be an establishment candidate because she's "a woman running to be the first woman president." Voohees misses the point: Clinton did this in 2008, not in 2015 or '16. And her husband helped, a lot. During my lifetime, ante-Clinton, every American president except FDR (who as undersecretary of the Navy attempted to enlist) was a veteran (yeah, even Reagan, sort of). Bill Clinton broke that mold, & not without controversy. But his successful run provided a huge opening to women, few of whom served in the military until recently. Today, even most Republicans & other traditionalists at least pretend that women are as qualified as men to serve as president. Hillary was the trailblazer who establish women's credibility in her first run for president. She deserves full credit for it. But it doesn't make her any less a member of the "establishment" today because -- thanks to her -- there is no longer much of a crusty old counter-revolutionary movement to insist she stay home & bake cookies. (Anyone who wants to cite Bob Woodward's complaint that Clinton has an "unrelaxed" delivery [see Amy Chozick's report on shouting, linked below] as evidence to the contrary would be justified. Woodward is indeed a vestige of the good ole days when women knew their place.) ...
... Elizabeth Bruenig of the New Republic: "Like her 9/11 answer in November, her new strategy on Thursday night to downplay her relationship with Goldman Sachs and to win trust for her plans for Wall Street regulation will likely fail, if not backfire. And despite her insistence that she stridently agrees with Sanders on how to address Wall Street, the two differ in both tone and tactics, something voters aren't likely to miss. Lastly, this particular effort at wrapping up the Wall Street question on Clinton's behalf has the potential to call her opposition to Citizens United into question, given her claim that money in politics shouldn't necessarily be read as a corruption threat." ...
... CW: To me, the Clintons' Wall Street connections are only part of the point. The objections to Bill & Hillary's profiteering should extend to all the corporate entities (here & abroad) who have paid the Clintons. Here's the list of paid speeches Hillary Clinton reported from 2013 to 2015. Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge: "... the disclosure omits an unknown number of speeches that the Clintons delivered while directing the payment or honoraria to the Clinton Foundation, despite instructions on the and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, saying that honoraria directed to a charity should be reported. Still, as readers will note, even the 'modest' data that Hillary chose to share is quite stunning." Durden also appended a list of Bill Clinton's speeches during the period. ...
... Amy Chozik of the New York Times seems to do a fair job of reprising Hillary Clinton's relationship with Wall Street. She puts 2008 Clinton to the left of 2008 Obama. (And I would say to later Obama.)
... Steven Cohen of the New Republic: "Bernie Sanders can do better on foreign policy than bringing up Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote." Cohen points to a moment in the debate which he says contrasts the candidates' basic differences on U.S. foreign policy: "Sanders, in other words, is primarily concerned with proliferation and the possibility of war, while Clinton is preoccupied with a more traditional understanding of American hegemony, and the great power rivalries it implies.... It would be nice if [Sanders] could find a more compelling way of conveying that." ...
... MSNBC is airing a debate at 9:00 pm ET Thursday night, in Durham, New Hamshire, between Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton. The New York Times is liveblogging the debate. The Washington Post liveblog is entertaining.
Nia-Malika Henderson of CNN: "Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, will endorse Bernie Sanders, a source familiar with the campaign told CNN." ...
... Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post on why the kids feel the Bern: "... millennials actually seem to prefer socialism to capitalism.... It's not just Sanders's socialist label that sells; it's his socialist ideas, too. To a generation that's broke, in debt, underemployed and stuck in its parents' basements, promises of a political revolution, more equitable distribution of (other people's) wealth, a more robust social safety net and free college can sound pretty appealing.... It is precisely Sanders's au-naturel-ness that endears him to his young fans: his unkempt hair, his ill-fitting suits, his unpolished Brooklyn accent, his propensity to yell and wave his hands maniacally.... These qualities are what make him seem 'authentic,' 'sincere' even -- especially when contrasted with Clinton's hyper-scriptedness." Rampell says female candidates can't get away with unkempt authenticity. ...
... Or Shouting. Amy Chozick: Critics are criticizing critics of Hillary Clinton's "shouting" voice. CW: I've got news for women & men: shouting is offputting. It bugs me when Bernie shouts; it bugs me when Hillary shouts. It doesn't bug me when Trump or Cruz shouts because I never listen to them anyway. What with the new invention of microphones, it is possible to speak with force & passion without raising one's voice. Neither Angry Hillary nor Angry Bernie is an attractive general election candidate. "Undecided" voters are weighing whether they want a candidate in their living rooms for four years. They don't want a shouter. ...
... Update: I've been listening to some of the debate. Both candidates have shouted every word. Why? They're responding to questions posed by people who are not yelling at them. Are they called "moderators" because they don't holler?
Burgess Everett of Politico: "The number of Democratic senators willing to insert themselves in the increasingly divisive contest for the Democratic contest remains slim despite the fact that 39 of the caucus's 46 members have endorsed Clinton. But it is growing."
Outrageous Fortune. Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News: Hillary "Clinton has been fueled by millions from a network of well-connected Washington lobbyists, Wall Street bundlers and billionaire donors. Here is a Yahoo News guide to some of the key players in Clinton's $157 million campaign."
... Karen DeYoung & Greg Miller of the Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton gained an apparent ally Thursday in her fight to limit the political damage from her growing email controversy, as former Republican secretary of state Colin L. Powell said he disagreed with a State Department decision to retroactively classify two emails from his personal account while in office.... Powell has said in the past that he found the State Department computer system, including Internet and email, to be woefully inadequate when he took office there in 2001. He devoted substantial resources to improving it but also made liberal use of his personal AOL account." ...
... Hillary Clinton has another ally who hasn't formally endorsed her (and won't): Paul Krugman. Today's column is Krugman's third in fewer weeks unloading on Bernie Sanders. Krugman starts by slamming Ted Cruz, but he quickly switches to Sanders.
... James Hohmann of the Washington Post on Hillary Clinton's "flip" answer to Anderson Cooper's question about her well-paid Wall Street speeches. "The most problematic part of her answer came when she insisted something that is demonstrably untrue: 'They're not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much. Fine with me.'... The latest FEC reports reveal that Hillary reached a major milestone during the fourth quarter of 2015: Donors in the financial sector have now given more to support her campaigns than Bill's." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times: "ABC News made the Republican primary in New Hampshire a single-debate show in a news release on Thursday, and [Carly] Fiorina, who did not meet ABC's polling requirements, was not added. Donald J. Trump will again find himself at the center of the podium on Saturday, making his return to the debate stage after skipping the last debate in Iowa because of a feud with Fox News. On either side of him will be Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rounding out the stage will be Jeb Bush, Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Ben Carson. Republican candidates past and present had been arguing for Mrs. Fiorina to make the stage." CW: Because they're feminists.
Arturo Garcia of Raw Story: "Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) campaign called precinct chairs in Iowa to encourage them to misrepresent Ben Carson's campaign status, Breitbart News reported. A precinct captain supporting the senator, who identified herself as Nancy Bliesman, produced two voicemails she received from the campaign telling her to tell Carson supporters he was leaving the race. 'It has just been announced that Ben Carson is taking a leave of absence from the campaign trail,' one voicemail stated. 'So it is very important that you tell any Ben Carson voters that for tonight, uh, that they not waste a vote on Ben Carson, and vote for Ted Cruz. He is taking a leave of absence from his campaign.' The two voicemails were left at 7:07 p.m. and 7:29 p.m. local time, after CNN reported that Carson would be traveling to his home in Florida after the caucuses, but not ending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination." ...
... Ruthless People. Steve M. has the goods on Cruz's campaign guru Jeff Roe: "Kevin McDermott of the St. Louis Post Dispatch notes that this and other eyebrow-raising Cruz tactics are being ascribed to Jeff Roe, a Kansas City political consultant who's managing Cruz's campaign, and who has a reputation for ruthlessness." Read on. Roe has pulled this very same trick in the past. CW: No wonder Cruz hired him; they're vultures of a feather. ...
... Caitlin MacNeal of TPM: "Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) on Thursday slammed Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) presidential campaign for disseminating reports that Ben Carson was planning to drop out of the race during the Iowa caucuses. 'Cruz did some questionable things,' Branstad told Radio Iowa. 'This thing that they distributed on caucus night saying that Dr. Carson was likely to drop out and his supporters should support Cruz, that is, I think, unethical and unfair and I think there'll be repercussions to that. We have a strong sense of fairness in Iowa,' Branstad added. 'Distributing information that was not true about a candidate right at the time people are voting in the caucuses is an inappropriate thing.'"
Michael Kranish of the Washington Post: "In a GOP presidential campaign dominated by anger over illegal immigration, distrust of establishment leaders, and aggressive courtship of evangelicals..., Ohio governor [John Kasich] is trying to turn Tuesday's New Hampshire primary into a test of whether his party has room for a throwback brand of Republicanism.... He opted not to compete in the Iowa caucuses, which were heavily influenced by religious conservatives, and tells New Hampshire voters that he will drop out if he does poorly here."
Robert Costa of the Washington Post: "Ben Carson ... will cut more than 50 staff positions Thursday as part of an overhaul and downsizing of his campaign. Salaries are being significantly reduced. Carson's traveling entourage will shrink to only a handful of advisers. And instead of flying on private jets, Carson may soon return to commercial flights." CW: I'm thinking this means he flew a private jet from Iowa to Florida to pick up "a change of clothes." Your donations were well-spent, Carsonites.
Other News
Coral Davenport of the New York Times: "President Obama's budget request to Congress will include a new fee on oil companies, requiring them to pay $10 to the federal government for every barrel of oil they produce, the White House said on Thursday. The money, which could bring in up to $32 billion in new federal revenue annually, would be spent on a variety of transportation and infrastructure projects, including bridges and highways, high-speed rail and research on advanced vehicles such as electric and self-driving cars. The proposal to further increase costs for fossil fuel production is part of a broader effort by Mr. Obama to fight climate change.... [CW: Speaking for oil barons everywhere,] The House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, attacked the proposal."
Laura Koran of CNN: "President Barack Obama addressed the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, speaking about the need to overcome fear through faith, just one day after making a historic visit to a Baltimore mosque where he delivered a message of religious inclusivity.... Ben Carson ... attended the event but did not address the crowd." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) CW: I expect most of the GOP candidates to express "disappointment" in CNN for allowing a reporter named Koran to report on the Christian nation' prayer breakfast. I listened to the end of President Obama's speech. It was very moving:
Ken Dilanian of NBC News: "State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned. In an interview with NBC News, Powell challenged the conclusion, saying nothing that went to his personal account was secret. A Rice spokeswoman said the emails were about diplomatic communications."
CW: This, if true, is surprising. Jake Sherman & Rachel Bade of Politico: "House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz has been quietly planning a probe into the federal government's record keeping -- an investigation he acknowledges could put Hillary Clinton in the cross hairs. In an interview with Politico published Tuesday, Chaffetz said the probe wouldn't focus on Clinton, but "when she creates her own private email system, she's ensnarled herself.' But on Wednesday evening, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy summoned Chaffetz (R-Utah) to the Capitol to let him know that he is not permitted to launch an investigation that involves Clinton in any way.... Ryan and McCarthy ... believe the FBI and Justice Department should handle the investigation into Clinton's use of personal email..., and that congressional involvement could disrupt the criminal probe and give the appearance of a GOP witch hunt. Ryan, however, had given Chaffetz a green light to proceed -- with caution -- investigating systematic problems within his committee's broad jurisdiction, while making clear his preference that Chaffetz steer clear of Clinton personally. Now, following the Politico story, GOP leadership says he may not even investigate systematic issues if they involve Clinton."
Andrew Pollack of the New York Times: "In a testy exchange with lawmakers, Martin Shkreli declined to testify before a House committee on Thursday about his actions in increasing the price of a decades-old drug fiftyfold overnight. Mr. Shkreli, who left Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug company he started, after being indicted on federal securities fraud charges in December, repeatedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, angering various members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 'I don't think I've ever seen the committee treated with such contempt,' Representative John Mica, a Florida Republican, said after Mr. Shkreli was excused and left the room.... The theatrics surrounding Mr. Shkreli's appearance, which included his smirking at some remarks by committee members and calling them 'imbeciles' on Twitter after he left the hearing, overshadowed some of the more substantial discussion about huge overnight price increases in the prices of old drugs by Turing and another company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... ** Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times: "Members of the House Oversight Committee were probably giving each other high-fives Thursday for making Martin Shkreli look like a smug jerk under their questioning about the high drug prices at his former company, Turing Pharmaceuticals.... Some of [the Congressmen] were smug jerks about it themselves. (I'm looking at you, Reps. Jason Chaffetz [R-Utah] and Trey Gowdy [R-Va.]).... Not only is it no big challenge to make Shkreli look like a jerk, but the responsibility for sky-high prices charged even for old generic formulations is entirely their own.... The reason that the U.S. leads the world in stratospheric drug prices is that government policy allows it. For example, the largest single pharmaceutical customer in the U.S., Medicare, isn't permitted by law to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. U.S. customers are forbidden to acquire their drugs in Canada or overseas, where they're often cheaper.... Why won't Congress act? As always, it comes down to money. Pharmaceutical companies are consistently among the biggest contributors to Washington campaign chests."
CW: By my count, that's two lowlifes who got something right during yesterday's news cycle. (1) Cruz: "Trumpertantrum"; (2) Shkreli: "imbeciles." Maybe we should add Kerry Eleveld's "Crump." And kudos to Gloria, via Akhilleus, for coming up with "the Crumps & the Rubes." Sounds like a couple of street gangs, which is appropriate.
Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public's perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.... Roberts said he thought the public skepticism concerning the court starts with the Senate confirmation process." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
CW: David Brooks gets 800 words a column (I think), and in today's it's worth reading two: "concrete leap." I suspect Brooks missed many of his high-school English classes. Or else his copy editors gave up before she got to the last graf & has departed to some forsaken land in search of saving the needy for her own fulfilment.
Beyond the Beltway
Progress Michigan: "An email obtained by Progress Michigan shows that Harvey Hollins, a principal adviser to Governor Rick Snyder, was aware of an uptick in Legionnaires disease in Genesee County and that a county health official was attributing the cases directly to the Flint River as the source of drinking water in Flint. The email, sent to Hollins by former DEQ Communications Director Brad Wurfel, was sent on March 13, 2015 ten months prior to Governor Snyder informing the public. Governor Snyder claimed he had only recently been informed of the outbreak at his press conference in January."
Way Beyond
Liz Sly & Zakaria Zakaria of the Washington Post: "Syrian rebels battled for their survival in and around Syria's northern city of Aleppo on Thursday after a blitz of Russian airstrikes helped government loyalists sever a vital supply route and sent a new surge of refugees fleeing toward the border with Turkey. The Russian-backed onslaught against rebel positions in Aleppo coincided with the failure of peace talks in Geneva, and helped reinforce opposition suspicions that Russia and its Syrian government allies are more interested in securing a military victory over the rebels than negotiating a settlement."
Andrew Roth of the Washington Post: "Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill I of the Russian Orthodox Church will meet in Cuba for the first time next Friday as part of an effort to heal a schism that has divided Christianity between East and West for nearly 1,000 years. The meeting, the first ever between a sitting pope and Russian patriarch, will take place at José Martí International Airport, where the two will sign a joint declaration."
Share Article
Reader Comments (20)
@Marie - I'm in total agreement about shouting. It bothers me when anyone does it. Seeming unaware that they have actual microphones just makes them look dumb, and it is annoying. Obama never shouts.
Jamelle Bouie has an interesting exploration on what it means to be a progressive. He feels Bernie is trying to define it to match his own beliefs.
From time to time in recent years, we have seen a parade of plutocrats from banking, investment, financial services and other industries, testify before congressional committees. I have long marveled that each of them didn't just hop up on the witness table, turn around, drop trou, bend over and say: "Y'all can Kiss My ASS!" Knowing with certitude, that for a couple of hundred thou in campaign contributions, there isn't one of them that wouldn't do it -- at high noon on the Capitol steps.
Smirking Shkreli may have been the only honest man in that committee room. Odious, but honest. Somewhere, Diogenes is smiling.
"Diogenes ( c. 400– c. 325 bc ), Greek philosopher. The most noted of the Cynics, he emphasized self-sufficiency and the need for natural, uninhibited behavior, regardless of social conventions."
Does all this remind you of anyone? Will Le Donald select young Martin as his running mate? Ain't Laissez Faire Capitalism grand?
From Mother Jones -
"Ted Cruz Attacks Sean Penn . . . "
(and 'undocumented Democrats')
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/ted-cruz-sean-penn-el-chapo
I agree about the shouting, but I attribute it to the current format of having a live audience at the debates. If I'm not mistaken, in years past, the audiences were warned at the outset to remain silent throughout, not to express their approval or disapproval of the candidates' responses. Now the debate forums are much like rallies, where the candidates do shout to energize the troops. I think it's easy perhaps for the candidates to get caught up responding to the audience, forgetting that there's no need to shout to the TV audience. Later in the debate last night, Sanders and Clinton did use their indoor voices, and it was much better.
@Janice: I agree. Clinton in particular has an effective, authoritative "normal" speaking voice. (I would say that; I think she sounds a lot like me!) She should employ it more regularly on the campaign trail.
Bernie's final remarks last night surprised me. It was the first time I ever heard him not playing Larry David. He should try that more often, too.
Marie
Marie--it was brave of you to post some of your more personal feelings about Hillary the other day, since such comments often reveal more about us than we want. In the same spirit, I've been thinking about the basis of my opinion of Bernie--why I get stuck when I think of him as the nominee. I'll just put it out there:
He makes me feel old. He makes me feel like a stick in the mud conservative. He doesn't value my work or opinions. He gets to be the cute grandpa promising free college and pony rides to the kids, and I have to be the eat your vegetables, go to bed on time mom who dashes everyone's fantasies.
When I was in college in Berkeley in the 1970s, if we walked past a demonstration to get to class instead of joining in, the demonstrators would sneer "liberal!" at us. Bernie makes me feel like I did then.
Before it was politically incorrect to openly mock strong, accomplished women, my male acquaintances found many, many ways to display their sexist attitudes. Some of Bernie's followers with their vitriol against Hillary make me feel as though any progress in changing those attitudes was illusory. I think sexism is rampant among Republicans, of course, but there seems to be a lot of sexism running through the Democratic race as well, and it gets my back up.
I don't think we should make our political choices based on such emotional reactions, but perhaps acknowledging them is the first step in making more reasoned decisions.
That brings me to electability.......
What a pleasure to watch a real debate. Two people arguing the issues while the moderators gave them large berth, never interfering thus making themselves less visible than the candidates––as it should be.
Here we have two democrats who are not that far apart in their assessment of how this country would prosper. Their emotional barbs were real ––Bernie wants to change our system; Hillary agrees, but looks at the bigger picture of how we can implement that. For example: "It's not just Wall street––it's the broader issue of big business"...all those multi-nationals that pay zero taxes–––that has to change but that takes Congress which means a hell of a lot of kissing asses and whatever else it will take to make those changes. Watching these two who genuinely like and respect each other have to convince the public one is better qualified to be President is, I would think, terribly difficult––especially for Bernie who seems to be quite uncomfortable squabbling with Hillary who has been in this kind of fight for most of her life. She's battle scarred and can fight with the best of them (her raised voice? she is criticized for not being MORE emotional––in fact she has been pilloried for practically everything even to endless comments years ago about her hair, and
her pant suits). As for Bernie's loud conversations, that's part of his delivery––obviously crowds love it. I'm partial to low volume–-more of an Obama kind of gal ("the guy has no emotion!!! ).
At one point in the debate, Hillary was again extolling her advantage as having more experience (they were talking foreign policy) and Bernie came back with saying judgement was the important factor (he repeatedly reminded the audience that Hillary voted FOR the Iraq War while he did not), but she countered that by saying that both were needed and proceeded to give examples. On this foreign policy front she is far more impressive and has the language of someone who has actually had the job.
At the end they had a little love fest. Good to see. Hillary stayed, shook a lot of hands, talked to many people while Bernie left with his wife, probably exhausted. When you realize how grueling an experience it is amazing how they keep going. And "keeping going" brings me back to the fact that anyone who runs for this office has got to be self centered to a great degree–-it has got to be a strong belief that YOU can fix whatever it is that needs fixing and YOU can head this country "in the right direction"–––that's powerful stuff and few are willing to take up the helm. I do suspect that those like Carson are in it for self aggrandizement (speaking fees and selling books) and know they are playing a fool's errand.
RE: Brook's column which I reluctantly read out of curiosity. Someone should tell Brooks we have a system that we call democratic socialism that helps deliver help and legs up for millions of citizens unlike his party that would get rid of all that if it could. The examples he gives from a book he read of people who are extreme altruists border on the pathological. They may do great good, but many times it backfires and Brooks fails to mention that part.
At this late date, it should not be in the least alarming, the profligacy of big money in a presidential campaign. Most of the money, especially thanks to the largesse of Little Johnny and the Dwarfs, is hidden, but one immense player is conspicuous by its presence on the margins of both sides, Goldman Sachs, which has indirectly benefited both Clinton and Cruz. As for their less conspicuous help, who can say (kudos again to LJATD)? It's no doubt far more lavish.
One can only sadly acknowledge the very real point of origin of Bernie Sanders' (I was going to "somewhat" but it's far beyond that) Quixotic goal of excising big money from politics. I doubt it will ever happen.
The only side most big money wants to be on is the winning side. This does not mean that most big money players, banks and corporations, for instance, are politically agnostic and of course that goal doesn't preclude them from shoveling their shekels toward a candidate espousing policies that will best help their bottom line, but few of them are partisan enough not to hedge their bets.
Consider Goldman Sachs' bets well hedged.
The real issue with Sanders is the fact that if he were POTUS not one of his ideas would ever become law.
And now I am waiting to see the first Republican debate, you know the one where someone actually presents an idea.
I kinda get what Brooks was trying to say, although I don't know why he was saying it. His readers certainly wouldn't get it.
But he thinks a moral saint, or whatever phrase he used, -- all his words give me a headache -- would rescue two strangers before his/her own mother? What if the two strangers were Cruz and Trump?
PD,
Quite right about the socialist aspects of our country. Ken, the other day, made a comment about this as well. So many of the loudmouths who decry Sochulism seem to have no sense of either American history or the ways in which socialistic policies affect them--beneficially--every day.
If one posits that the concept of socialism requires the use of money collected from taxpayers being put to uses that benefit everyone, yes, even those ever pesky poors and blahs, then socialism runs deep through the American system.
Once you start thinking about it, the list of things gathered under that rubric gets longer and longer.
A few of the big ones:
National defense, and all that that implies including the prosecution of wars and homeland security. All done with tax monies used to benefit everyone.
Police and fire departments. Public school systems. Public works programs including highways, bridges, dams, sewers, water treatment plants, public parks and beaches.
What about corporate and farm subsidies? All done off the socialist model. All those smirking, capitalists piling up the filthy lucre enabled in part--sometimes in large part--by the beneficence of socialism.
In fact, if you profit from the work of any governmental agency, whether it's the National Forest Service, if you take your kids on a hike in the woods and can rest assured they won't fall into a crevasse because the trails are marked and often cleared by rangers, the National Weather Service, if you are able to prepare for storms with the aid of timely and accurate forecasts, the Department of Health and Human Services, if you live in Florida and the governor is jumping up and down about the Zika virus and demanding money and testing kits from the federal government, or another (R) governor is also being bailed out by taxpayers after poisoning a city's water supply, or a tornado blows down several towns in your blood red state and FEMA funds are allocated to help you out, you are benefiting from socialism.
Now just look at that list (and add your own--there are scads more services and systems supported by the socialist tradition of using funds collected to help all Americans) and remember that Confederates who advocate for no taxes mean to dismantle all of those agencies and do away with the services they provide.
There have been places in the world that don't have some aspect of socialism benefiting their population. Mostly they're occupied by hunter-gatherers or by people in animal skins who hit each other over the heads with rocks to see who gets to drink out of the mud puddle that day.
That's the world Confederates desire. They just don't know it because they're Too.Fucking.Stupid.
Hmmm....on further thought, I have to remove hunter-gatherers from that list. We, as a species, wouldn't have gotten very far if we didn't cooperate to bring down those wooly mammoths and chase down those lions picking off the very young and very old among our group.
When you think of it, cooperation is one of the essential evolutionary traits that have enabled humans (as well as other animal groups) to survive and flourish. And cooperation means, of course, marshaling group resources to benefit everyone. Socialism.
What Confederates think they're saying is "fuck all those moochers", that is, people who weren't able to take part in the hunt (let 'em starve) or who were too slow to outrun the lion (we should have a meritocracy; they didn't deserve to live!). They say this, of course, until it's they who are in the lion's jaws. Then it's our all-American duty to help them out.
So I guess we're down to the animal skin guys, the rocks, and the mud.
In other words, the Republican candidates for president.
It makes me laugh that Carly Fiorina thinks she's in the same league as Hillary Clinton.
Nancy,
Delusion is as essential to Confederate membership as a hatred and complete misunderstanding of what socialism really means. Stupidity too.
What makes my eyebrows do the upward facing dog is that Liarina (according to the TPM story you link) got almost 3% in a NH poll. I wanna know who THOSE people are. For that matter, how do Huckabee and Santorum get anything more than a tenth of a percent? I mean...who ARE these people?
Makes you feel for those founders who took a somewhat jaundiced approach to the idea of letting every idiot have his (no hers back then) say.
Oh well, as my dad used to say, you buy the premise, you buy the joke.
My wife had far more patience for last night's "debate" than I.
I skipped the first 50 minutes or so, so can't comment on much of it. What I did view though made me think of that old saw about medieval scholastic discussions that supposedly focussed solely on enumerating kinds and numbers of angels dancing on heads of pins.
Yes, Sanders and Clinton are different candidates, but measured against the whacky R's they differ primarily in style and appearance. In policy substance, not so much.
My wife is a Sander's supporter because....she likes him and doesn't like Clinton. She thinks Ms. Clinton is "manipulative," Sanders, sincere.
I get that--I can see where she gets that impression--but were I to wish to argue with her--I don't--since Sander's and Clinton's differences lie more in matters of tone and personal perception than in policy, there's not much in the public realm to grasp as a weapon for argument or even to pry the two farther apart.
Oh yes, we have the bank thing and Clinton's more nuanced view (interesting that here nuance is considered "bad" by some of our friends) of some aspects of foreign policy, but what it comes down to for me is which of the two I can picture as President, a vision which requires that one of them must first win.
For me that vision is still blurry, and the "debates" over relatively minor policy differences don't add much clarity.
Akhilleus, your take on the reality of socialism in America is well defined. The problem is that in the land of the dumb a large chunk thinks that socialism is the government ownership of business, in other words no capitalism. The confusion comes from the concept of communism which takes the word to another level. The reality is that socialism since about 1945 when the world was reborn is a totally different concept, as you correctly describe. So when Democrats talk of socialism they are speaking of something that is completely different from Republicans. The reason it works for the GOPs is the level of national ignorance. In may senior year in HS, I took a course called Government. We could solve most of America's political problems if we made that course a requirement for all.
Marvin,
A very good idea. Civics used to be taught in schools, I seem to recall. In my high school I took a course in Current Events, very well taught. It even managed to alert several of the more moribund students to the idea that things beyond what they considered their ken were still important and had value.
The problem with a course in Government today would be the immediate and incessant attacks from the right. Their battle cry would be "another liberal attempt to brainwash our kids", uttered without the slightest sense of irony coming from a political side which would be non-existent without robust, daily brainwashing.
In any event, just imagine a course called "Government" being taught in Texas. Might as well be teaching a course in slasher movies when you think about how it would be presented by an all-Confederate faculty supported by an even more rabidly right-wing Confederate school board.
Hey, but just think of the great vocabulary words Confederate kids would learn: serfdom, tyranny, tyrants, tyrannical, tyrannically, tyrannicalistic, tyrannicalistically, slavery, overreach, bureaucracy (that would be for Confederate AP kids), and did I mention tyranny? They might even learn to spell "freedom" with only two e's. Well, maybe not. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
In normal states, though, a class in civics/government would be a brilliant idea.
Ken Winkes––smart man--doesn't argue with his wife over political disagreements (unlike me who will argue with most––I still haven't learned my lesson) but I do remember my Marriage and Family professor saying, and believe me, she was the toughest cookie I have ever encountered––(once I braved a snowstorm to get to class only to find it canceled. When I told her that she said, "Well, that was really stupid"––so you get the picture)–- "I'd rather be loved than right." I think about that sometimes. But I'm lucky––she's dead, I'm alive and still shooting off my mouth and by the luck of the draw still very much loved in spite of...Sometimes ya gotta take chances.
Akhilleus,
Had the same thought about a high school "government" class in Texas....or where ever we might be brave enough to place one in our polarized country. The legislative hearings on course content would make the interminable Benghazi foo-diddle seem comparatively sane, I'd guess.
I'm picturing dueling curriculum committees, authors armed, but we know which side would have the guns.
Of if nothing so courageous, maybe just a simple course on the history voting rights to start...that would keep any legislature entertained for a while.
But when I originally read Marvin's note my head-nodding pumped a disturbing memory to the surface. When I was in tenth grade World History, someone (the school board? the principal? my right wing small businessman father?) decided we needed a mini-course for a week or two on the evils of Communism. So the P.E. teacher, a rather daunting lady as I remember, took over the class and set us straight.
Don't remember course details but for the first time I did pick up some sense of what Marxism was and, as intended, why it and the USSR were vastly inferior to our own economic and social arrangements. The Godlessness of the Reds was a prominent feature, in deliberately stark contrast to our own churchy community.
Then the capper: A required essay on why I would/would not rather be dead than Red, a popular indoctrination mechanism foisted on tens of thousands of students at the time (1962).
Don't recall how I fudged it, but even though I was a good Catholic boy at the time, I'm pretty sure I didn't choose death.
Seemed too final to me.
Just happened to take a look at the photo galleries Marie has assembled here. There are some wonderful pictures and it was great to see Obama without grey hair once again. But Marie deserves her usual praise for a couple of priceless comments on some Kremlin pictures - something about a press conference in a tacky closet. Priceless!
Should the worst befall us come November, I hope Marie will keep the galleries active. I shall enjoy wondering through those pictures again while imagining that that handsome happy guy is still our president.