The misconception that Bernie hasn’t been effective in the House and Senate

This is my favorite myth to de-bunk

Bernie is also known as “The Amendment King” For the sake of speed, I’m going to splice key sentences from the following Politifact fact check, but go ahead and read the whole thing.

“Sanders served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2006 and has been in the Senate since then. Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2007 and of the Senate from 2015 to present.

In 2005, Rolling Stone named Sanders the “amendment king” of the House. At the time, the title held true with a specific qualification: amendments agreed to by record votes. (Amendments can also be passed with voice votes, in which the volume of yeas and nays dictates passage, or by unanimous consent, in which no one raises an objection.)

Out of 419 amendments Sanders sponsored over his 25 years in Congress, 90 passed, 21 of them by roll call votes. [Article has a breakdown of them] From 1995 to 2007, Sanders passed 17 amendments by a recorded roll call vote — more than any other member in the House…

… In comparison, Hillary Clinton passed zero roll call amendments during her tenure as a senator from New York from 2001-09….

…In the current Congress, Sanders ranks fourth when it comes to the number of career roll call amendments passed…

…Roll call amendments aside, Sanders isn’t shattering any legislative records, though he’s not doing poorly either. Tauberer’s research places Sanders at No. 14 in Congress with 90 amendments…

…Sanders has had much less luck with passing bills. During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders introduced 324 bills, three of which became law….

… Clinton, for the record, also passed three bills in eight years. But the sparse number of bills isn’t surprising. Volden and Vanderbilt University’s Alan Wiseman assess the legislative effectiveness of House members by comparing their records to a benchmark. According to this analysis, Sanders has either met or exceeded expectations during his tenure in the House…

…Lawmakers who belong to the party in control are five times more likely to have their bills go anywhere than minority party members, according to Volden. So Sanders’ legislative approach may seem like fixating on small potatoes, but for an independent who caucuses with the minority party, it’s a smart strategy.

“He could have either resigned himself to that fate, changed the nature of his legislation and coalition-building strategy, or offered amendments on the floor,” Volden said. “He chose the third of these paths, making him more influential in shaping policy than if he had taken the first path. Why he did not take the second path is an open question — likely linked to his ideological views.”

(SOURCE: http://www.politifact.com/…/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-a…/)

Another important indicator of Bernie’s skills are how well he plays with others, so to speak. As an Independent, the odds were already stacked against him, as he doesn’t have a built-in support group, anyone who works with him doesn’t gain any party points, and if they do they could even loose party points. But he managed to beat those odds, I believe, because he was honestly doing good work, and fighting for the right things. Again, for speed…

“Though reputation may seem pretty abstract, there is a legislative activity that is inherently interpersonal: cosponsoring legislation.

A decision to cosponsor isn’t just driven by a legislator’s feeling about a specific policy, it also contains a signal that the legislator trusts the sponsor. Aggregating these decisions through multiple bills gives a pretty clear understanding of who likes working with whom in the Senate.

There are two metrics, both based on cosponsorship decisions, that get at the idea of reputation:
1. Centrality: Do Sanders’s bills attract a wide variety of cosponsors? Does Sanders in turn cosponsor with a wide variety of senators?
2. Cosponsorship reciprocity: If Sanders sponsors a bill and Sen. Dianne Feinstein cosponsors, how often is Sanders a cosponsor when Feinstein sponsors a bill?

A high centrality score would indicate that Sanders works with a wide variety of people, and that a wide variety of people want to work with him. Reciprocity on the other hand, measures relationship balance. Do the Senators that Sanders works with want to work with him on other issues?

Based on on an average of these metrics, Sanders comes in 19th among the 100 currently serving Senators. Although he didn’t crack the top 10, Sanders seems to have a great working relationship with his colleagues. This is especially impressive given that he is a relatively new Senator and a nominal Independent. Most of the Senators in front of him have served in the Senate longer than Sanders and in many cases have served in party leadership.”
This source provides a good chart and graph at the following site.

(SOURCE: https://www.fiscalnote.com/…/bernie-sanders-reputation-in-…/)

So, I refute the idea that he was ineffective, or less than effective in his 35 years. He was statistically more effective than most people in office, despite the fact that he was naturally limited as an Independent. In fact, I think he was able to turn that into an asset, where he was not restricted by party lines and was better able to get things done.

He managed to do all that when the country *wasn’t* listening to him or voting for other people like him. NOW look at the size of his audiences. Just imagine what he can do now, as a president, and leader of a movement that is very real, and very, very large.

Bernie Vs. Hillary on Guns

Bernie has a D- rating from the NRA (http://www.politifact.com/…/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card…/). I know that “d’s get degrees”, but nothing about a D- grade is pro-gun.

Now lets put this into a broader context.

He lives in a state where HALF of the population owns guns, but has a D- NRA rating and super high approval ratings. This is an interesting combination of figures to me… Looking into this more, according to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Vermont is ranked 41st in gun laws (1 being the best/strictest gun laws, 50th being the worst), and yet is ranked 39th in gun death rates (1 being the most gun deaths, and 50 being the least).

In fact, CA is ranked #1 for gun laws and is only 3 spaces ahead of Vermont (42nd) in gun deaths. For half the population owning guns, I think that this is impressive. Louisiana, ranked 50th (at the very bottom) for gun laws, is second place for gun deaths. This helps indicate that it is still logical to assume that the lack of appropriate gun laws = more gun deaths.

Vermont seems to have paved it’s own way. In a country where it seems clear that guns aren’t going away any time soon, it seems as though Vermont has figured out how to buy, sell, and own guns in a way that does not spell instant disaster. This is promising to me.

(SOURCE: http://america.aljazeera.com/…/these-states-have-the-highes…)

With that being said, Sanders’ voting record reflects judgment on controlling the buying, selling, and owning of guns within the reality that guns will always exist in America. Clinton’s voting record reflects the judgment that guns should *not* exist. And while I myself would much prefer a country where I don’t live in fear of being shot on campus, I don’t think the United States will *ever* be able to abolish guns entirely. Do you?

In this scenario, between Sanders and Clinton, which is working towards realistic solutions and who is gushing implausible over-the-moon ideas possibly just to get votes now?

And for Hillary’s ‘F’ NRA rating, she obviously is against guns in America. Yet she has no problem with using them everywhere else in the world.

In fact,”Under the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department plays a pivotal role in approving arms deals, with the Secretary of State specifically being “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales.”

(SOURCE: http://www.ibtimes.com/…/hillary-clinton-state-department-a…)

For example, she had no problems selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to use against Yemen.

” In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.”

(SOURCE: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapon…)

At this link you can see the tables the IBT investigation created.

(http://www.motherjones.com/…/hillary-clinton-foundation-sta…)

One more time,

“- The Hillary Clinton-led State Department approved the sale of nearly twice as many arms to other countries as the Department did during the same period in the George W. Bush presidency.
– The 20 countries who got the arms are donors of the Clinton foundation.
– Many of these countries are human rights abusers.”

(SOURCE:http://www.inquisitr.com/…/hillary-clinton-and-arms-deals…/…).

It’s a double standard to me that she can be so hawkish with our military and yet so pure in the anti-gun war here at home.

Bernie was successful “Just because he was in Vermont”

I get frustrated when people try to write off Bernie’s 35 years of success in his state because it was “just in Vermont”.

It’s most always been a majority white state, yes. Today it is liberal, yes. *But* it’s a tricky balance of rural/urban liberal/conservative populations, and has not necessarily been a walk in the park for him. It is majority liberal now, yes, but 35 years ago, it was a different place.

Vermont didn’t effectively have a Democratic governor until 1963, and then the office flipped back and forth for another 20 years. In fact, when Sanders first ran for Mayor of Burlington in 1981, the then democratic incumbent was such a centrist that even the Republicans didn’t object to him and didn’t even select an opponent to run against him, making Bernie (running as a progressive), his only challenger. His opponent preached of the ruin of Burlington should Bernie and his radical progressive ideas be elected, and it almost worked. He won that race by only 10 votes, but then was reelected 3 times, each time with a wider margin.

One could argue that the successes of Bernie, and those who worked with him in Vermont were a proof of concept for liberal ideas (fueled by a democratic socialist way of thinking), helping nurture it into the securely liberal state it is today. He is beloved in that state not because it was already liberal, but because of what he has built there over 35 years.

AND, we *are* liberals, right? When a liberal state loves a candidate, is that not an accurate representation of our beliefs? Since when, as liberals, do we take pride in a candidate that wins primarily in conservative states in the primary? This logic of putting him down for this makes no sense to me. ESPECIALLY when I can plainly see the diversity of his supporters at every rally, march, and volunteering event here in California.

I can tell you exactly why we didn’t see this diversity represented earlier in the race: Clinton is a historically massive household name. Sanders was virtually unknown to anyone who wasn’t a political wonk or lived in the northeast. And he is an old white man, and (amazingly, actually) that hurt him in the beginning. No one knew who he was or cared to find out. It takes awhile to get through the mental entrenchment of two decades of Clinton propaganda to admit that maybe she isn’t the best, or even the only, choice. We are seeing it now, too late, but we are seeing it, absolutely. Even one of the founders of Black Men for Bernie decided to take his busses across the country because he voted for Clinton before researching Bernie. And once he did, he decided to do what he could to rectify his vote.

As a member of my own minority group, LGBTQIA, I find this argument that he “doesn’t do well with anyone besides young white men” frustrating because he has been *so* strong and consistent on LGBTQIA rights, women’s rights, black rights, veterans’ rights, seniors’ rights (do you know about the bus system he developed to take elderly people to Canada where they could buy their medication for 1/10th the price they could here?
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/04/news/mn-60970) etc.

And I find this argument manipulative because the mainstream media uses it to portray the image that he is *not* strong on these issues, instead of people simply not yet knowing that he is. You get me?

Voter Fraud vs. Voter Suppression

This piece from Salon makes a very important distinction between Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression. VOTER FRAUD is the myth of people voting illegally (which happens about 0.00035% of the time) and which is perpetuated by the GOP in order to justify VOTER SUPPRESSION, which encompasses absurd ID laws, inadequate number of polling places, and miss-handling of data that leads to the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.

I appreciate this piece taking the time to make this distinction, and would like to now take the analysis a bit further.

Possibly the most recent act of enabling voter suppression is the repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights act is one of the biggest and best pieces of legislation this country has ever seen. Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement in 1965, it enforced and protected voting rights and most directly affected and raised the status of racial minority voters.

However, section 5, is a core piece which addresses the “pre clearance requirement” which prohibits jurisdictions from implementing changes that affect the voting process without getting approval from the US Attorney General and D.C. District Court first, so that they can asses that the changes indeed do not discriminate against minorities.

This piece of protection relies on a “coverage formula” in the previous section (4(b)). This formula was updated in 1970 and 1975 but not since.

In 2013, in the landmark case of Shelby County v. Holder, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the formula, ruling it outdated and too much of a burden on states. They did not touch Section 5, but without the formula in 4(b), Section 5 is powerless.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Robert (and joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito – all conservative members of the court) and included justifications such as “”Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation”

Chief Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the dissenting opinion (and was joined by Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), saying there was not enough evidence that the coverage formula was not responsive to current needs, and that while voter discrimination had indeed decreased since the 60s, they felt it was due to the act, and therefore should be KEPT and not dismantled. “[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

As the Brennan Center for Justice says, this ruling has had three general effects:
“1) Section 5 no longer blocks or deters discriminatory voting changes, as it did for decades and right up until the Court’s decision.
2) Challenging discriminatory laws and practices is now more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
3) The public now lacks critical information about new voting laws that Section 5 once mandated be disclosed prior to implementation.”

Their analysis continues with looking at specific changes that otherwise would not have been able to occur in Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia. These include ridiculous voter ID laws, removing people people from voter registration under suspicion of their citizenry, and redistricting. And countless studies have proven that these new restrictions disproportionately affect racial minorities. I encourage every one of you to look at their paper on this and see the extent of these changes for yourself. Link is at the end.

So, halfway through our primary process, after massive bungles in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and now Arizona, do we think we still don’t need these kinds of protections? Do we still think that our democracy is safe and strong?

http://www.salon.com/…/what_happened_in_arizona_wasnt_an_a…/

http://www.brennancenter.org/a…/shelby-county-one-year-later

https://www.propublica.org/artic…/voting-rights-by-state-map

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voting-rights-act

http://www.politico.com/…/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111721

Thoughts on feminism, specifically pointed to an article in OpenDemocracy that I’m quoted in

Originally posted to Facebook in March of 2016.

I’m quoted in this article from OpenDemocracy.net, in a piece about young, female, feminist supporters of Sanders. I would like to share it here, but accompanied with my responses to it.

 

Overall, I found it very interesting but there were some parts that I wanted to respectfully address. I spoke to the author about these points, and she responded that her article was complied from information from multiple interviews with young feminist Sanders supporters, even though she only included quotes from 2 of them.

 

The piece states “Many [young female feminist Sanders supporters] know that Republicans will never pass his legislative agenda. That is not the point. What matters is that they share his values and convictions…”

Sure… but the point is to vote destructive, obstructionist republicans OUT of office.  While I can only speak for myself, I don’t think my fellow 3rd wave feminists believe that these goals are unattainable, or impassable in our system. In fact, we believe them to be perfectly attainable as long as we have the voter base to vote in people who will work for us once again. Yes, Bernie shares our values, which is vastly important, but I feel this sentence gives a false “it won’t work but we don’t care” mentality that I completely disagree with. We really believe that this is all possible and are willing to work for it because it is OUR lives that mostly hang in the balance. We have our whole lives ahead of us and they could continue to be really really hard or we can try improve our future condition. A vote for Sanders isn’t just a vote for one person. It’s acknowledgement of a commitment to participate in a broader revolution.

The piece also states “Also important, Sanders does not remind them of their mothers, even though he could be their grandfather.”

I don’t understand this point. My mother has nothing to do with this. I love my mother, and she is a fierce Bernie advocate right along with me. My support of Sanders isn’t because it’s a rejection of something else. It’s that he is the candidate that takes the logic of equality to it’s furthest and purest form.
Does anyone else agree with her point? I’d like to hear more thoughts on this.

 

The piece continues “For many young feminists, Hillary Clinton belongs to the past. She is a former First Lady, a former Senator, a former candidate for President and a former Secretary of State. Although she has spent a lifetime supporting gender equality, child care, wage equity, paid parental leave and famously redefined women’s rights as human rights in 1995, all this feels as old as their mothers’ tales of the Sixties.”

By this logic, Sanders would also be a figment of the past and too dusty for our taste. Just because my generation likes the newest gadgets, doesn’t mean we hate all things “old” (we love vinyl records after all 🙂 ) I feel like this reduces our arguments to something petty and childish. Just as us 3rd wave feminists don’t consider gender to be a reason to cast a ballot, so do we with age (and by the way, Sanders only has 6 years only Clinton). My problems with Clinton have nothing to do with her age, but her policies, her inconsistencies, and the fact that I feel her presidency would benefit the 1% over the 99%.

 

“Listen closely and you hear echoes of the occupy movement, voices that publicized the economic distress of the 99 percent, and  protesters who really do mean that “Black Lives Matters.””

Yes. Absolutely. This is what I mean when I said that Sanders brings the idea of equality to it’s furthest and purest form.

 

“Many older feminists remember the political results of their own idealism and dreams.  When they voted for George McGovern, a liberal candidate, in 1972, he lost every state except Massachusetts and Richard Nixon retained the second term of his presidency.”

Those who don’t know history are bound to repeat it. And I’m honestly very tired of this argument, because I believe it’s the wrong election to learn from. 1968 holds much more pertinent lessons for us today than 1972.  In 1968 Lyndon Johnson was going to run unchallenged until McCarthy entered the race building massive support from the anti-Vietnam movement. Humphrey joined as a worried establishment candidate, with Robert Kennedy not too far behind. Johnson dropped out and unfortunately Kennedy was assassinated, leaving just two contenders: The establishment, and the radical. McCarthy won the hearts and popular vote, but Humphrey wined and dined the elites and the delegates. So even though more people voted for McCarthy, Humphrey wound up the democratic nomination and we all said hello to President Richard Nixon shortly thereafter.

Nixon didn’t foul things up enough for people to want him gone in 1972 (he pulled troops from Vietnam, the economy was doing ok) and McGovern wasn’t a strong candidate and he didn’t have a base anything like Sanders.

1968 is the real lesson. If democratic elites decide they know better than their own people, their people won’t support their establishment candidate, and we will soon be saying hello to President Cruz or Trump.

 

“For younger women, Hillary Clinton’s emphasis on paid leave, universal kindergarten, health care and gender discrimination may not yet seem vital to their lives.”

I find this sentence strange (because these ARE huge platforms for Sanders) and think it unfair to label young feminists as young and short-sighted and somehow carried away with ideology in this way.  We are the only first world country not to have mandatory paid maternal leave, period, while many other countries have it for both parents. This is absolutely a part of Sanders’ wider economic platform and one that he has spoken about many many times. If a mother/family can adequately rest and bond after childbirth, or take care of their children while they work it leads to further financial crisis’ for their family. Things like this keep poor people down, and breaks apart families who are already struggling.  Sanders is absolutely an advocate of all of these issues AND beyond.

 

“When the primaries are over, and Hillary Clinton—in all likelihood– wins the Democratic nomination, debates between young and older Democratic feminists may very well dissipate.  Then the vital question is:  Will younger feminists give Hillary Clinton the kind of support that helped elect Barack Obama? Because that is what she needs in order to become the first woman to occupy the White House.”

And of course, like so much of the media coverage of Sanders, it’s all laced with ‘the impossible,’ and nothing fires me up more!

 

What do my fellow young, female, feminist, Sanders supporters think?

 

Racism and Hate. Don’t stay quiet.

The violent racism spewing from Trump rallies is more than a disturbing spectacle that’s good for the news cycle. Its a heartbreaking reality check.

I think many Americans, especially my generation, have thought that this brazen hate didn’t exist anymore. Maybe they never experienced it, or heard about it personally, and simply went with on with life. Personally, I’ve seen this disgusting, raw, and emotional hatred in my own family (many of you have probably heard the stories I’ve brought back after family trips to Mississippi). Growing up with that, I feel as though I was cultured to understand that in America, we are still not as free as we like to think we are. “Land of the free and home of the brave” is just an empty slogan when millions of Americans are kept down by ignorant racism and institutionalized racism alike, and not enough people are courageous enough to speak out against it. And now that this hate has been given a safe, yet garish and bombastic platform, we see what has in many ways been kept under the surface for so long.
I implore each and every one of you, DO NOT STAY QUIET. In the face of racism, no matter now small or innocuous, we cannot stay silent. Even if it is not directed to you, be an ally. Be an ally on the side of humanity and human decency. We cannot let this hate float by unaddressed and unchallenged. Do not be afraid of the pandora’s box an uncomfortable discussion might open up. Keeping quiet is much more dangerous.

“I don’t want to hear any more criticism about either candidate”

There is a meme floating around showing Sanders and Clinton with the words “I’m with them – I don’t want to hear any more negative comments about either one of these candidates on my news feed. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President is who I will be voting for…”

I’ve seen this meme a few times, and I have to say, it doesn’t sit right with me.

I think both of these people are up for the most powerful position in the world and we deserve to vet them as much as possible before we vote. In 2016 we have more access to information about candidates than ever before, more platforms with which to discuss them (including internet based ones where people feel less hesitation about getting mean) AND this stands to be the most remarkably divisive election in a very long time. This is a recipe for hot words and hurt feelings, sure. But it’s important to remember that the country will go one of a few ways, each starkly different from each other. And this begins with the democratic nomination process. I don’t believe ‘Democrat vs Republican’ is the only fight.

For many Sanders supporters (including myself), we believe the real race is right here. If you’d like, I could go into all the reasons why I believe a GOP candidate (or Trump when he is forced to run as an independent), will NOT win, but for the sake of brevity right now, I’ll skip it. SO, with the idea that the democratic nomination process is THE race, shutting down comparisons of Sanders and Clinton only helps one person: HRC.

As the data shows, Clinton’s polls mostly go down as time goes on, and Sanders goes up. This is what happens when more and more people are exposed to Sanders (that took awhile, thank you Debbie Wasserman-Shultz), and stop taking Clinton for granted and look into her record more deeply (DOMA, not for gay marriage until 2013, ‘super-predators’, Libya, her relationship with Kissinger, the $21.7 million she earned personally from speaking fees to Wall Street and big corporations in the year before she “officially” announced her presidency, etc etc etc.).

At the same time, people look into the old white man more deeply and like what they find (he marched with MLK, was arrested in civil rights protests, made Burlington a LGBT haven in the 1980s, denounced the criminalization of the ’94 crime bill (though he voted for it because of important attached assault weapons and domestic violence legislation), he is known as the “amendment king” who through unlikely across-the-aisle coalitions has brought more bills to vote than any other Senator, he has a strong feminist record, he voted contrarily to Clinton on the Iraq War, TPP, Keystone Pipeline, the Wall street Bailout and more).

These are incredibly different candidates. One, I believe, will further entrench us into our current servitude to our oligarchy, and is already laying the ground work to retract political promises recently made on the campaign trail based on being the “practical candidate”, while the other, I believe, has remained uncompromised throughout his entire career, sees better models throughout the world and knows that our country is similarly capable of supporting it’s people in ways that will help us as individuals, and our country as a whole.

Yes, they are both democrats and it is obvious that most democrats would prefer either of them to Trump, but making us think about that battle now shuts down the most important part of the vetting process. Many of us complain of the restrictions of a two party system, well we have our chance of a broader vote right now. I obviously have plenty to say about either candidate, and love to talk more about it and hear different opinions, but many people don’t. It can be hard, long-winded, emotional, confusing and more.

That being said, with the recent influx of people becoming impassioned by politics and joining in the discussion, there has also been an increase of angry vitriol which comes across as a “Clinton witch hunt” and which, I think, can be as destructive as not participating at all. When dealing with these issues which affect us so directly and emotionally, there is a learning curve in knowing how best to handle these kinds of discussions effectively and productively (I’ve gone through it myself and am still not perfect at it).

Though I also think it’s also a mark of a) the incredible and bizarre time we are in right now [both parties seem to be splitting up and I think it’s entirely possible that we might have a general election with 4 major candidates now or soon], and b) I think this facebook vitriol is the Sanders campaign at work. When he gets SO LITTLE time in mainstream media (especially where he is being regarded as a credible candidate), Sanders supporters feel it’s their duty to be even more active in order to spread his message. The fb bern fever is the Sanders ground game.

Even if some people don’t compose themselves properly when discussing politics, I’m amazed at how many more people are discussing politics PERIOD right now. I’m so used to being the only person in the room who wants to talk politics, and now a days I come home from drinks being literally hoarse from talking politics… quite an amazing time.

But it hurts the cause if we drive people away from the conversation to the point where they shut down and post a meme like this. This is very important to remember. Kindness sways more people than anger.

So just because there are always haters and trolls doesn’t mean that we should stop comparing these two people while we still have the chance to learn how to make the most informed decision possible. It’s an important one. We better get it right. But keep it classy. Stay confident. Stay calm. Keep the discussion going.

Hillary the Hawk and Kissinger the Butcher

Originally posted to Facebook in February of 2016.

I heard a new nickname for Hillary Clinton the other day. “Hillary the Hawk” apparently has existed for awhile now, stemming from her aggressiveness in military policy. What kind of aggression?

For one example, it was under her direction and pressure that we bombed Libya under the reasoning of “impending genocide” (Was there really? Many think not. Could this be a reasoning similar to Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction”? Something to think about…) which has destabilized the entire country and created a current haven for Daesh (ISIS).

Remember Henry Kissinger? He was the Secretary of State under Nixon. He is also responsible for the illegal bombing and destabilization of Cambodia which opened up the door for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who then proceeded to kill 3 million people. http://www.salon.com/…/henry_kissingers_mad_and…/

That man, Henry Kissinger, was a foreign policy advisor for Clinton while SHE was Secretary of State. She calls him a dear friend and hails to wisdom. He will play a part of her potential Presidency. And apparently he learned nothing from the deaths of 3 million people because he advised Clinton into much the same thing in Libya.

That bothers me deeply.

Even Obama has said that he would do things differently in Libya, and will exhaust more resources first before turning to military answers.

We see Clinton comparing herself to Obama much of her time on the campaign trial, and vowing to keep going, picking up where he left off. More of the same she says. Do you think she will do that when it comes to the Middle East? Will she slow down and exhaust all other options before putting more boots on the ground?

Well, here she is saying she will NOT be more militarily aggressive than Obama on MSNBC (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/…/clinton_to_maddow_i…).

But when you take a look at her answers to specifics situations, then she is promising to DEFINITELY use more aggressive tactics. You can see that here (http://www.defenseone.com/…/clinton-lays-out…/123855/) here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/hillary-clinton-iran…) and here (http://www.nytimes.com/…/hillary-clinton-syria-islamic…).

Once again, she conveniently flip flips herself within the span of a few months, depending on the audience she is addressing.

Honestly, I believe the U.S. has played a policeman on steroids in the rest of the world for far too long. Most of these things don’t wind up in commonly read history books, or at least not extensively and critically. I’ve spent so much time out of the country listening to people from all parts of the world speak with fierce exasperation of Americans forcing their military into situations where they didn’t belong, making things worse than the were before. There are a lot of ulterior motives to the long list of American backed/created regime changes across the world (Secretary of State Dulles and his brother alone wrecked havoc in Guatemala, Iran, the Congo and Cuba, resulting in their own massive personal profits –http://www.motherjones.com/…/book-review-devils… – and –http://www.motherjones.com/…/book-review-devils….)
But let’s not forget that even recently the Iraq war lead to massive profits for companies like Halliburton where then Vice President Dick Cheney raked in billions of dollars of profits http://www.ontheissues.org/…/Dick_Cheney_Corporations.htm)

Of course, the two times where we really should have intervened earlier (WWII and Rawanda) we didn’t until it was too late. Why are we so quick to jump at some of these situations and not other? Simple, were there any plans for profit-making in place? No.

And I think these kinds of hyper-aggressive military intervention profit making schemes need to stop and I don’t think Clinton will.

Before we critique Clinton…

Originally posted on Facebook in February, 2016

 

Something to think about before we critique Clinton –
I think we need to stay classy, stay honest, and stay factual. But that being said, there are plenty of things that Clinton should be critiqued on and we shouldn’t necessarily let her off the hook for them either. The Democratic party hasn’t seen two strong candidates who are so different in a very long time, and the nomination will secure a vital upcoming turning point. Which direction will our country take?

(Tangent, I feel like this is the real election. The RNC has to think long-term about the life of the party and won’t get behind Trump even if he wins the delegates. They will push him out and make him run as Independent, and then take the second place winner as their nominee, Cruz. They will continue to divide the voter base, further helping a democratic candidate win. But which democrat will that be?)

Personally, while I prefer anyone over Trump of Cruz, I also shudder to think of the uptick of regime change foreign policy we will likely see from Hillary. I sink when I think of how many of her campaign promises that she has made recently to match Sanders will be left behind under the weight of “practicalities.” And mostly, I’m distraught to think about the amount of ground we will loose to the oligarchy if we have 1 more president to help secure and further the policies and loopholes that have brought them to power. Abstaining from voting has never and will never be an option for me, but I will be extremely sad and trepidatious to cast a vote for Clinton.

So while we are still in the race and still can make a difference, I think we need to be careful of how we tackle discussing Clinton. Insults do not win people over. When we critique Clinton, we can maintain a level of respect for a woman who has made it through a very patriarchal political system for many decades while at the same time addressing the many many contrary things which lead to people calling her a “Liar.” It’s a harsh word (but maybe not one entirely undeserving at times). But instead of simply labelling her, I think we need to practice switching out the simply petty-sounding phrase for facts. There are plenty of them to go around. Plenty for every situation. Then we can immediately follow it with a positive message from Sanders’ past and keep the whole exchange positive, productive, and bring more people over to the candidate we really want and need.

 

Superdelegates -who are they?

Originally posted to Facebook in February of 2016

 

Did you know that Clinton currently has 394 delegates while Bernie has only 44? This is after their virtual tie and Sanders’ big NH win. How could this be?

 

SUPERDELEGATES – “Quick civics lesson: Delegates are the people who attend the national convention and cast the formal votes for the nominee. Most of them are required to vote according to the results of their states’ primaries or caucuses, regardless of their personal opinions. They’re just there to represent the previously expressed will of the people. But some delegates, known as superdelegates, can cast ballots for whomever they want; they aren’t bound by the popular votes in their states. They’re usually party leaders, and they usually favor establishment candidates, in this case Clinton.” [Washington Post]

 

Regular delegates are bound to vote according to the votes of the people. Superdelegates, are not. They are autonomous beings, who can change their mind however and whenever they want.   The position was first created in 1984, because party leaders then felt that the public were electing political duds and wanted to regain control in the selection process. At that time superdelegates made up 14% of all delegates. Today their ranks have risen to 20%. [Wikipedia]

In the early 1980s, DNC officials were upset with the selection of Jimmy Carter (not the worst of choices in retrospect?). And their new scheme allowed for the selection of Humphrey and Dukakis (Who? Exactly. Who chose the real duds now?).

 

But the point of the superdelegates remains as strong today as it did then, as beautifully stated by DNC Chairwoman (and Clinton’s ex campaign manager) Debbie Wasserman Shultz on Feb 11th, 2016:

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.” [Washington Post]

Wow. Thanks, Debbie for making that crystal clear. You don’t want the dumb, dirty people busting in on your wine and cheese club.

 

And who are these superdelegates? Elected officials? Quite the contrary.

 

“FELZENBERG:These voter-shy delegates can be present and former officials, party donors, celebrities, or seasoned political operatives.

LOPEZ: How does one get to be a superdelegate?

FELZENBERG: State delegations select the superdelegates. These are highly coveted spots. All who hold them come to them by virtue of a powerful sponsor or through the personal prestige they have developed over decades of service to the party or through their celebrity status.” [National Review]

The superdelegates are chosen by our political elite, for reasons we can see after careful research. Half of our superdelegates are white men [politico], but more importantly, many of them are LOBBYISTS:
“JEFF BERMAN is a “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, he also formerly worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company GEO Group, and he worked with TransCanada to build support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

JENNIFER CUNNINGHAM the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that has worked to get tax cuts for overseas earnings, to weaken rules for for-profit colleges and to undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for children’s food products.

BILL SHAHEEN is married to Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, and he also runs a law firm that’s lobbied on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers, which lobbies on behalf of 300 health insurance companies that represent 90 percent of US health insurance assets.

JOANNE DOWDELL is the “senior vice president for global government affairs” at Fox’s parent company, News Corporation, meaning that she’s one of the media establishment’s top lobbyists.

JILL ALPER,  MINYON MOORE,  MARIA CARDONA are all officials at Dewey Square Group, which is a lobbying group that worked to undermine health reform efforts back in 2009. (Dewey Square Group is also on retainer by pro-Clinton Super PACs like Priorities USA Action and David Brock’s Correct the Record.)” [truth-out.org]

DICK GEPHARDT, who made a strange transition from being very progressive in office, to leaving office and becoming a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs post financial crisis, Visa against credit card reform, Peabody Energy against climate change legislation, and United HealthGroup against health care reform [thenation].

HOWARD DEAN, whose fateful scream helped boot him from the presidential race in ***, now lobbys for the law firm Dentons, who operates on behalf of “corporate health care interests, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a powerful trade group for drugmakers like Pfizer and Merck.” [The intercept] Remember Pfizer? The company that moved their headquarters to Ireland “where the corporate tax rate is just 12.5 per cent, compared to thirty-five per cent for a company of its size in the United States. Over the next few years, the merger could save Pfizer billions of dollars in taxes and deprive the U.S. Treasury of the same amount.” [The New Yorker]

And on…

 

As superdelegates, their votes count roughly 10,000 times MORE than yours does.

 

And if you need a reminder of how much their influence counts over yours, I suggest this handy video inspired after a report from Princeton University asked ‘Does the Government represent the people” to which they found the answer to be “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Corruption is Legal in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

 

IF ANY OF THIS UPSETS YOU, FRUSTRATES YOU, OR MAKES YOU WONDER “HOW CAN WE STOP THIS IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE?”…

 

There are THREE THINGS YOU CAN DO:

 

1) CONTACT THE SUPERDELEGATES OF YOUR STATE. This site has compiled an pretty good list of ways to contact these superdelegates on social media. Share it to your friends in other states. BE NICE. Be polite and courteous, but clear in how you want you and your democracy to be represented (there has been a lot of anger from Bernie supporters and that is not helping our cause).   http://superdelegatedemocracy.com/states/maine/

 

2) PETITIONS. SIGN AND SHARE. Moveon.org has two going:

http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel “That’s why we’re calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.”

http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/superdelegates-dont-deny “Announce that in the event of a close race, you’ll align yourself with regular voters – not party elites.”
3) GET OUT THE VOTE in whatever way you can.

What Sanders’ has going for him is US. The masses. If the popular vote of the people is undeniable, then superdelegates cannot vote contrarily without it being blatant, personal favoritism. This happened in 2008, when Obama clearly won the popular vote in the primary and while most superdelegate had then hacked HRC, they switched to Obama. It’s a much more difficult fight this time, but it IS possible.

 

But again, our only offense is our numbers. The more of us that vote, the more states that vote for Sanders, the larger the win margins, THAT’S how we can defeat the power of these superdelegates.

The battle gets bigger after this. But one step at a time…

 

 

Here you can see the current and updated list of Democratic Party Superdelegates and whom they currently have promised support to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

 

OTHER SOURCES

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/17/1486673/-When-Lobbyist-Become-Superdelegates

 

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34898-have-the-democratic-superdelegates-been-compromised

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223647/superdelegate-101-interview

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/white-men-hold-superdelegate-power-balance-008535

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

http://www.thenation.com/article/dick-gephardts-spectacular-sellout/

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/14/howard-dean-lobbyist/

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-pfizer-allergan-merger-is-a-disgrace