January 17, 2016

DWS opponent in FL 23, Tim Canova, just got a nice write-up in The Hill.

Meet Tim Canova from Florida.

Tim Canova
@Tim_Canova

Too often elected officials represent special interests — not the people. Let's take back our country and restore democracy.
Florida, USA
timcanova.com

From The Hill today:

In primary challenge, Wasserman Schultz faces unprecedented test

And now she's facing a primary challenge from a liberal Wall Street reformer who says she's a corporate shill detached from her district.

...Timothy Canova, a professor at the Shepard Broad College of Law in Florida's Nova Southeastern University, says Wasserman Schultz's positions on trade, criminal justice, consumer protection and drug policy reform — among others — are evidence that she's sold out to corporate interests at the expense of her constituents.

Canova calls DWS a "drug warrior", and called out her opposition to the medical marijuana petition that was on the ballot in Florida in 2014. We're trying again this year, have almost enough petition signatures, and more donors than before. There must be 60% yes votes, though, and that is tough enough without the Democratic party chair openly opposing.

More from The Hill:

And he's highlighting the fact that she was one of just 28 House Democrats to support the fast-track trade bill that's greased the skids for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a huge international accord that's a top priority of Obama but remains anathema to liberals in his own party.

Canova said the TPP would be an environmental catastrophe for South Florida, which "is really facing, in the long-term, an existential problem with climate change and rising oceans."

"In a democracy, you have to hold your officials accountable," Canova said. "I was hoping somebody would step forward and challenge her. Nobody else would, and that's really the basis of the challenge."

January 17, 2016

The Clinton argument "stripped to its essence".....by a fairly neutral observer.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Calling a foul in Clinton-Sanders primary fight

Stripped to its essence, the Clinton argument is akin to Sanders coming across a person driving a broken down Vespa scooter. "Here, let me get you into a reliable car," Sanders offers. But the Clintons counter: "Look! He's trying to take away your scooter!"

It's technically accurate, but practically false. And that's an awful campaign slogan.

Not only that, Clinton knows better. She was attacked in 2008 in fliers distributed by the campaign of then-Sen. Barack Obama on the issue of universal health care, prompting her infamous news conference scold, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"

But before saying that, Clinton asked a compelling question: What purpose does it serve for Democrats — who all believe in the concept of universal health care — to criticize one another over the precise details of how that idea is achieved? Or, to quote Past Clinton, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman's dream."

Well, apparently since polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Sanders treading close behind — and in some cases, ahead of — Clinton.

I don't think there was any real awareness among the party leaders, including the Clintons, of the shifting of power from the party establishment to the activists.

I would not feel so strongly about this except for the fact that the Democratic Party allowed a think tank to take over and run those out who were the traditional members of the party. It was done deliberately and for financial purposes.

This article was written about a year after the Dean campaign brought the rise of the "netroots", and there was a way that the people of the party could actually make their voices heard.

From an article by Matt Bai in October 2005 edition of the New York Times

Some were recognizing back then what the next battle would be.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington -- politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

It's about policy now for sure.

Bai points out that it was not really clear that the Clintons were understanding this.

Assuming that Clinton is serious about a 2008 campaign, it's never too early to begin redefining her image in the minds of independent and conservative voters. And the thinking among her closest advisers holds that unlike other prospective candidates with conservative leanings, like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana or Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, Clinton doesn't have to worry about winning over more liberal base voters; she's an icon of the left, and short of climbing into a tank and invading a country all by herself, she couldn't do much to change that. By this theory, Clinton gets to have it both ways: her consistent centrist record will convince general-election voters that she is not the archetype they thought she was, and Democratic-primary voters will forgive her more conservative positions because, in their minds, she is saying such things only to make herself "electable." It's a strategy so elegant that even Karl Rove would have to smile in appreciation.

The only peril in this formulation is that it assumes, reasonably enough, that Clinton and her advisers have a firm grasp of the fissures and alliances that are now beginning to change the party's traditional landscape. And it's not clear that they do.

There have been huge economic changes in the nation and also in the minds of the people who are living in these times of such great inequality. I don't think the DNC was ready or willing for these changes, and I don't believe the Clintons really understand yet.

I am not sure what is going to happen in the next few weeks and months. But the activist voices are getting louder.

Those voices are not going away.

January 12, 2016

FL Dem leaders want FL Progressive Caucus shut down for criticizing DSCC choice.

This is a problem. Conservative Democrats just can not go around demanding liberals be shut down because they criticize other Democrats.

FL centrist Dems want progressive FL Dems out because they criticize party leaders.

Celeste Bush, chairwoman of the St. Lucie County Democratic Executive Committee, emailed party leaders across the state advocating to the "de-certification" of the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida, which like other Democratic clubs and caucuses must be reauthorized by party brass every few years.

Her strongly worded email came a day after the Progressive Caucus held a conference call with reporters promoting the possible Senate candidacy of outspoken liberal Rep. Alan Grayson of Orlando over the announced candidacy of moderate Rep. Patrick Murphy of Jupiter. Bush listened in on the call and seized a chance to defend Murphy, her congressman. The seat is expected to open once Republican Sen. Marco Rubio launches a presidential bid next week.

....."This action runs counter to our Democratic Party's very existence," she wrote. "We cannot have 'so called' Democrat leaders aggressively attacking an elected Democrat or any Democrat running for office. A Democratic leader is just that -- a leader of Democrats -- not just some Democrats that fit a preconceived notion of what constitutes a Democrat."

Celeste was equally critical when Dean was Chair. She even sent emails demanding Florida Democrats not give to the DNC.

Now she is comparing the Florida Progressive Caucus to the Tea Party.

"They're looking for purity in their Democrats," Bush said, comparing progressives to conservatives in the GOP. "They have a lot of single issues, just like the tea party does, and they think everybody needs to check that box, so to speak. That's just not the way people are."

The head of the Progressive Caucus, Susan Smith, wrote a letter to Patrick Murphy about how his supporters are advocating against the progressives.

Florida Democratic Party, a Picture Of Congenital Dysfunction

Yesterday, I learned your supporters have organized an effort to eliminate the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida. In all honesty, I have to tell you that I was shocked by this news and even more dismayed by the implication that you support this effort.

I am writing to you directly so that you will know that our aim is not conflict, but debate. We do want to hold your feet to the fire on core democratic principles, but we are not attacking you personally. We don’t want a war, we just want a primary.

The truth is that we have some serious concerns about your record on Social Security, Medicare and other key issues that Democrats hold dear. Given your sudden switch from Republican to Democrat just in time to run for office and your past support of Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama, we believe those concerns are justified.

.....Soon after you were elected to Congress, you told CNN, “we have to look at cuts across the board. We’re going to have to look at Defense. We’re going to have to look at some structural changes to some programs like Social Security and Medicare.” And when you coauthored a letter with congressional Republicans, you pledged only to protect “current beneficiaries” of Medicare and Social Security.

You can see why we are concerned. You have plainly said that you would support cuts to Social Security.

The Democrats statewise or nationally under DWS are making a serious mistake in demanding we all toe a handpicked line.

January 8, 2016

Meet Professor Tim Canova who just announced run against DWS in Florida. Video.

From the You Tube link:

Uploaded on Dec 1, 2011

Andrés Arauz, COO of the Banco Central del Ecuador, and Timothy Canova, Professor of International Economic Law at the Chapman University and a member of Sen. Bernie Sander's Advisory Committee on Federal Reserve Reform, sit down with New Economic Perspectives to discuss lessons from the financial crisis.

The conversation spans origins of the crisis, deregulation, public jobs programs, financial crises in Latin America, derivatives, the Euro crisis, the dangers of a currency union without a fiscal union, debt forgiveness, an international common unit of account, monetary vs. fiscal stimulus, democratizing central banks, failures of quantitative easing, and campaign finance reform.

Here is his Twitter feed.

Tim Canova
@Tim_Canova

Too often elected officials represent special interests — not the people. Let's take back our country and restore democracy.
Florida, USA
timcanova.com

I was so happy to see someone credible running against her that I donated as soon as I heard about it.

January 8, 2016

Bernie: “I’m not in favor of privately run charter schools."

Bernie Sanders: I Oppose Charter Schools

At a meeting in New Hampshire Bernie said the following:

I’m not in favor of privately run charter schools. If we are going to have a strong democracy and be competitive globally, we need the best educated people in the world. I believe in public education; I went to public schools my whole life, so I think rather than give tax breaks to billionaires, I think we invest in teachers and we invest in public education. I really do.” – Bernie Sanders (Quote begins at 1:48:32)

Video of the town hall. Go to one hour and forty-eight minutes on the video to hear his quote.

?t=1h47m40s

January 5, 2016

This part....Wow, Bernie.

Bernie Sanders Attacks Hillary Clinton Over Regulating Wall Street

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont laid out in a fiery speech Tuesday his plan to break up “too big to fail” commercial banks and pointedly attacked Hillary Clinton for taking speaking fees from the financial industry and, in his view, for not going far enough in her plan to regulate Wall Street.

The criticism of Mrs. Clinton was some of Mr. Sanders’s strongest to date, and came after he had frequently refrained from such direct attacks.

“My opponent says that as a senator, she told bankers to ‘cut it out’ and end their destructive behavior,” Mr. Sanders said of Mrs. Clinton. “But, in my view, establishment politicians are the ones who need to ‘cut it out.’ The reality is that Congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street. Wall Street and their lobbyists regulate Congress. We must change that reality, and as president, I will.”

Mr. Sanders said that Mrs. Clinton was “wrong” to oppose his plan to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act, which would legally separate commercial banking, investment banking and insurances services. And the senator implicitly criticized Mrs. Clinton for being a patron of bankers when he pointed to their huge campaign donations and noted that they “provide very generous speaking fees to those who go before them.”

January 5, 2016

Video of Bernie's Policy Address on Wall Street Reform and Financial Policy

Segami has posted the entire transcript here.

January 2, 2016

Yes, Bernie signed a joint fundraising pact with DNC.

Sanders campaign inks joint fundraising pact with DNC

From Politico November 5.

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.

The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.

The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.

The Vermont senator, who is an Independent but caucuses with Senate Democrats, also recently lent his name to a fundraising letter for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to a campaign adviser, in another indication of his slowly growing ties to the party's infrastructure.

There now may be some question about his "his slowly growing ties to the party's infrastructure", especially since the DNC chairwoman abruptly shut him off from the voter database while playing the whole thing out in the media.

But it's been said here that he raised no money for other candidates, so this sets the record straight.

January 2, 2016

From Bernie.com at Twitter...More than a million donors. Average <$30

Bernie Sanders ?@BernieSanders 2h2 hours ago

A people-powered campaign:

✅$73 million since April 30

✅2,513,665 contributions

✅More than 1 million donors

✅Average contribution <$30

Bernie Sanders on Twitter

January 1, 2016

Since the late 80s the party's policy has been to shut out the left until election time.

They actually said it out loud in words.

There's been open declaration over and over of how they did not need the left anymore. They said they were getting enough corporate money, and they did not have to stand for things that might cause them to lose. They had enough money that they did not have to worry about the needs of the people who had been the usual constituents of the party. They had theirs. They didn't need us.

But now they do. Funny how that happens during every primary, every election. They push us aside until they need us, then they put us on a huge freaking guilt trip.

If the party loses they drag out the trite stuff about how they got too partisan, about how the left failed to vote. Any excuse except what really happened.

What really happened was that the new policy makers of the party decided that by taking corporate money, they could stand for whatever they needed to stand for to win. They thought. They sounded so much like the other party that the people voted for the real thing.

They actually said out loud that they had taken over the party, and they did not need us. Not just once either.

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Rob Shapiro, the DLC VP at the time, and a Clinton advisor, spoke clearly about their purpose.

What we've done in the Democratic Party," explains institute Vice President Rob Shapiro, a Clinton economic adviser, "is an intellectual leveraged buyout." The DLC, presumably, is acting as arbitrageur, selling off unprofitable mind-sets to produce a lean and efficient philosophy for the "New Democrat," as DLCers call their slick bimonthly magazine.

Al From in recruiting Bill Clinton said this. (From his book The New Democrats and the Return to Power.)
I believe you are the right person for the DLC job—and the DLC job is the right job for you. We have the opportunity to redefine the Democratic Party during the next two years. If our efforts lead to a presidential candidacy—whether for you or someone else—we can take over the party, as well.

Also from From's book

Nearly a year after our Little Rock meeting, at the DLC’s Annual Conference in New Orleans on March 24, 1990, Bill Clinton became the DLC’s fourth chairman. Calling Clinton a “rising star in three decades,” Sam Nunn passed him the gavel. Nunn quipped that when the DLC was created “we were viewed as a rump group. Now we’re viewed as the brains of the party. In just five years, we’ve moved from one end of the donkey to the other.”


The Wise Geek says that a leveraged buyout is also known as a hostile takeover.

A leveraged buyout is a tactic through which control of a corporation is acquired by buying up a majority of their stock using borrowed money. It may also be referred to as a hostile takeover, a highly-leveraged transaction, or a bootstrap transaction. Once control is acquired, the company is often made private, so that the new owners have more leeway to do what they want with it. This may involve splitting up the corporation and selling the pieces of it for a high profit, or liquidating its assets and dissolving the corporation itself.

Here is a little more:

The clash will be between the "governing class" and the "activist class."

The former includes
the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest
groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots"
Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom
were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through
blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the
camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in
Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

I do disagree that with the statement that it isn't about policy....it surely is about policy now. Yes, to the party that says a "lot of Democrats in
Washington don't even seem to know it's happening."

And more:

Through the years they have tried to make "liberal" a word of shame.

I remember when I first realized how most of my Republican family felt about anything remotely off center to the left. A family member scornfully called my parents "bleeding heart liberals." My parents were moderate old-fashioned Southern Baptists who even hesitated to sip wine because the church forbade it.

I noticed it again in 2003, and it really hurt then. Those of us who became so active in politics with the Dean campaign were called liberals and scorned as fringe activists. It was stunning, and it carried right down to the local level. And it was not the Republicans who did that, it was our own party.

The most annoying thing was the preempting of the labels. The conservative Democrats began to call themselves progressives as they pushed liberals aside and called them fringe. They also renamed themselves the "sensible center" and the "moderate middle" and other similar high-sounding terms.

It started a long time ago. And through the years the degrading comments toward liberals/leftists/the left have escalated.

The Wise Geek was right.

It truly was a hostile takeover. They don't plan on giving any of it back to those who traditionally were considered a part of it. They are not going to give up their control over policy. They are going to keep treating the more liberal part of the party as conveniences when elections roll around.

I'm glad Bernie Sanders is running, I'm very happy he's not easily intimidated. I have no idea if he will win or lose, but I know one thing for sure. He's started something that will bring change that has long been needed.

People say he can't change things, but I say he will loudly protest what he can't change and not comply easily.