I always love me some Barney Frank and as usual, he nails it on the head. The main reason GOPers love Bernie is why I love Trump-to disrupt the party primaries.
"I know that there is a counter-argument made by some on the Democratic left that a closely contested nomination process will help our ultimate nominee — that Clinton will somehow benefit from having to spend most of her time and campaign funds between now and next summer proving her ideological purity in an intraparty fight, like Mitt Romney in 2012 — rather than focusing on her differences with the conservative she will face in the election. But neither an analysis of the current political situation nor the history of presidential races supports this."
"I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year. That way, she can focus on what we know will be a tough job: combating the flood of post- Citizens United right-wing money, in an atmosphere in which public skepticism about the effectiveness of public policy is high."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484#ixzz3ll0p5Vld
This is any argument I've made often myself during this primary season. For us actually to make our choice early as a party-yes, the dreaded word 'coronate' is not a bug but a feature.
Historically we Democrats have had the messy primaries-1969 being the classic case-though that was necessary as coalitions were busting up and new ones were forming.
Why aren't we Democrats listening to Barney and sitting back with popcorn and soda and watching the GOP clown car with Trump up front driving the bus?
Some Democrats seem to want another epic fight like Clinton-Obama 2008. That was different: we had two very highly qualified Democratic candidates both historical campaigns-a black man and a woman-and it was a very tough choice for us all.
Most felt like I did I think that it was too bad that both couldn't win. However, in 2016 we can have both win. The best of all worlds, have our cake and eat it too but-instead we want a Holy War over Bernie and who's the 'True Progressive' that his white liberal supporters want?
"I know that there is a counter-argument made by some on the Democratic left that a closely contested nomination process will help our ultimate nominee — that Clinton will somehow benefit from having to spend most of her time and campaign funds between now and next summer proving her ideological purity in an intraparty fight, like Mitt Romney in 2012 — rather than focusing on her differences with the conservative she will face in the election. But neither an analysis of the current political situation nor the history of presidential races supports this."
"I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year. That way, she can focus on what we know will be a tough job: combating the flood of post- Citizens United right-wing money, in an atmosphere in which public skepticism about the effectiveness of public policy is high."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484#ixzz3ll0p5Vld
This is any argument I've made often myself during this primary season. For us actually to make our choice early as a party-yes, the dreaded word 'coronate' is not a bug but a feature.
Historically we Democrats have had the messy primaries-1969 being the classic case-though that was necessary as coalitions were busting up and new ones were forming.
Why aren't we Democrats listening to Barney and sitting back with popcorn and soda and watching the GOP clown car with Trump up front driving the bus?
Some Democrats seem to want another epic fight like Clinton-Obama 2008. That was different: we had two very highly qualified Democratic candidates both historical campaigns-a black man and a woman-and it was a very tough choice for us all.
Most felt like I did I think that it was too bad that both couldn't win. However, in 2016 we can have both win. The best of all worlds, have our cake and eat it too but-instead we want a Holy War over Bernie and who's the 'True Progressive' that his white liberal supporters want?
Ideally we want her sharpening her claws for the GOP rather than arguing with Bernie. over who is the true progressive-on immigration and gun control it's her; Bernie is on the record for opposing the Brady bill and voted against immigration reform in 2007.
He still thinks that immigrants lower wages and kill jobs.
Now Frank touches on a point near and dear to my hear: the baseless claim of the Bernie Maniacs that she is somehow not a real progressive and 'in bed with Wall St.'
"I realize that before explaining why I am convinced that a prolonged prenomination debate about the authenticity of Clinton’s support for progressive policy stances will do us more harm than good, that very point must be addressed. Without any substance, some argue that she has been insufficiently committed to economic and social reform — for example, that she is too close to Wall Street, and consequently soft on financial regulation, and unwilling to support higher taxation on the super-rich. This is wholly without basis. Well before the Sanders candidacy began to draw attention, she spoke out promptly in criticism of the appropriations rider that responded to the big banks’ wish list on derivative trading. She has spoken thoughtfully about further steps against abuses and in favor of taxing hedge funds at a fairer, i.e., higher, rate."
"This is reflective of her role in the 1990s, when she was a consistent force for progressive policies in her husband’s administration. And as Paul Krugman documented throughout the 2008 nomination campaign, she was, on the whole, to Barack Obama’s left on domestic issues."
He still thinks that immigrants lower wages and kill jobs.
Now Frank touches on a point near and dear to my hear: the baseless claim of the Bernie Maniacs that she is somehow not a real progressive and 'in bed with Wall St.'
"I realize that before explaining why I am convinced that a prolonged prenomination debate about the authenticity of Clinton’s support for progressive policy stances will do us more harm than good, that very point must be addressed. Without any substance, some argue that she has been insufficiently committed to economic and social reform — for example, that she is too close to Wall Street, and consequently soft on financial regulation, and unwilling to support higher taxation on the super-rich. This is wholly without basis. Well before the Sanders candidacy began to draw attention, she spoke out promptly in criticism of the appropriations rider that responded to the big banks’ wish list on derivative trading. She has spoken thoughtfully about further steps against abuses and in favor of taxing hedge funds at a fairer, i.e., higher, rate."
"This is reflective of her role in the 1990s, when she was a consistent force for progressive policies in her husband’s administration. And as Paul Krugman documented throughout the 2008 nomination campaign, she was, on the whole, to Barack Obama’s left on domestic issues."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484#ixzz3ll3vZUJU
Now the Congressman nails a very important question: the bloody shirt always raised against her of voting for the Iraq war.
Now the Congressman nails a very important question: the bloody shirt always raised against her of voting for the Iraq war.
"True, not on Iraq. Having myself voted against that terrible mistake, I agree that her position on the war is a legitimate concern for those of us on the left. The question then becomes whether this was a manifestation of a general tendency to support unwise military intervention, or the case of her joining every other Democratic senator who had serious presidential ambitions in voting for a war that the Bush-Cheney administration had successfully hyped as a necessary defense against terrorism. While I wish that she, Joe Biden and John Kerry had not been spooked into believing that no one who voted no would have the national security merit badge required to win the presidency, I regard liberal senators’ support for the Iraq War as a response to a given fraught political situation rather than an indication of their basic policy stance — like Obama’s off-again, on-again support for same-sex marriage. (Yes, I am saying that in deciding whether or not to support a candidate with whom I have disagreed on a fundamental issue, I am more at ease if it was a one-time political accommodation rather than a genuine conviction.) Most relevantly for this discussion, she will clearly be for less military spending and intervention than the Republican nominee. While I admire Paul’s skepticism about an expansive global policing role for America, even the more tempered version of this he now propounds is an absolute bar to his winning a Republican convention."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484#ixzz3ll4Y3KQa
"Of course it is not only possible to accept the legitimacy of Clinton’s liberal-progressive credentials and still prefer that Sanders be president, it makes sense for the most ideologically committed to hold that view. But wishful thinking is no way to win the presidency. There is not only no chance — perhaps regrettably — for Sanders to win a national election. A long primary campaign will only erode the benefit Democrats are now poised to reap from the Republicans’ free-for-all."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484#ixzz3ll5S3PBd
This is an important point. Bernie Maniacs act as if every issue is a litmus test and reasonable people can never disagree or that people who you usually agree can make a mistake. I think that the political temperature of the time spooked most Democrats with higher office aspirations into making a mistake.
But I think he's right that this doesn't make her or John Kerry into Dick Cheney. And I like Frank was opposed to the Iraq War from day one.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484#ixzz3ll5S3PBd
To me, Hillary is about where I am ideologically-a centrist liberal. On most issues her and Bernie actually agree. On a few like money in politics you could say he;s to her Left. But I think he's a little extreme on money in politics anyway.
And on immigration and gun control, she's to his Left.
The idea that she is not liberal is basically an urban legend dreamed up by Bernie Maniacs.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
She probably isn't the most liberal member of the Democratic party but the goal shouldn't be nominating the most liberal person in the party, much less the planet.
We just need a mainstream liberal Democrat that is loved by black, Latino, moderate, and centrist liberals like myself to move forward with the mission of progressivism, as Congressman Frank says.
No comments:
Post a Comment