Richard Harpootilian is the former South Carolina Democratic chair, and let's just be grateful, it's the former chair.
After all, it would be kind of disconcerting if the current SC Dem chair actually thinks it would help the Democratic party to lose this election. But this is what Harpootlian wants.
Why? Because he hates Hillary Clinton-and is a buddy of Vice President Joe Biden. Consider what he says about Hillary:
"I think Hillary comes into the race, as she did in ’08 with all kinds of baggage… There’s going to be distractions, we saw just this week with the Wall Street Journal about payments money raised to the foundation and speeches given, prior to her becoming secretary of state… It’s that kind of record and those kinds of distractions that will keep her off-balance and the Democratic party off-balance throughout the Clinton campaign… I think it’s very important to understand, she will die a death of a thousand cuts, as I said some time ago while Biden can focus the voters on him and on what he proposes to do… Joe Biden is an inspirational figure. He gives a great speech… Bill Clinton had that. Barack Obama had that. Even George W. Bush has that. Hillary Clinton does not have the ability to inspire people."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/02/msnbc-guest-hillary-will-die-a-death-of-a-thousand-cuts-video/
He thinks that George W. Bush was inspiring? Well if that's what he calls inspiring I guess Hillary shouldn't worry about his opinion.
More recently he suggested the Dems would benefit from a loss this time. Anything to deny that woman from ever making it to the Oval Office. But Harpootlian has a long history of wanting to see Republicans win:
After all, it would be kind of disconcerting if the current SC Dem chair actually thinks it would help the Democratic party to lose this election. But this is what Harpootlian wants.
Why? Because he hates Hillary Clinton-and is a buddy of Vice President Joe Biden. Consider what he says about Hillary:
"I think Hillary comes into the race, as she did in ’08 with all kinds of baggage… There’s going to be distractions, we saw just this week with the Wall Street Journal about payments money raised to the foundation and speeches given, prior to her becoming secretary of state… It’s that kind of record and those kinds of distractions that will keep her off-balance and the Democratic party off-balance throughout the Clinton campaign… I think it’s very important to understand, she will die a death of a thousand cuts, as I said some time ago while Biden can focus the voters on him and on what he proposes to do… Joe Biden is an inspirational figure. He gives a great speech… Bill Clinton had that. Barack Obama had that. Even George W. Bush has that. Hillary Clinton does not have the ability to inspire people."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/02/msnbc-guest-hillary-will-die-a-death-of-a-thousand-cuts-video/
He thinks that George W. Bush was inspiring? Well if that's what he calls inspiring I guess Hillary shouldn't worry about his opinion.
More recently he suggested the Dems would benefit from a loss this time. Anything to deny that woman from ever making it to the Oval Office. But Harpootlian has a long history of wanting to see Republicans win:
"When the scandalous charges hit him, Harpootlian did not deny his contributions to a list of radical Republicans:
1. Jake Knotts (“Obama is a raghead!”)
2. Henry McMaster (radical extremist on the Republican right-wing) and
3. Walt Wilkins (staffer for the segregationist, Strom Thurmond).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/4/26/970360/-
I appreciate this because it shows that those who are anti Hillary either don't mind or actively desire a Democratic loss in 2016. Which underscores the point: Hillary is by far our best chance to keep the White House in 2016.
Here, Walker Bragam, a Hillary hating Slate writer thinks Democrats should be happy to lose in 2016-you got to lose sometime! He thinks Democrats should commit to a 'Bernie or bust' strategy.
Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president
Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020"
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/17/fine_give_the_gop_four_years_the_liberal_case_for_either_bernie_sanders_or_electing_a_republican_president/
Wow, that's an awful argument. Where to start? First of all, does this make 'strategic sense' for Democrats or ideological 'liberal's -in truth Emoprogs?
I don't even like the Bernie supporters using the term 'liberal' as they are anything but that. They are clueless want to be radicals. I'm a liberal, President Obama is a liberal, Hillary is a liberal.
As for the Dems not holding the WH forever, his logic here is wrong. Nate Silver has explained that there is natural law that makes it particularly difficult for one party to hold the WH for 3 straight or 4 straight terms.
You can't just throw an election and blithely assume you'll win the next one. A lot can happen in the mean time. Bragman falsely claims Hillary is a Republican and yet ignores all the ways in which a Hillary Presidency would be different than a Republican Administration.
If Democrats just let the GOP win this one, what happens to Obamacare? At that point the GOP would have the votes to simply abolish it. So even if the Dems come back in 2020-and why would you assume that will be easier? By his premise there is definitely no historical law that says the GOP couldn't win two elections in a row?-they'd be back to square one, pre Obamacare.
And this would be true of so much of the Obama legacy. It would be gutted. The GOP has plans to destroy Planned Parenthood that would then be a go.
Bragman blithely allows that the GOP would probably be able to add another SJC judge in the next four years, but that this is ok because in 2020, the Democratic President-who he laughably thinks will be Elizabeth Warren-will be able to add two or three Democrat Justices.
Maybe.
1. If the Dems do take it back in 2020-and again, why would that be easier? The Republican President-President Trump?!-would have the power of incumbency behind their back and would therefore be the favorite.
2. If Bragman's assumption is correct and that most of the SJC vacancies come after 2020 rather than before.
So the case for Bernie or bust is not the more strategic case at all. It's what support for Bernie is always about: making the more ideologically pure choice.
P.S. I don't see Elizabeth Warren as Presidential material-this is not an insult as few are. I doubt she sees herself that way either.
But let's just be clear. Those who are anti Hillary don't have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart. Mostly they either:
1. Hate her so much and so badly want to deny her a life long dream that they don't care what it means for the Democratic party or the country.
2. And/or they just want to do the symbolically pure thing ideologically no matter what the actual effects. It's sort of like what the Emoprogs have done to Maine. Remember that it is they who elected Paul Lapage twice.
P.S.S. For those appalled by the specter of Harpootlian, thankfully he's been replaced by someone much more competent and ethical, Jaime Harrison.
While Harpootlian sort of looks like an old, reconstructed segregationist Dixiecrat-which is underscored by his support of Strom Thurmond-Jaime Harrison, a young, polished African-American tells us the truth: Hillary is very strong in SC and Bernie is not catching on at all down there.
http://counton2.com/2016/01/15/talking-with-scdp-chair-jaime-harrison-about-debate-sunday/
Part of his trouble is the only prominent black person he knows is Cornell West.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-is-hurting-himself-hanging-out.html
1. Jake Knotts (“Obama is a raghead!”)
2. Henry McMaster (radical extremist on the Republican right-wing) and
3. Walt Wilkins (staffer for the segregationist, Strom Thurmond).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/4/26/970360/-
I appreciate this because it shows that those who are anti Hillary either don't mind or actively desire a Democratic loss in 2016. Which underscores the point: Hillary is by far our best chance to keep the White House in 2016.
Here, Walker Bragam, a Hillary hating Slate writer thinks Democrats should be happy to lose in 2016-you got to lose sometime! He thinks Democrats should commit to a 'Bernie or bust' strategy.
Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president
Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020"
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/17/fine_give_the_gop_four_years_the_liberal_case_for_either_bernie_sanders_or_electing_a_republican_president/
Wow, that's an awful argument. Where to start? First of all, does this make 'strategic sense' for Democrats or ideological 'liberal's -in truth Emoprogs?
I don't even like the Bernie supporters using the term 'liberal' as they are anything but that. They are clueless want to be radicals. I'm a liberal, President Obama is a liberal, Hillary is a liberal.
As for the Dems not holding the WH forever, his logic here is wrong. Nate Silver has explained that there is natural law that makes it particularly difficult for one party to hold the WH for 3 straight or 4 straight terms.
You can't just throw an election and blithely assume you'll win the next one. A lot can happen in the mean time. Bragman falsely claims Hillary is a Republican and yet ignores all the ways in which a Hillary Presidency would be different than a Republican Administration.
If Democrats just let the GOP win this one, what happens to Obamacare? At that point the GOP would have the votes to simply abolish it. So even if the Dems come back in 2020-and why would you assume that will be easier? By his premise there is definitely no historical law that says the GOP couldn't win two elections in a row?-they'd be back to square one, pre Obamacare.
And this would be true of so much of the Obama legacy. It would be gutted. The GOP has plans to destroy Planned Parenthood that would then be a go.
Bragman blithely allows that the GOP would probably be able to add another SJC judge in the next four years, but that this is ok because in 2020, the Democratic President-who he laughably thinks will be Elizabeth Warren-will be able to add two or three Democrat Justices.
Maybe.
1. If the Dems do take it back in 2020-and again, why would that be easier? The Republican President-President Trump?!-would have the power of incumbency behind their back and would therefore be the favorite.
2. If Bragman's assumption is correct and that most of the SJC vacancies come after 2020 rather than before.
So the case for Bernie or bust is not the more strategic case at all. It's what support for Bernie is always about: making the more ideologically pure choice.
P.S. I don't see Elizabeth Warren as Presidential material-this is not an insult as few are. I doubt she sees herself that way either.
But let's just be clear. Those who are anti Hillary don't have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart. Mostly they either:
1. Hate her so much and so badly want to deny her a life long dream that they don't care what it means for the Democratic party or the country.
2. And/or they just want to do the symbolically pure thing ideologically no matter what the actual effects. It's sort of like what the Emoprogs have done to Maine. Remember that it is they who elected Paul Lapage twice.
P.S.S. For those appalled by the specter of Harpootlian, thankfully he's been replaced by someone much more competent and ethical, Jaime Harrison.
While Harpootlian sort of looks like an old, reconstructed segregationist Dixiecrat-which is underscored by his support of Strom Thurmond-Jaime Harrison, a young, polished African-American tells us the truth: Hillary is very strong in SC and Bernie is not catching on at all down there.
http://counton2.com/2016/01/15/talking-with-scdp-chair-jaime-harrison-about-debate-sunday/
Part of his trouble is the only prominent black person he knows is Cornell West.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-is-hurting-himself-hanging-out.html
Maybe he's just spite-trolling Hillary-lovers. Maybe like you would do to BMs if you were the former NY chair, and Bernie were ahead. ;D
ReplyDeleteWell there's more to it than that. LOL.
ReplyDeleteThere were the donations to Strom and friends and he is a big Biden lover. The more I hear about Biden the less I'm liking him now.
Hillary hating is a real thing. It's been around for 25 years and is deeply held in the Beltway press. They want to deny her this so bad they can taste it. Cillizaa, Maureedn Dowd. just miserable excuses for journalists.
Strange, the hate that comes out at times like these. And the blinders being worn are scarily dark. I'm hearing/feeling way too much misogyny and stupidity even from the left and it's almost frightening. Even the Ralph Nader voters didn't learn, apparently......
ReplyDeleteNo. Susan Sarandon is a perfect case in point.
ReplyDelete