A cold, hard look at today's political reality

There is an interesting article in the New York Times, Is this the West's Weimer moment? written by Jochen Bittner:

Some people today imagine that Hitler sneaked up on Germany, that too few people understood the threat. In fact, many mainstream politicians recognized the danger but they failed to stop him. Some didn’t want to: The conservative parties and the nobility believed the little hothead could serve as their useful idiot, that as chancellor he would be contained by a squad of reasonable ministers. Franz von Papen, a nobleman who was Hitler’s first vice chancellor, said of the new leader, “We’ve hired him.”

At the same time, even the imminent threat of a fascist dictatorship couldn’t persuade the left-wing parties to join forces. Instead of being conciliatory for the sake of the national interest, Ernst Thälmann, the head of the German Communist Party, branded the center-left Social Democrats the “moderate wing of fascism.” No wonder Hitler had an easy time uniting broad sections of the German public.

He goes on to say that while the differences between the 1930s and today are many, there are similarities, hitting the same emotional hot points and distrust of the failures of the liberal mainstream (his term - with which I do not agree). America has not had a liberal mainstream since LBJ and FDR. Every president since those times has edged ever further to the right, as economic and social changes inflict damage on some, while rewarding an ever smaller group of elites.

As one example of just one the causes of today's unrest, Bush's tax cuts were initially a symptom of right wing over-reach, but Obama's huge mistake in continuing those gifts to the elites, made things far worse. It entrenched those in power, it emboldened the Tea Buggered types to demand even more, and it made an unsteady economic fiasco that much harder to fix.

Programs that were once easy to support, roads, bridges, science, school, reproductive rights, - each one of these has been and remains under attack. Tax cuts are far more important.

Bittner does make a good argument in pointing out what a danger Trump represents. People repeatedly took little notice of him, other than to categorize him as a joke, a self-promoting die hard, and a jerk. While all those are true, he is also a very dangerous man, and if he wins the White House, the whole world would suffer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/opinion/is-this-the-wests-weimar-momen...

Unfortunately, the other side of the political aisle offers little or no relief.

Hillary is a liar, pure and simple. While such talents sometimes offer high ranking politicians some room to maneuver, it is how and when that she lies that is so unsettling. She has no need to do so, and still she does.

Even worse, the company she keeps is scary. Mother Jones just reported about a speech that Bill gave in 2015 to one of the worst vulture capitalist barons in the country.

On May 12, 2015, the private equity firm Apollo Global Management announced that it was unloading the remainder of its stake in Noranda Aluminum. Apollo had gained control of the Tennessee-based company in a 2007 leveraged buyout and had subsequently followed a familiar playbook in the cutthroat world of corporate takeovers: It saddled Noranda with the debt it had used to buy the company and then extracted large dividends. As Noranda struggled to stay solvent, Apollo eventually cashed out of the firm. In early 2016, the debt-riddled aluminum company declared bankruptcy, shut down its largest smelting plant in Missouri, and laid off hundreds of employees.

That same day in 2015 that Apollo disposed of its stake in Noranda, Bill Clinton pocketed $250,000 for a speech to one of its subsidiaries, Apollo Management Holdings.

The company declined to answer questions about Clinton's speech. It would not discuss the subject of his talk or any details about the event. A Clinton spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

The Apollo speech came a month after Hillary Clinton—who recently said her husband would be "in charge of revitalizing the economy" in her administration—formally declared her candidacy. Prior to launching her White House bid, Clinton had ditched the profitable speaking circuit. (She earned almost $22 million between April 2013 and March 2015, according to an analysis by CNN.) But the former president continued to deliver lucrative paid speeches until late 2015, banking about $3 million in payments just in the months that his wife had been running for president.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/bill-clinton-gave-six-figure...

Hillary's problems are just starting. They are actually getting worse. From India to London, from New York to LA, from Miami to Seattle, papers from all sides of the political scale have finally realized the impact of the IG's report. Everyone has realized that she not only lied to protect her fun and games with the Clinton Foundation as it profited from her moves as SexState, they also realize that she put the entire nation into unnecessary risk by sharing secrets with a snake named Sydney Blumenthal, taking his horrible advice on Libya and Syria, and allowing hacker boys and girls and children of all ages to hack her private mail server.

This doesn't just look bad, it stinks to high heaven.

Hillary and her team keep touting her long experience as a reason to elect her. Sadly for her, those experiences begin to seem tarnished and even ugly when you take a closer look at them.

Simply put, Trump poses a danger to the world. Hillary is incapable and unworthy to hold any political office.

This shituation sucks. Perhaps the only possible out is the FBI. Even the Chicago Tribune (which endorsed her) had something to say about that. Its headline today reads: Emailing it in: Team Clinton struggles to recover as the FBI primary looms

Now, Democrats are waking up to the possibility that they are the ones flirting madly with disaster. Hillary Clinton's flaws, once considered politically inconsequential, have been steadily magnified by campaign scrutiny and official investigations. Those flaws now loom bigger than Mount Rushmore. Last week's report by the inspector general of the State Department made clear that in relying exclusively on a private email server as secretary of state, she violated department policy, put security in danger and lied about what she had done.

It is a thoroughly damning document — all the more so because the inspector general who submitted it, Steve Linick, was appointed by President Barack Obama. Anyone groping to excuse Clinton's conduct eventually has to face the stark, infuriating fact: What she did served no purpose beyond letting her selfishly evade the rules and accountability demanded of everyone else. Her failure to cooperate with the inspector general's inquiry, at the department she led, iced the cupcake.

The gravity of Clinton's predicament, and its political implications, prompted campaign manager John Podesta to send a letter that attempts to placate her top supporters. While acknowledging that using a private server was a "mistake," he downplayed its significance. "We are confident that voters will look at the full picture of everything she has done throughout her career," Podesta wrote. What he didn't mention is that this episode only reinforces her reputation for evading transparency

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-president-...

Heh, when the political world seems to be falling apart, when both major candidates are fatally flawed? The answer is the FBI move for the indictment of Hillary? Yeah, it does make sense.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Especially the comments:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/05/bernstein-white-house-is-ter...

The DNC/DLC/ThirdWay has got to wake up? Doesn't it??????

up
0 users have voted.
PastorAgnostic's picture

thanks for the linkie thingie.

up
0 users have voted.

The Chicago Tribune has been a Republican rag forever.

up
0 users have voted.
PastorAgnostic's picture

But they did endorse hillary in the primary.

Actually, they have been as hard on Rauner as they are on Madigan. The editorial staff really REALLY hates Rauner. And he is our teabuggered Governator.

up
0 users have voted.

And anyone would find this shocking, why?

up
0 users have voted.

vote for her in '08, and I won't vote for her in '16. Trump be damned, I have to live with myself and I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired when it comes to 'lesser of two weevils' bullshit.
Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do. In that, the contrast between Bernie and EVERYONE else is so stark, so clear, that I just can't do it for $Hills.
The Clintons got me out of the republican party(okay, the repugs did that on there own and Bill got my vote) and I've been on a starboard tack ever since(leaning to port, sailor-ese). Now, I see dem leadership using the same bullshit tactics that the repukes use, fear, chaos, confusion, conflation and all the rest. Did I mention I'm sick and tired?
I'd write an essay(probably will) but I ain't got the energy or time right now.
peace

up
0 users have voted.

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .

If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march

Lookout's picture

I also nabbed this from the BNR

Wall Street Journal Opinion/Commentary
The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
[..]
A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election.
[...]
Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated.
[..]
Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.
[...]
Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.
With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.
Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.

Can we hope?

Hindenburg.jpg

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Smile

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

up
0 users have voted.

in that Chicago Tribune link recommending Biden be "slipped in" if Clinton falters. Totally disregarding Sanders. WTF. I guess they would try that.

up
0 users have voted.
PastorAgnostic's picture

Joe Biden would make a decent president.

On the other hand, I am a Bernie fan, and I think he is earning it. Plus, he is less of a flight risk than Joe. (By flight risk, I speak of his tongue's tendency to run away from his brain at times)

On the third hand, I would accept a proposal to cancel the elections this year given the two front-ruiners of the GOP and Democratic parties. Three hands is bitter than nun.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

the lying, fraud and carelessness. People need to keep in mind that he was the author of the 1994 crime bill as well as the hated bankruptcy bill. He also voted for Iraq invasion. However, if he were the nominee against Trump in November, I would vote for him. Whereas, I will never, ever vote for HRC.

Having said that, however, if the D party was to pull this shit, I say that it would be past time to burn it down.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

mjsmeme's picture

another lesser of two evils?????

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

up
0 users have voted.
Alex Ocana's picture

Puerto Rico bondholders mobilize; some hedge funds tap Morrison & Foerster

... Meanwhile, other bondholders, including Aurelius Capital Management, Mackay Shields, Apollo Global Management and Fortress Investment Group are looking to take on a more activist role as the island’s restructuring heats up, said two restructuring lawyers looking to get involved in the situation. Whether the bondholders consolidate into one group remains to be seen.

http://www.debtwire.com/info/2014/07/15/puerto-rico-bondholders-mobilize...

up
0 users have voted.

From the Light House.

Have a blue ribbon panel determine what level of debt the island can realistically support while promoting quality growth and serving all its own infrastructure and social needs. Then regardless of weather that is .75 cents on the dollar or .10 cents the bond holders should be told, you have two options;

1. Take a haircut on your debt to the acceptable levels determined

2. Puerto Rico is allowed to go bankrupt and dismiss their debt.

up
0 users have voted.

The superdelegates can nominate Bernie Sanders, the candidate who is free of scandal, seen as trustworthy, and has the better chance of keeping Trump out of the White House.

That solution is within the Democratic Party's rules. It is, in fact, the stated justification for the SDs' existence. It's clear by now who is the stronger candidate. The IG's report exposes Clinton's pattern of lying to shield her carelessness with national security and skirt public records law. It's not OK because a Democrat did it. It is inexcusable and must not be excused.

#NominateSanders #HRCUnfit4Office

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

Lookout's picture

that SDs might be our salvation. If they really see the ship as sinking, they will jump (they are rats as you know)...the question is will they move to Bernie or Biden? They may be so owned by the corporations they would rather lose with Biden than win with Bernie. Their political fate rides with Bernie, but are they smart enough to see it?

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

case to the people during the primary season will further delegitimize the party. Anything other than a vote to nominate Sanders demonstrates that the party is putting self-interest over national interest and giving voters the finger.

The SDs will determine the nominee. Whatever the outcome, it will be on them, not us. We need to make it blazingly clear that we know that. And that if they don't nominate Sanders and their choice loses the GE, we will push back on any blame and hold them--and the party--accountable.

Ironic indeed. Of the painful irony sort.

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

Lookout's picture

from wiki:

In 1986, the Democratic primary for the gubernatorial race saw then Attorney General Charles Graddick of Mobile in a runoff with Baxley, then the lieutenant governor. Graddick won by a few thousand votes, but Baxley appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled Graddick had violated primary regulations by encouraging Republicans to “cross over” and vote as Democrats. The court told the Democratic Party to hold another election or to select Baxley as the nominee. The party hence confirmed Baxley as its candidate.

Accustomed to a one-party state in which the open primary for the Democratic nomination was considered tantamount to election, many Alabama voters took out their frustrations by voting against Baxley and for Guy Hunt, the GOP nominee. Hunt won the election by a large margin, giving Alabama its first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

Of course at least Baxley ran in the primary, whereas Biden has not. Might be reminiscent of '68 with Humphrey
also from wiki:

President Lyndon B. Johnson... would not seek the party's nomination. Johnson had been stalled by the anti-Vietnam War candidacy of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who along with Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, became the main opponents for Humphrey. The contest between the men featured a battle for control of the Democratic Party, and cast Humphrey's "old politics", against the "new politics" of McCarthy and Kennedy. The main cause of the division was the Vietnam War, which intensified during Humphrey's tenure as Vice President and grew increasingly unpopular.

Humphrey entered the race too late to participate in any primaries, and relied on "favorite son" candidates to help him win delegates. He also lobbied for endorsements from powerful bosses within the Democratic Party, which provided him with necessary delegates. This traditional approach was criticized by the other candidates, who hoped to win the nomination from popular support. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968, leaving McCarthy as his only opponent, until the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when Senator George McGovern of South Dakota ran as the successor of Kennedy. Humphrey won the party's nomination at the Convention on the first ballot, amidst riots in Chicago. He selected little-known Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine as his running mate.

I'm hoping political self preservation plays a big role in the thinking of the superdelegates. Time will tell.

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

But Dems don't consider Sanders a Democrat, technically. That's their excuse, even though he caucuses with them.

up
0 users have voted.
Mosquito Pilot's picture

Many support delegates are lobbyists
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/voters-be-damned/

They won't cede control. They will try to keep Hillary afloat or jump to Biden or some other establishment candidate.

If the party wanted to win it would support Bernie, but the party is just the veneer of democracy over the oligarchy and the last thing the oligarchy wants is Bernie in the white house

up
0 users have voted.

Dig within. There lies the wellspring of all good. Ever dig and it will ever flow
Marcus Aurelius

lunachickie's picture

This woman needs to DROP OUT.

The superdelegates can nominate Bernie Sanders, the candidate who is free of scandal, seen as trustworthy, and has the better chance of keeping Trump out of the White House.

For that nomination to happen, she has to drop out. Period.

She must be made to drop out.

up
0 users have voted.

1. She'll NEVER do that, unless forced to. Too much Clinton Family Foundation money at stake. 2. Rumors are swirling around that Biden is waiting in the wings.

up
0 users have voted.

He's just another party shill.

He had his opportunity, and he passed.

It would have put him against Clinton and that likely played a part with the decision as well.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

his requirement that HRC keep foundation business away from the job as well as Sidney Blumenthal, isn't it interesting that he never ensured that there was an Inspector General in place at State the whole time HRC was there?

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Cassiodorus's picture

to address my arguments here:

http://caucus99percent.com/content/can-vote-clinton-save-us-trumpism

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but the comments here tended to agree with what I had to say in that text. I'd like to see a credible argument for how a vote for Clinton CAN save us from Trumpism.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

lotlizard's picture

If using torture as a policy tool is fascist, that feature of fascism is already entrenched and popular in both parties, yes? If it weren’t, force feeding wouldn’t be going on at Guantanamo and Guantanamo would be closed by now.

up
0 users have voted.
darkmatter's picture

Um, isn't Germany already part of the "west" (in global terminology)?

Also, the "Weimar" frame takes as its unstated premise that Trump would unquestionably be worse than Hillary. I am not convinced of that, not after this campaign season, and particularly not after what occurred in Nevada.

What is worse, some doofus who uses racially offensive language, or someone who cuts/privatizes Social Security, supports fracking, accepts millions from corrupt banks while doing their bidding, outsources your job to Malaysia, and who tells lie upon lie upon lie?

up
0 users have voted.

a self-promoting, money grubbing, war mongering, minority hating, pathological liar with delusions of grandeur, and Trump?

up
0 users have voted.

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

ThoughtfulVoter's picture

I remember the news stating that the Chicago Tribune had declined to endorse anyone for Democratic presidential candidate right before the Illinois primary.

If you believe they did endorse her, do you have a link?

up
0 users have voted.