Netroots Nation's Notions
Having a few idle hours, I visited a friend, a friend who was cursed by owning a Television set, so rightfully called the Boob Tube, by which he could watch all the MSM horseshit without realizing that he wasn't getting even half of the story.
It just so happened, perhaps by a sheer fluke, the Tube was tuned to C-SPAN broadcasting Netroots Nation proceedings. As a result I saw a number of speakers, such as Liz "the cowardly Lion" Warren, Al "I-didn't-really-wanna-be-President" Gore, Dolores Huerta, a fire-breathing Georgia preacher who was sweating profusely, a Ms. Chomba, and (gasp!) Tom Steyer.
And this is a Progressive meeting? Briefly on one of the back projection screens came the very image of the Evil Queen! Choke! Hack! Right away that tipped me off to the fact that this was a bullshit, deflection spectacle designed to caress true progressives, into returning to the corrupt fold. I didn't hear Nina Turner's talk but no matter; whatever she said would not have reversed my impression.
Don't get me wrong, there were some excellent points raised by the speakers I did watch. But the sincerity of those remarks had the legitimacy of a three dollar bill. Looked good, won't spend.
Starting with Liz, who I once thought was the real deal, came a speech about actual policy matters of importance. But Lizzy skirted the issue about why her HERoine, Medusa, had failed to run such an issue-free campaign. Liz is no longer my hero; I don't trust and in fact can't trust her after she backed HRC rather than Bernie in the MA primary. And she didn't complain that Bubba illegally obstructed voting plus campaigning on election day at four polling places.
Dolores Huerta is a very eloquent speaker, giving a strong truly progressive speech along with the requisite number of anti-Trump digs. But not a word about how HRC sold progressives down the river every chance she could. And Huerta, like Cowardly Liz, also backed the Evil Queen during the primary. She made no mention of that little tidbit, neither mentioning it nor trying to justify this.
Ms. Chomba made a really nice speech about immigration policy which was neither Centrist nor Berniecratic. No complaints there.
Then came Tom Steyer, silicon valley Billionaire--you know, a real man of the people (you know, like HRC and other Billionaire buddies). Tom dressed in a plain white (racist!) shirt and sounded very humble. You know, like how Hillary cried poor: "dead broke" when she left the White House (with all of silverware her pantsuit could hide). But Tom said the right things, all the while sounding like a sober J.C. Fields imitation of snake oil salesman. C'mon, shit you guys, can't you even do something remotely authentic, you know like a Nigerian Prince fortune bequest?
Saving the best for last, our never-president Gore gave a truly eloquent speech on global warming, replete with charts and, get ready, FACTS. Of course, he too made the requisite number of anti-Trump digs. I think they had a quota to fill for those. But did he say one word about Hussain the Bomber opening up the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling again. Nooo! Did he say, during his remarks opposing fracking, that his darling Hillary was promoting fracking all over the world? Nooo!
So we have neoliberal Steyer and Gore on stage pretending to be progressives. Yes, very comforting--if you are an idiot. Then you had sell-outs like Huerta and Warren, pretending that they had never lost the progressive vision. Yeah, horseshit on that, too.
This NN thingy is built on trust: the trust that you believe they are progressive, that they will promote the progressive agenda and NOT backslide into their prior neoliberal behavior--yes, Lizzy, that includes you. Why the F don't you protest the huge economic drain caused by unnecessary wars? And the same goes for you, Dolores. You, who bravely represented farm workers to get them a fair deal from their employers, why did you not now reiterate what Martin Luther King Jr. said about war being a means of suppression of everyone, not just people of color?
Everybody deserves a second chance, you say. Maybe so, but trust, once broken is very difficult to repair. It will require a great deal more than not-Trump and bipartisan compromise (read sell-out).
For myself, I would expect at least 4 years of these pseudo-progressives actually DOING progressive things before I will trust any of them.
Comments
Hell, if any of them
do just One progressive thing, I will be shocked, Shocked I tell you!
Stop These Fucking Wars
peace(someday?)
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
Dolores "English Only" Huerta
That would be Dolores Huerta, the noted Latina activist who strongly supported HRC and who, during the Nevada precinct caucuses, caused a big stink when she accused Sanders' supporters of shouting "English only!" when she offered to translate what a speaker was saying.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
And, it was a lie, just like the chair throwing bs in another
venue.
And tried smearing Obama the exact same way
that she tried to smear Bernie. Honestly, Huerta's presence more than anyone else told me exactly what I needed to know about NN.
Well at least we have
a good idea of the shit show to come.
So, the question is; Do we eat shit?
Or find another place to dine?
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Go Green. JMO.
Memory lane: Netroots Nation, 2016
BLM--or people claiming to be from BLM--interrrupted Bernie's speech, right at the start, even though Bernie had been scheduled to meet with them afterward; and the moderator did absolutely nothing.
IIRC, Bernie had a rough schedule that week, and maybe two rallies in Texas the next day. He definitely had at least one rally somewhere the next afternoon and was flying redeye as it was. I would have considered preventing me from speaking at the event the equivalent of cancelling the post-event meeting with me, but Bernie didn't. He ended up having his representative attend the meeting after the netroots event, anyway--and, of course, got slammed for not showing up personally. BLM, or people claiming to be with BLM, prevented Bernie from speaking at least one time after that, again, right at the beginning of his speech.
Meanwhile, Hillary wasn't even at netroots. How could anyone blame her for not being there, though?.After all, she had a scheduling conflict, even though the 2015 netroots dates had been set a year in advance, in 2015. So, that tells us she must have this made a commitment before the summer of 2015 and, even a whole year in advance, just could not ask for re-scheduling.
Where had she committed to be over a year in advance? What kind of event would not re-schedule to accommodate poor Hillary's schedule to allow her to attend this important Democratic Party event while she was running for POTUS, even if she asked a year in advance? A state Democratic Party fundraiser. An ARKANSAS state Democratic Party fundraiser. Hard to believe that they would not extend the former Democratic first lady of Arkansas the courtesy. Methinks Hillary arranged the date with them so she could duck netroots.
Not only did Hillary Super Thugs Rodham For Profit Prisons Clinton escape confrontation at netroots, but the only encounter she had with BLM was in private. How did they get past Secret Service, one wonders? How did the story make the papers, just so it didn't look as though BLM hassling Bernie so much was a set up. Beats me.
I tried to donate to BLM not long afterward, despite what they had done to Bernie, but could not find a place on their website to donate. I was very puzzled. Turned out, George Soros had dropped a money bomb on them. Still, you'd think they'd have a donate button....unless the conditions of his prior donation or of making future donations forbade that. Whatever.
Supposedly, it did not matter that Bernie had never done a bad thing to people of color: they were just going to confront all politicians. Aside from Hillary's private session re: prisons--which she and her husband had already gone back on, once they knew Republicans were upset about how much it cost--which other politicians on the left did the people who interrupted Bernie confront? BTW, was it ever settled that the people who confronted Bernie, who never did a bad thing to people of color, were actually from BLM? Anyone know/remember?
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." Lily Tomlin
Yep. Netroots' memories from 2016. Good times. One more anti-liberal, centrist cheering squad, posing as grass roots liberals so liberals get that feel good feeling about the Democratic Party. More sheepdogging.
Buck 'em. Chuck 'em. Duck 'em. Muck 'em. Yuck 'em. Somehow, I feel as though I'm leaving something out, but I can't think of anything to add to the prior sentence.
A fine but incomplete motto for the Establishment
Henry, you are too much the gentleman to complete the motto even though it seems it should culminate in "F*** 'em".
Thank you for the kind words, AE. You're so generous.
Vice President Wallace was a gentleman. Or, it seems to from what I know about him. Whether I am is secret.
BTW, I thought Warren did a Reagan during the primary, not
endorsing anyone until a primary winner emerged. Do you have any more info on her endorsing Hillary in Massachusetts during the primary?
BTW, I think Bubba hit only 3 polling places in Massachusetts on Super Tuesday. However, he hit Boston's with the Mayor in tow. It was close, with Bernie down by only one delegate, so Bubba's glad handing voters as they stood on line to vote or were entering polling places could have made a difference. (The Clintons care about us! They really care about us!) So could an endorsement by Warren.
The Mayor of Boston is up for re-election this year. Warren next year.
Technically you are correct on two points
First, Bubba didn't show up at 4 polling places, but "only" 3. A wonderful act of restraint on his part.
Secondly, Cowardly Liz did not endorse HRC until after the Mass. primary. This sin of omission was just as damaging to Bernie as if she had already endorsed Medusa.
I agree that it was the equivalent, especially after signing th
letter the
Barbara Boxer circulated in 2014, urging Hillary to run. Warren's signature on that letter and her silence about Bernie were tantamount to endorsing Hillary.
Dislike Elizabeth Warren
as much as you like, but dislike her within the facts. She didn't endorse Hillary Clinton after the MA primary, she endorsed her after the primaries were over. She was the ONLY female Democratic senator who didn't endorse Hillary in advance. When Paul Krugman ripped Bernie by saying Glass Steagall didn't include shadow banking, the real (debatable) cause of the meltdown, Bernie was able to say he endorsed Warren's Revised Glass Steagall which did regulate shadow banks. When people pointed out that Revised Glass Steagall didn't call for the breakup of large banks, Warren announced quite promptly that the breakup was not in that bill, but she thought it was necessary. In the week before one primary Warren came out with a list of bankers who needed to be prosecuted before the statute of limitations ran out. If you were a paranoid Hilbot (Is there any other kind?) you might have seen that as a tilt towards Bernie.
An elected official who made a major issue out of primary irregularities when the candidate himself didn't would look ridiculous. Blame Bernie.
Elizabeth Warren is not in a safe seat. There are lots of Democrats, but a lot of them are rich, establishment Democrats or on the party payroll in one way or another. I suspect a lot of them would be willing to put up with a Republican for 6 years to get rid of Elizabeth Warren.
Is there anyone in the senate who meets your criteria? If we withdraw from all participation who knows whether we'll still have elections when voters realize we were right.
I did not say oust Warren
we need allies wherever and whenever we can get them. Warren is a thousand times better than the Camel or Booker T. Booker. If I lived in MA, I would vote for her also, despite my mistrust. Further, the essay did not call for a purity test, no matter how defined. It raised the question of TRUST--as in can you trust your representatives to do what they promise. I still think Liz was being a coward, rather than a politico who wanted to retain her seat at the table. Sometimes principle must outweigh personal political conviction. When does that weaken the overall balance of good versus ungood? Read JFK's "Profiles in Courage". That may help with your quandary.
It's actually . . .
Ted Sorenson's PROFILES IN COURAGE, but let's not quibble. Generally, the examples are people who achieved something by putting convictions over political advantage. I don't think Warren's endorsement was going to get Bernie the nomination. I'm not a fan of quixotic gestures. Too often they seem ego driven.
Lyndon Johnson's guidance of the Civil Rights Act to passage is my idea of the kind of courage the book honors. He knew he and the Democratic Party would pay a huge price. In any case I'm not getting near the book again until the taste of Obama's receiving the Profiles in Courage Award leaves my mouth. That will take some time. I'm still trying to think of an occasion where he put a principle ahead of his career.
@FuturePassed
Lol, of course not - The Psychopaths That Be would never have allowed this anyway.
This is proven by the epic amount of electoral cheating and the phenomenal number of tactics used against Bernie and American voters to deny them the nomination win planned/rigged for the Dem corporate candidate - Her to run against 'the worst candidate ever' in an apparent (failed) effort to try to reduce the blatant Clinton evil by comparison via cheating in the long-selected psychopathic corporate-serving Dem criminal candidate to run against the sociopathic billionaire corporate-serving Republican criminal candidate...
Makes you wonder why they still bother holding elections at all, except to keep the corporate media sweet and pushing propaganda for the yuuuuuge electoral advertising pay-off they receive in America's astoundingly dragged-out, perpetual election cycle.
But now, only Homeland Security can control now-Top-Secret (to the public, not private interests) information regarding the so-essential (only here, and where the American public is concerned - actual known-insecure national security and known-insecure basic infrastructure otherwise being of no moment) 'National Security-involving' election process and they'd never lie to the people they spy on, would they?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Maybe we shouldn't have elections if all we get is
democratic and republican party politicians, like Warren. Both parties serve the rich, not us. Unless you're rich. Warren, like the entire Congress and Senate, is an imperialist. Anyone voting for these two parties is de facto supporting imperialism. That's what people need to understand.
@Big Al
That and now that Homeland Security has taken the entire electoral infrastructure under the banner of Top Secret, interested private parties are privy to what may be withheld from the public.
Sorta like having a ball game conducted behind a curtain and waiting for someone who you know participates in spying upon all of the people and making them all vulnerable to any and all hackers to tell you the score was - whatever.
Just said it failed to go through again again - will this be another double or not?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Sadly, I don't think there's ONE Senator
who meets my own criteria. And personally, I just don't get how you can dismiss that these people DO NOT meet any so called "progressive" or whatever you want to call it agenda. They are in it for themselves, period. They are in to "Win" no matter what in hell winning actually means. It means nothing to them but more gravy from the donor trough, and they'll say whatever they have to in order to keep all that money flowing. You really think there's even one who gives a real shit about stopping the wars which are indeed bankrupting this country? One who really cares about a decent, livable wage for anyone? One who really cares about universal healthcare? Climate change and any real meaningful action there? If so, please point that person out to me as I seem to have missed him/her.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
lizzy, I couldn't agree more
Netroots Nation is kabuki theater played in a Potemkin village.
You can either . . .
adjust your criteria or give up. I suspect that, hooked to a lie detector, Sherrod Brown would pass your test. But it doesn't accomplish much to want something when you don't see a viable path to that result. Brown endorsed Clinton. (I'm never sure why he gets less negative publicity than Warren who declined to endorse.) I imagine he thought she'd win and he'd be in a position to get more, not a lot more, but more, of the things he wanted.
What you want means very little if you see no viable way to get there. You can either talk to the walls in isolation or make your points, then go along.
If no one in the senate meets your criteria it's a strong indication that no one following those criteria can get elected. The more hopeful possibility is that there are a number who do who would step forward if a real chance arose.
Meeting criteria for competent, honest elected officials
Those brave souls will be about as plentiful as munchkins riding unicorns in a Christmas parade.
They are progressively less
They are progressively less convincing...
The mystery of PotHolder Hillary on the
campaignmoney trail finally explained!Her dress must have been loaded with silverware from all of those catered expensive donor dinners she attended, rather than actually campaigning to watch her numbers drop even lower!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Pass the fork please.
It's from the White House you know.
They are progressively less
They are progressively less convincing...
The mystery of PotHolder Hillary on the
campaignmoney trail finally explained!Her dress must have been loaded with silverware from all of those catered expensive donor dinners she attended, rather than actually campaigning to watch her numbers drop even lower!
Got a message that the connection had been interrupted and that the page could not be verified so guess we'll see if this double-posts...
Edit:I knew it, lol.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Message received
Ellen, do you have any Hillary potHolders?--I would love them for souvenirs.
Or maybe Hillary should smoke pot--wouldn't that be interesting to see her stoned. She's absolutely horrid drunk or sober--but stoned--now that's a different experience. Watch out Bubba--she's coming to get you!
@Alligator Ed
The colours, the colours... aren't bombings of residential areas just beeeeeautiful?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.