RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Things Are Even Worse for the GOP Than You Think Print
Thursday, 30 June 2016 08:20

Berney writes: "It's a political cliché that the Republican Party comprises three pillars: religious, defense and economic. In just two days, all three have been turned upside down."

Donald Trump visited a Pennsylvania recycling plant Tuesday, making for an odd backdrop for a speech on U.S. trade policy. (photo: Luis Reediger/Reuters)
Donald Trump visited a Pennsylvania recycling plant Tuesday, making for an odd backdrop for a speech on U.S. trade policy. (photo: Luis Reediger/Reuters)


Things Are Even Worse for the GOP Than You Think

By Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone

30 June 16

 

Republicans just faced crippling blows on abortion and Benghazi, while Trump continues to destroy the party

t has not been a slow news week. In the space of just two days:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Texas' onerous abortion law was an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to the procedure.

—The House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report on the tragic 2012 attacks that killed four Americans, finding "no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton," according to the New York Times.

—Donald Trump gave a speech in front a literal garbage pile in which he called for the destruction of existing trade pacts and an all-out trade war with China.

It's a political cliché that the Republican Party comprises three pillars: religious, defense and economic. In just two days, all three have been turned upside down.

It's impossible to overstate what a huge victory the Supreme Court's Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt decision was for abortion rights. For years now, the anti-abortion movement has realized it has little chance at making the procedure illegal again, so it's pursued another strategy: making it as difficult as possible for women to obtain abortions.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned parts of a Texas law designed to severely limit abortion access in the state.

Conservative legislators, aided by anti-choice groups like Americans United for Life, have passed laws mandating waiting periods and sonograms. They've forced women to visit anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" that lie to them. But their real success has come in shuttering clinics with ridiculous, unnecessary requirements like wider hallways, more parking spaces and grass of a certain length. Shut down clinics, and you force women to wait longer, travel further and spend more on travel, childcare and missed time at work.

But on Monday, the nation's high court ruled Texas had finally gone too far — the state had made it too difficult for women to obtain an abortion with requirements that not only did nothing to make abortion safer for women, but that actually made them less safe.

The Court's decision utterly undercuts the right's strategy of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, effectively punishing them for having sex. And it's only going to get worse for the GOP from here. If Senate Republicans continue to refuse to even hold hearings for, let alone confirm, Merrick Garland's nomination, chances are good Hillary Clinton will appoint the next Supreme Court justice. Either way, by next year the Court is likely to have a solid five-vote majority ready to expand on Monday's ruling and strike down even more ridiculous laws that hurt women.

One reason Hillary Clinton is more likely to appoint the next Supreme Court justice — and possibly even the next three or four — is that Republicans have utterly failed in their attempts to blame her for the September 11, 2012, deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, a State Department information officer and two CIA contractors.

The deaths in Benghazi were a tragedy, but the record is clear: There was no order not to send in the military to help. There was no cover-up. No matter how desperately Republicans wish Clinton was somehow personally responsible for the attack, or engaged in some sort of campaign of lies in the aftermath, the facts — even those in the Republicans' own exhaustive report — don't back them up.

If anyone needs to be held accountable, it's the Republicans who took a genuine tragedy and spent four years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to squeeze out an ounce of political advantage. It was shameful, but they don't have any shame.

The whole ugly debacle shows how little respect they have for the actual practice of national security. Instead of a serious investigation into an attack against our citizens, we were treated again and again to a partisan circus with the sole purpose of destroying a candidate for president. And their plan backfired.

For reasons that will leave historians and philosophers guessing into distant times, Donald Trump did indeed stand in front of a literal pile of garbage Tuesday to deliver an economic address.

Worse even than the worst backdrop in the history of political campaigns was the vision Trump laid out for America's future. There is an important and genuine debate about the role of trade and trade agreements in our economy, but Trump has never participated in a discussion that makes sense to anybody but himself.

He'd replace trade agreements with trade wars, raising tariffs and issuing nonsensical threats that would send our economy — and possibly the world's — into a tailspin. There's no telling the damage Trump could do. How many millions of jobs would disappear from Trump's America? How many people would lose their homes? Would it be worse than the 2008 recession? Would we approach levels of suffering seen during the Great Depression?

Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in election years usually serves as an unofficial arm of the Republican nominee's campaign, took to social media to attack Trump's speech point-by-point in real time.

That's not to say the Chamber's critiques of Trump were the correct ones; like the crushed cans behind Trump on that stage, the Chamber is a pile of sticky refuse. It exploits hard-working people for the enrichment of a very few. But one of the most powerful organizations in Republican politics just publicly and explicitly issued a rejection of the party's nominee.

The Chamber represents the economic elite of the GOP, one of those three crucial pillars. That pillar has always been the most open with its discomfort around Trump; many of the party's high-dollar donors refuse to support him. The rich who have always driven the party's economic policy suddenly find themselves on the outside of the very structures they built. Whether or not Trump wins in November, their party is irreparably damaged.

So too is the party of national defense. It isn't just the way Republicans tried to exploit the deaths of Americans abroad by turning it into a witch hunt; it's the embrace of torture, the replacement of foreign-policy ideas with absurd displays of machismo. If you're a serious thinker who cares about a strong, strategic national defense, what do you do when Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the last men standing in the fight for your party's nomination? Do you turn, as many Republican foreign-policy establishment hands now are, to Hillary Clinton? You may not agree with all her ideas, but you can be fairly certain she won't hit the big red button on the nuclear football because Vladimir Putin insulted the size of her hands.

The radical evangelical Christians who dominate the third pillar of the party may be the most lost of them all. The country has utterly left them behind on the once-reliable issue of same-sex marriage because we realized two men kissing isn't icky. Conservative Christians are so desperate for wins they're targeting the most vulnerable, abused segment of the population and denying them access to public bathrooms. Even that discrimination is so nakedly obvious it's doomed to quick failure. And now their most successful strategy on their most important issue — abortion — is falling apart.

It's an ugly week in an ugly time to be a Republican. No matter what drew you to the party, the world is falling apart around your head. The walls are closing in.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Bid to Become Born-Again Fails as Jesus Turns Down Friend Request Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Wednesday, 29 June 2016 14:43

Borowitz writes: "The billionaire Donald J. Trump's bid to become a born-again Christian failed over the weekend after Jesus Christ turned down his friend request, campaign officials have acknowledged."

Donald Trump. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty)
Donald Trump. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty)


Trump's Bid to Become Born-Again Fails as Jesus Turns Down Friend Request

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

29 June 16

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


he billionaire Donald J. Trump’s bid to become a born-again Christian failed over the weekend after Jesus Christ turned down his friend request, campaign officials have acknowledged.

Jesus, who has not generally been active on Facebook, made a rare appearance on the social network on Monday to announce His decision to ignore the presumptive Republican nominee’s request for a personal relationship with Him.

In a brief post, Jesus offered the following explanation: “Just everything.”

The turndown from Jesus Christ, the inspiration behind one of the world’s most prominent religions, caps what has been a tough month for the Trump campaign.

Privately, campaign staffers fretted that the candidate would pen a disparaging tweet about Jesus, which might alienate evangelical voters in key battleground states.

But, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump made no reference to Jesus, and instead touted endorsements he had received from Gary Busey, Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Joe (the Plumber) Wurzelbacher.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Clinton and Warren: It Might Be Exactly the Right Ticket at the Right Time Print
Wednesday, 29 June 2016 12:29

Parton writes: "Many thought that having two women running together would be too much for the U.S. but it's exactly what we need."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren appeared at a campaign event with Hillary Clinton. (photo: John Sommers II/Getty Images)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren appeared at a campaign event with Hillary Clinton. (photo: John Sommers II/Getty Images)


Clinton and Warren: It Might Be Exactly the Right Ticket at the Right Time

By Heather Digby Parton, Salon

29 June 16

 

Many thought that having two women running together would be too much for the U.S. but it's exactly what we need

ne of the more tedious political parlor games in any presidential election is now fully underway — Vice Presidential speculation. On the Republican side we have the unusual spectacle of far more people running away from the possibility than coyly making themselves available. It seems few people wish to end their political careers this year by diving over a cliff holding hands with Donald Trump.

On the Democratic side the conventional wisdom for months has been that Clinton would pick Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. I’ve never been quite sure why this became the CW but it seems to stem from a conviction that Clinton is so hyper-cautious she would never think outside the box enough to choose someone CW didn’t say was the obvious choice. However, there are others beside Kaine on the list, many of whom would be exciting for different reasons. Choosing a person of color would be an obvious consideration for a multi-racial coalition. Picking someone younger would make sense as well.

But this week we had preview of what it might look like if Clinton decided to defy the CW and instead chose someone who doesn’t “balance” the ticket but rather doubles down on what makes her run risky in the first place — being the first woman nominee. I’m speaking of Senator Elizabeth Warren, of course, with whom Clinton appeared at an Ohio rally on Monday.

By all accounts, it was a very successful event.  The Washington Post reported it this way:

If there were any doubt that Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are the “it” couple of the moment in Democratic politics, it was silenced here Monday when they took the stage together for the first time. The two nerdy wonks and feisty grandmothers, who built rival power centers on the political left but this spring gradually became allies, together electrified a crowd of thousands by locking their arms, punching the air and excoriating Donald Trump.

Warren is on the VP short list for obvious reasons. First is the fact that she represents the progressive wing of the party, which has exerted substantial influence in this campaign through the candidacy of Bernie Sanders and has had some success over the last decade or so pulling the mainstream of the party away from the centrist orientation it adopted during the years of conservative ascendance. This faction would warmly embrace Warren on the national ticket and in this political era that may be more important than “balance” of region or age if Clinton wants to unify the party.

And Warren could also bring something important to the table in the role of “surprising validator,” which is someone from a particular group who can challenge something called “biased assimilation”:

[P]eople assimilate new information in a selective fashion. When people get information that supports what they initially thought, they give it considerable weight. When they get information that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss it…This natural human tendency explains why it’s so hard to dislodge false rumors and factual errors. Corrections can even be self-defeating, leading people to stronger commitment to their erroneous beliefs.[…]

But they may reconsider if the information comes from a source they cannot dismiss. People are most likely to find a source credible if they closely identify with it or begin in essential agreement with it. In such cases, their reaction is not, “how predictable and uninformative that someone like that would think something so evil and foolish,” but instead, “if someone like that disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.”

Clinton has been the subject of malicious right wing smears for more than a quarter century and it has taken a toll. And as I noted yesterday, GOP Super Pacs have successfully deployed a strategy to sow discord on the left in this cycle based upon those pre-existing narratives. Warren, on the other hand, is considered to be a scrupulously honest progressive with a reputation for rectitude. Her enthusiastic endorsement of Clinton’s character is extremely valuable to the Clinton campaign.

There are those  who assume that two women at the top of the ticket is too much for the country to handle. After all, it took nearly 230 years for one to even be nominated by a major party for the top job .I thought that myself but after seeing them together I changed my mind. It looked like a natural combination to me. When you think about it, it’s simply illogical to be willing to vote for a woman president but unwilling to vote for a woman to replace her if something happened. That makes no sense. And if you are the type of person who believes that a woman at the top of the ticket needs a man around to keep her steady, why would the VP have to be that person? The administration will surely be filled with men, they always are. In any case, there’s really nothing new about voting for president and VP of the same gender.

Most importantly,  the Republicans have nominated a man whose views about everything, but especially women, are nothing short of antediluvian. The prospect of a campaign featuring two strong women standing toe to toe with Trump is just too delicious to pass up. It’s already making him come unglued.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform Print
Wednesday, 29 June 2016 08:28

McKibben writes: "In other words, the Clinton campaign is at this point rhetorically committed to taking on our worst problems, but not willing to say how. Which is the slightly cynical way politicians have addressed issues for too long - and just the kind of slickness that the straightforward Sanders campaign rejected."

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. (photo: AP)
Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. (photo: AP)


The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform

By Bill McKibben, Politico

29 June 16

 

As one of Bernie’s delegates, I’m disappointed so far. But we’re still fighting hard.

he Democratic platform process is finally underway, and the main issue is this: Did the campaign of Bernie Sanders really alter the Democratic Party? The answer is not yet entirely clear, but on many key issues so far the Hillary Clinton campaign has been unwilling to commit to delivering specifics about fundamental change in America, which have been at the heart of Sanders' campaign.

I’ve had a front-row seat to the first round of the process, as 1 of 5 delegates Sanders named to draft the platform. (The Clinton campaign named six, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, added four more.) We spent two weeks listening to powerful testimony from citizens around the country, and then on Friday in St. Louis we started taking votes.

And it was there that the essential dynamic quickly emerged. The Clinton campaign was ready to acknowledge serious problems: We need fair trade policy, inequality is a horrible problem, and unchecked climate change will wreck the planet. But when it came to specific policy changes, they often balked. Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against.

At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that’s where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)

In other words, the Clinton campaign is at this point rhetorically committed to taking on our worst problems, but not willing to say how. Which is the slightly cynical way politicians have addressed issues for too long—and just the kind of slickness that the straightforward Sanders campaign rejected.

Happily, the process is only one-third complete. And Team Sanders has claimed some victories: a strong stand against the death penalty, for instance, and remarkable in-depth language on Native American rights. Now the platform discussion heads to Orlando, where 187 delegates will weigh it in more depth. And the issues on which they still can’t agree can then be raised on the convention floor in Philadelphia.

To some, the point of the whole exercise is unclear. Platforms don’t matter, right? But this is a new kind of election: The Sanders campaign has been about issues, issues, issues. I mean, the guy gives 90-minute speeches every day that are entirely about actual things that need to change. It seems weird in an American political context, which is normally about posturing and spin, but for many of us it’s refreshing.

To others, pushing for a strong platform seems risky. Won’t it somehow help Donald Trump if we keep airing these questions? Shouldn’t we just shut up and fall in line behind Hillary?

No one wants Trump to win. But many of us look at the Brexit vote and see that unenthusiastic centrism has a hard time beating zealous craziness. We need unions and working people and environmentalists fully engaged this time around, backing the Democrats with passion and energy. Above all we need young people, who voted for Bernie by a 7-to-1 proportion.

Which is why we need not platitudes but a platform. Not aspirations but commitments. Not happy talk, but the fully adult conversation that Sanders engaged the country in for the past year. Cornel West, with his usual succinct eloquence, said that in the end the platform debate came down to telling the truth. The truth is, we’re in a world of hurt. That hurt—economic, social, environmental—is driving the unsettling politics of our moment. That hurt needs to be addressed.

Orlando and Philly are the two places left where that can happen; I’m willing to bet the platform will get substantially stronger before all is said and done, because I think the Sanders run really has changed the party, and very much for the better.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 28 June 2016 14:16

Boardman writes: "The Sanders campaign has more than enough principled reasons to resist conventional political wisdom and carry on its campaign at least into convention floor fights and street demonstrations, not least because Democrats are acting as if they want only to co-opt Sanders supporters and send the Sanders political revolution down the memory hole."

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (photo: Lynne Sladky/AP)
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (photo: Lynne Sladky/AP)


Platform for Deception – Democrats at Work

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

28 June 16

 

“Our job is to pass the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party”
“[This is] the most ambitious and progressive platform our party has ever seen”

he Sanders campaign has more than enough principled reasons to resist conventional political wisdom and carry on its campaign at least into convention floor fights and street demonstrations, not least because Democrats are acting as if they want only to co-opt Sanders supporters and send the Sanders political revolution down the memory hole.

Taken together, the two comments above frame the Democrats’ attempt at a “Mission Accomplished” moment for the party’s platform draft for 2016. Anyone who wants to read the full text and judge it independently is asking for too much participatory democracy. The Democratic National Committee online offers only two platforms, both from 2015. The Democratic National Convention online offers a press release summarizing the 30-page platform draft, but not the document itself. The apparent purpose of this approach is to persuade people that the party has taken Bernie Sanders into the fold and his followers should now fall in love and fall in line with the Democratic Party. And that’s the spin the party got in early coverage from the Washington Post, Associated Press, N.Y. Daily News, CNN (“Clinton campaign hails progressive Democratic platform”), The Hill, and others.

Conventional wisdom has it that party platforms are not to be taken all that seriously, since politicians are notorious for breaking promises, and platforms aren’t binding on candidates anyway. But what about the circumstance where the party platform is made up not only of promises, but of many real and veiled threats? How seriously should we take that? Robert Reich suggests that Hillary Clinton’s lack of a progressive vision for the country enhances the chances of a Donald Trump presidency.

No wonder, then, that the Democratic Party is working to create the image of a progressive party where there is none. DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz thanked the platform committee for “a platform draft that advances our party’s progressive ideals and is worthy of our great country.” Platform Drafting Committee Chair Rep. Elijah Cummings said, “The draft platform we have produced in an open and transparent manner reflects our priorities as Democrats and demonstrates our vision for this nation.” To support these claims, the DNC press release highlights “key progressive policies” in the platform draft, some of which are perennial promises of pie-in-the-sky coming closer to earth. It also leaves out some things that progressives might find important. The following checklist, based on limited available information, is necessarily incomplete in the absence of the 30-page platform draft itself. And in any event, the meaningfulness of any of these platform planks (or omissions) is dependent on the will of a party that has been becoming less and less progressive for thirty years.

Jobs. It’s “the most ambitious jobs plan on record,” and the sky is full of pie. Focus on restoring infrastructure and revitalizing decaying communities seems encouraging, but that’s about as specific as it gets.

Minimum Wage. The committee said a minimum wage of $15 an hour is a nice idea, but rejected the Sanders proposal to actually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. The Clinton members of the committee also rejected indexing any minimum wage to inflation.

Education. For public schools, the platform “reaffirmed Democrats’ commitment to supporting teachers, schools and communities.” Re-thinking federal mandates, not so much. College education for all who qualify, even less. Eliminating (or just mitigating) student debt, not at all.

Death Penalty. “This is the first time in the Democratic Party’s history” that it has called for abolishing the death penalty. A little late, but all the same progress from 1992, when Bill Clinton found it politically expedient to rush back to Arkansas to make sure his state killed a retarded man.

Trade: “Existing deals must be continuously re-examined and enforcement of those existing agreements must be tougher.” Not tough enough now, with TransCanada suing the US under NAFTA for delaying their Keystone XL pipeline? Not a word about that. And not a word about the pending TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), opposed by Sanders, sort of opposed by Clinton, but supported by President Obama, so the committee felt politically hog-tied and punted (if you can imagine such contortions). The platform says, “A higher standard [undefined] must be applied to any future trade agreements.” Really?

Earned Income Tax Credit. The DNC calls this “looking out for working people,” and it helps, but not in day-to-day living, only once a year. Expanding it is a feel-good idea with minimal real impact.

Wall Street Reform. The platform promises expanded regulatory controls, like the ones the party refused to adopt when it could in 2009-2010. The platform hints at adopting a “modernized” Glass-Steagall Act, the one the party abolished to make the crash of 2007 possible, if not inevitable. And the party dangles the bait of breaking up too-big-to-fail institutions that threaten economic stability, a break-up the Obama administration made sure didn’t happen. The platform appears to ignore “private equity” threats entirely.

Multi-Millionaire Surtax. The platform is long on rhetoric (“ensuring millionaires can no longer pay a lower [tax] rate than their secretaries”), but short on specifics. Wealth disparity, in any form, is not addressed.

Expanding Social Security. The platform first promises to “fight every effort to cut, privatize, or weaken Social Security,” but neglects to mention restoring cost-of-living increases. The committee adopted an amendment promising to expand Social Security, paying for the expansion by taxing annual incomes above $250,000 (roughly five times the American median household income)

Immigration. The platform draft specifically supports “keeping families together, ending family detention, closing private detention centers, and guaranteeing legal counsel for all unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings,” as well as “comprehensive immigration reform” without other specifics. The platform is silent on deportation, which has been higher under President Obama than any previous president.

Universal Healthcare. Reiterating its decades-old assertion that “health care is a right,” the platform promotes the Affordable Care Act as a success to build on. The committee, like the president in 2009, explicitly rejected single-payer, Medicare-for-all, despite its manifest popularity and superiority over any other available plan. The Clinton people would have none of it. Universal health care is not even serious pie-in-the-sky.

Honoring Tribal Nations. The committee “unanimously adopted the most comprehensive language ever in the party’s platform recognizing our moral and legal responsibility to honor the sovereignty of and relationship to Indigenous tribes – and acknowledge previous failures to live up to that responsibility.” That’s it, no specifics. No promise to clean up uranium contamination on Navajo land, for example.

Climate Change And Clean Energy. In an apparent rebuke to the president’s “all of the above” energy non-strategy, the committee adopted a joint Sanders-Clinton proposal “to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century.” This would actually be a radical proposal, if the party actually meant it. But the committee also flatly rejected any carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gasses and it flatly rejected any freeze on natural gas fracking, leaving the air, underground water, and earthquake-prone areas as vulnerable as ever to the largely unregulated, destructive process. The committee also rejected a ban on fossil fuel drilling on federal land or in federal waters.

Reproductive Rights. According to the DNC, the “platform goes further than previous Democratic platforms on women’s reproductive rights,” which is a measure of how weak previous platforms were. This platform defends Planned Parenthood, opposes the 1973 Helms Amendment (limited US spending abroad on abortion), and opposes the 1976 Hyde Amendment (limiting domestic federal expenditures on abortion).

Criminal Justice Reform. The platform draft “calls for ending the era of mass incarceration, shutting down private prisons, ending racial profiling, reforming the grand jury process, investing in re-entry programs, banning the box to help give people a second chance and prioritizing treatment over incarceration for individuals suffering addiction.” This is tantamount to rejection of Clinton-era “reform,” as well as an implied rebuke to the sitting president, who has done little to end these horrors.

Marijuana. The platform does not come close to supporting legalization, but is for “supporting states that choose to decriminalize marijuana,” without specifying how such support would be expressed (no mention, for example, of removing the stupid federal classification of cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled Substance). The committee adopted an amendment recognizing the racial disparity of the impact of marijuana laws on African Americans (and other minorities), but stopped short of saying what, if anything, to do about that injustice.

That is the last item in the full list of issues the DNC chose to highlight from the platform draft adopted (with Cornel West abstaining) on June 25. Unsurprisingly, the DNC did not offer a comprehensive list of all the platform issues, ignoring Israel, for example, although it was reported elsewhere:

Israel. Israel was very much on the platform committee’s mind, and the committee rejected a proposal that the US should oppose Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation and colonization of the West Bank. The draft platform reflects Clinton’s support for the mirage of a “two state solution” of some sort (not specified). The platform does stake out two new positions for the party: first, that Palestinians “should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and in dignity" and second, that Democrats “oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions [BDS] Movement." It’s not clear how Democrats will justify both supporting Israel’s illegal occupation and opposing the entirely legal BDS Movement.

Iraq And Syria. Although untouted by the DNC, the platform also calls for “more inclusive governance” in Iraq and Syria. What, you thought there was a war there or something? Seriously.

And then there’s the highly uncertain, open-ended list of issues possibly important to the American people, but that go apparently unmentioned by the DNC and media coverage. Or maybe they’re there and being ignored:

Assault Weapons. Contrary to what you thought you saw on TV, Democrats have no apparent platform plank dealing with assault weapons, 100-shot clips, background checks, or any other aspect of gun regulation. Not a mumbling word.

Military Budget. $600 billion a year for what? Not worth asking.

Intelligence Budgets. Billions more, much in black budgets, and for what? You’d better not ask.

Terrorism. In the unlikely event that terrorism were actually omitted, that would be a sign of maturity and intellectual integrity, moving away from fear-mongering. It could happen, right?

Terror War in Yemen. Yes, the Saudis are the international war criminals fronting for US, but our hands are bloody. And the profits are good, so why bring it up in a party platform? Have you forgotten how divisive Viet Nam was?

Afghanistan. Not a word about America’s longest war. Long may it wave.

Iran. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. Libya. Etc., etc. Nothing revealed.

Poverty. There are 47 million poor people in America, as Sanders repeatedly points out. They are as invisible in the Democratic platform as they are in everyday life. Why have we become a country where it’s considered a tolerable response to round up homeless people and ship them off to somewhere else, anywhere else but here? The platform is as oblivious to America’s poor as to the world’s poor.

The omissions go on and on – what is the Democratic Party’s policy toward any of the unaddressed issues out there? In favor of war in Ukraine? Itching for Naval confrontation in South China Sea? Wanting to accept England as our 51st state? Who knows? If this is the most progressive party platform the Democrats have ever seen, then the Democrats have never seen a truly progressive platform. Not that that is any reason to stop the shuck and jive.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Next > End >>

Page 1992 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN