A good friend of this blog, Ben Field, is a Bernie supporter, and lately he and I have had some differences over my criticism of the Sanders campaign vis-à-vis the attacks on Hillary Clinton’s honesty. You can read Ben’s latest criticism of me here, and below is my response to it:
Ben,
You know how much I respect you. And in the past you and I have usually agreed on most things, so I’m not comfortable that we are now so far apart on what is happening and what I am saying about it.
Let me try again because perhaps I haven’t made myself clear: I agree with Bernie Sanders on many of his policy issues. I really do. I would be very happy to live in a country that embraces much of his social radicalism. In fact, I used to love the guy—until he started to attack the integrity of a fellow Democrat who has, from her youth, been involved in progressive causes. Along with some of the unpleasant baggage you mention, Hillary Clinton has a record of supporting many of the things you and I support. She isn’t, for God’s sake, a Democrat In Name Only. That honor, if there is to be such a label applied to anyone in this race, would go to Bernie Sanders, who only recently became a Democrat and, as you suggest, has done almost nothing to help the party itself.
I simply don’t like it when Bernie attacks her character, her integrity. No, let me put it bluntly: I hate it. I’m not “bashing” him for anything other than that. He and Hillary could and should argue about domestic and foreign policy, about past votes, and so on. But they should not question each other’s integrity. And I haven’t heard one Hillary surrogate, or Hillary herself, even hint at the idea that Bernie is dishonest or lacks integrity. But I have heard plenty of Bernie supporters, on TV and online, do so about her. It makes me sick to hear it.
Apparently, judging by your comment—“I do not understand bashing Bernie for insinuating Hillary is less than honest”—you think it is okay for Bernie and his campaigners to question the honesty of someone they will inevitably have to (presumably) end up supporting against a Republican. That’s where Bernie’s reputation for authenticity will run into problems. He and his surrogates—his top media adviser especially—have said “she cannot be believed.” I haven’t heard Bernie disavow that statement, have you? How does Bernie, then, in the near future go out with authenticity and urge his supporters to vote for her, if he fails to get the nomination? How would he do that with a straight face? How would he do that and preserve his own integrity?
You say that I should know that Bernie “is nothing like the GOP.” Well, I hate to say this, but in one way he is acting exactly like the GOP. Do you think that it is okay for him to suggest, and for his top surrogate to actually say, “she cannot be believed”? If you do, I don’t understand that kind of thinking on our side. It makes no sense to me. It’s equivalent to calling her a liar, which Republicans do all the time. All the bleeping time. Just the other day on Fox and Friends, they put up a picture of Hillary on television that has been floating through the sewer that is conservative social media. I timed how long they kept that photo on the screen: 38 seconds. Here it is:
Isn’t that sweet? That’s what Fox “News” and other conservative media do to Hillary every single day, in some form or another. Thus, my question: Do you and other Bernie supporters think calling the eventual Democratic nominee the equivalent of a liar—especially when it plays right into the Republican narrative about her that is pushed and funded by big-money donors—is good political strategy? If you do, I guess I don’t understand anything about politics.
Another thing: I am not attacking Bernie supporters, except those that say they will never vote for Hillary and those who say they would support Donald Trump over her. Such people aren’t really Democrats or don’t really subscribe to even a basic form of progressivism. They are just pissed off at the system and their anger is unproductive. I have a lot of Bernie supporters in my family. They aren’t dumb people. They are earnest people who love Bernie’s message. We just have a disagreement over his electability, that’s all. I am sure they will all, like you, end up voting for Hillary because the alternative is unthinkable. But there are some Bernie fans out there who absolutely will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. And to the extent Bernie is feeding that hateful beast, I will not hesitate to call him on it.
Finally, you say that I “continually bash” your primary choice. No, I do not. I wouldn’t think of bashing your primary choice. We are both Democrats, for heaven’s sake. Any Bernie supporter who will vote for Hillary Clinton, if Bernie loses, is good in my book. I understand how people can differently perceive primary candidates’ chances of winning in the general election. But I will never understand how people can so very publicly call a candidate the equivalent of a liar and then, just as publicly, urge others to vote for that candidate. Sorry. I just don’t get that.
Duane
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
henrygmorgan
/ March 8, 2016Duane: When I reached 21, the legal voting age in 1956, I couldn’t vote because I was in the Marine Corps and overseas so I couldn’t register. But if I could have voted, I would have cast my first and only Republican vote. Well, that’s not quite right: Some years later, out of the service and back in my hometown, Mobile, Alabama, George Wallace was running for Governor, and since there was no Democratic candidate, I voted for Wallace’s Republican opponent, a Republican, in the Primary. But back to 1956, I thought that Stevenson was too far from reality, that he could never get elected in the America of that era. And his opponent, Eisenhower, was a personal hero of mine, and his vote would have been my first.
Fifty-nine years later, and a good deal more cynical, I still believe that Ike was the right vote, because I am even more convinced that Adlai had no chance to beat Ike. Yet I loved his ideas. This fuzzy-minded college professor advanced a plan that was right down my aisle. I have always believed, taking my cue from Jefferson, that the first duty of government was to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Not those who won’t take care of themselves; those who can’t, the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, and those who are incapable, for a number of other reasons, of taking care of themselves. The Marine Corps took me to a number of countries where government not only did not take care of their citizens, they created barriers against them.
To get to the point of these musings, I agree totally with you about Bernie. I respect Ben’s views, agree with most of them, but we must temper the desirable with the practical. I would love to see our medicare modeled after European forms, Denmark’s for example. As a retired college professor, I would be delighted with a tuition-free higher education system, and restraints on Wall St. excesses are particularly attractive. But do I think that these things are possible with the political scene the way it is today, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate? No way.
Another of my heroes, Henry David Thoreau, said, “If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they belong. Now put the foundations under them.”
Let’s set to work building foundations.
Bud
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 8, 2016Bud,
I can’t thank you enough for that Thoreau gem and for sharing a little bit of your voting history and for making the case for pragmatism.
Vision is a necessary component of any political movement. But vision itself is not sufficient. In elections, you have to convince a majority of folks to vote for you or your vision is practically useless. And for the life of me, I can’t see how good folks think that, all of a sudden, after Obama only received 51% of the vote four years ago running against a guy who insulted have the country, we are ready for Medicare for all and for free tuition and so on. In time those things will come even to this country. But in a place like the United States, where change generally happens slowly, they will likely come incrementally, not through some sort of Bernie-inspired political revolution.
Thanks again,
Duane
LikeLike
Tige Gibson
/ March 8, 2016Obama’s presidency was the foundation. It certainly wasn’t the castle in the sky. The political scene actually has changed because of that, because of the increasingly desperate tone of the Republicans. Some forms of media are not able to tune to it. They are obligated to pay attention to the last 15 minutes and the whim of the bosses. The past 40 years of Republican dominance has already run out of steam and that steam is not coming back soon. The past 40 years of changes will have a legacy for a little while, but their policies will be unwound. Republicans won`t be able to stop it, not in the next four years or the next 40. They may get one seat on the Supreme Court, but the days of Republican domination are already over. Just take a close look at them, they’re done and they know it.
What you are saying is actually part of the reason why Republicans are so desperate. You’re too moderate, too middle-of-the-road. Democrats take up so much of the middle that Republicans have no room. They’re all piled up on the extreme edge. The only way Republicans can recover is if they have some middle ground that can occupy. At least if they had that, they wouldn’t be so scary.
If you listen to Duane, it’s just a strategy to keep the Republicans in the extreme crazy desperate mode they’ve been forced into, so that whenever they have any power they abuse it to do the worst they can when they have the chance. So it isn’t just about trying to seem practical, it’s about allowing people with different views to also be practical. Republicans have lost that.
Drumpf is the symbolic representation of a party with no practical ambition. They can’t see any way to be practical without looking like their opponents and no one wants to look like their opponents. This is in the absence of a third party. Drumpf is not a representative of a third party, despite many people claiming this, he just wants the big chair for it’s own sake. The people who like him on the other hand see him as a lifeboat as the Republican party sinks. They’ve been conditioned not to switch. They don’t understand what’s at stake. Hatred and spite are all they have left.
Let me put it another way, if you occupy the middle for another election cycle, Republicans are going to come back with the next Reagan. They’re going to take back the middle. So if you want the middle for the next election, the middle is all you’re ever going to get in the long run. What we really wanted, needed, was the next JFK or FDR, but the party offered us another Clinton on the end of a sharp stick. Take it or leave it.
Sanders may not be JFK or FDR but he’s better than Obama and Clinton. And if we evacuate the middle-right, the Republicans will tone down and have breathing room to remake themselves as a progressive party instead of a bunch of nutcases. And whoever they might offer after that would be a relief compared to Dubya or Cruz or the rest of them.
Try to imagine if Republicans actually had someone like Eisenhower on the ticket this year. Would you be scared? Allowing Republican identity in the middle makes it possible for Republicans to nominate someone like Eisenhower.
Republicans seem like they’re dominant because they have been, but really it’s right wing policy which is dominant because policies stick around until someone changes them. The majority, the middle are not on the right, pretty much by definition. Eisenhower came along when left wing policy was dominant. There is no way you can see someone like that unless you put someone in office who actually changes things. We have no reason to think that person is Clinton.
Drumpf, if he could even win, all he can really do is tow the line if he even gets that much power, humiliate himself, his office, and his nation. These are all signs telling us he can’t even win. Everything is already as far right as it’s going to go. Better to take a chance on Drumpf dragging his and the Republican party’s feet for four years than letting them rebuild while Clinton holds the reigns for them.
This is how it really is. Clinton isn’t worth it. She doesn’t have integrity. That’s Duane’s problem, not Sanders.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 9, 2016Tige,
I hate to butt in, since your comment wasn’t directed toward me, but I have to say your analysis, to the extent I am able to understand it, has at least one major flaw. You expressed the flaw when you wrote these two statements about a who-gives-a-shit GOP victory in November:
1. There will, in all probability, be more than one seat. Four years, possibly eight years, is a long, long time when some of the justices are so old. The next president will likely change the ideological slant of the Court for a generation, a possibility that doesn’t seem to bother you much, which is strange position for someone to hold who is so interested in moving the country so far to the left.
2. Seriously? You don’t think either a very predictable Ted Cruz or a very unpredictable Donald Drumpf could do some very stupid things, in terms of taking the country backward? Have you heard these men talk? Have you noticed the nuts who run the House of Representatives, or the majority of Republicans who run the Senate? Oh, my. And the only sane one left in the GOP field is John Kasich, a man so far to the right that he used to be called a radical, but these days is viewed, falsely, as a moderate. In any case, I’m not willing, as you seem to be, to risk past progress on the political equivalent of drawing to an inside straight.
Duane
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 8, 2016Duane,
I have never heard Bernie say, “she cannot be believed”. My TV viewing is limited to OPT and the major networks. I do read voraciously however, and have never seen it in print. Please refer me to such, if in print, and I will understand your position. I prefer not to delve into the “echo chambers” described by King Beauregard or the “talking heads” on many cable networks. I have noticed the last 3 of 4 of your were critical of Bernie suggesting Hillary as less than honest. Of course she is, as are all career politicians including Bernie. There is not one person in this world past or present that hasn’t lied, but Hillary struggle in an interview and could not admit such. For anyone to deny that is dishonest in itself. The more politicians are forced to accept Super PACs, industry money, and Wall Street money, to be able to run a campaign, the greater the dishonesty is implied.
I realize Hillary will win the nomination and Sam fully prepared to support her over any GOP wacko, but I am deeply troubled by her Wall Street connections. The only thing I fault the Obama administration with is the failure to prosecute any executive for defrauding our country in the 2008 crisis. And you can bet the home place that it will occur again because there was no punishment. Pensions destroyed, country nearly bankrupted. Totally unacceptable, and I fear Hillary will not emphasize that in any of her speeches to them, she hasn’t yet.
I am I in no way as politically sophisticated as you or Dr. Morgan, that’s why I read your blog, but I do want a better America for my grandchildren. Much has improved during Obama’s tenure…racial awareness, LGBT equality, ACA…the list goes on. I would love to see continuing progress in free education beyond high school, and income inequality caused by corporate greed, and accountability in Wall Street and the financial industry be it Bernie or Hillary.
After witnessing the maniacs GOP race, and the venomous hatred of Hillary and their desire to go to any and all means to destroy her, leaves me thinking a yellow dog could not only win the Democratic ticket, but possibly the national election. Duane, I appreciate greatly your ability to effectively communicate your seasoned opinion in this blog, and my only point was to respond to what I considered as a non-issue, particularly in this election. I do think you a reasoned friend and value your opinion.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016“The only thing I fault the Obama administration with is the failure to prosecute any executive for defrauding our country in the 2008 crisis.”
A couple thoughts on this:
1) A great deal of our near economic collapse was perfectly legal. That’s the point of deregulation: to render legal those practices that had previously been criminalized for the threat they posed.
2) That said, we can blame Bush for a lack of prosecutions to a large extent. Bush pushed out a lot of experienced Department of Justice staff, the kind with the know-how and experience to go after Wall Street. Obama had to re-staff the Department of Justice, to “reprofessionalize” it as some say. It has meant a learning curve, which unfortunately has meant having to rebuild the institutional skill to prosecute cases that Clinton’s DOJ might have been able to handle swiftly and decisively.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/obama-history-project/thomas-sugrue/
“We won’t get a full reckoning of the impact of administrative changes for a while. But here are some hints. Look at the Department of Justice. During the George W. Bush years, many veteran staff attorneys—both Republican and Democrat alike—left or were pushed out during a period of intense politicization of the agency. The DOJ had arguably never been as partisan as it was during the Bush years. Obama, by contrast, appointed many highly regarded professionals to the DOJ. Those appointees have professionalized the hiring process and reinvigorated many of the DOJ’s divisions. A similar process has played out in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor.”
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016For you to suggest the events which caused the collapse were legal is laughable. The Glass-Stegal Act being repealed set up the criminal activity. Do you know under who’s administration it was repealed?
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016No, repealing Glass-Steagall meant that certain activities that were formerly criminal, no longer were. That’s the entire point of deregulation: so that businesses can legally do things they couldn’t before.
But let’s try it your way: if the point of deregulation isn’t to render activities legal, then what is the point?
Also, just a reminder that Glass-Steagall probably wouldn’t have saved us. You know where I get that from? Liz Warren herself.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/
===
But here’s the key: Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the last financial crisis. And it probably wouldn’t have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus trading loss. The loss occurred on the commercial side of the bank, not at the investment bank. But parts of the bet were made with synthetic credit derivatives — something that George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life” would never have touched.
When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016King,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016Liz Warren says it didn’t. Are you saying Saint Liz The Pure is wrong?
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016I’m saying all politicians lie. Been saying it all along.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016… which is why that interviewer had to figuratively chase Warren down to admit that Glass-Steagall probably wouldn’t have made any difference.
Liz’s point of course was that something SIMILAR TO Glass-Steagall might have made a difference, and I agree. But Glass-Steagall itself would not have. It’s like leaving the front door unlocked, and when people break in through the back door, saying “I knew I should have deadbolted the front door”. Wouldn’t have helped, though buying a deadbolt for the back door very well might have.
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016Perhaps you should read Robert Reich’s response, the nonbanks funding from the big banks would have not occurred had Glass-Stegall been in place.
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016By the way, you do know Liz is working to resurrect the Glass-Stegal Act, nothing but crickets from Hillary.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 9, 2016Ben,
I haven’t heard Bernie say that directly, but he has quite obviously implied it almost constantly for the last month or more.
In any case, I appreciate what you said about me and I very much appreciate and value your contributions to this blog and the various discussions we have had and will continue to have, always as friends. I in no way want to foolishly suggest that I have all the answers or that my analysis is flawless or that others don’t know as much as I know. Most people writing in depth about politics know a lot more than I know. Just like you, I’m out there learning as much as I can. That’s why I spend so much time watching or listening to the kind of programs that you don’t, quite rationally, seem to like very much or visiting the kind of places online that you and I both loathe. But between cable news and social media, that’s how a lot of people get their “news” today and one has to follow the discussion in those ways to know what is being disseminated, so that one can write about this stuff as intelligently as possible.
By the way, just today on CNN I heard Tad Devine once again refer to Clinton as “dishonest.” The guy is Bernie’s top spokesman. Do me a favor and think about this: If Hillary’s top spokesman, Karen Finney, went on CNN and said Bernie had communist sympathies because, quite naturally, socialism is related to communism, would you have a problem with that? Such a suggestion will be made in various ways by Republicans about a nominated Bernie Sanders in the late summer and fall. But you know what? Such a dumb statement by Clinton’s top spokesman would piss off all Bernie supporters and nearly all Clinton supporters like me. And it would get her fired from the Clinton team I guarantee you. But Bernie’s top guy can go on TV and essentially call Hillary a liar and neither Bernie nor his supporters have anything to say about it. That’s what Berns me up.
Incidentally, also today on CNN another Bernie supporter, writer and activist Jonathan Tasini, used the L word about Hillary and brutally attacked her integrity. That seems to be the go-to tactic now for some of Bernie’s cable TV-appearing surrogates. It comes across as desperate to me and it is off-putting. That’s all I’ve been trying to say about the matter, not trying to insult Bernie supporters like you. I’ve got plenty of them in my family!
Duane
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016Duane,
Hillary has also attacked Sanders saying falsely that his single payer health plan “would be turning over your and my health insurance to governors” implying that Sanders would allow conservative states to opt out of his plan. That is completely false. States may opt out, but they would default to the federal exchange. That was in January. She twisted his vote on the Wall Street bailout packag to claim he was against the auto bailout. The Flint debate was full of such on both sides. Both sides have behaved badly.. Both have lied. But you’re right Bernie should not allow any staffer to make such a statement. But, I do not think one candidate morally superior to the other.
I will fully support either candidate, be it the first female nominee or the first Jewish nominee. I know you will do the same, and there is absolutely no reason Democrats shouldn’t earn he Presidency and congressional seats. The party of No has become the party of the serial liar, rampant xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, birthers, and bullies. Just count me among the black sheep of your family that are currently supporting Bernie.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016“She twisted his vote on the Wall Street bailout packag to claim he was against the auto bailout.”
Nope, she got it right: he WAS against the auto bailout. He was against it because he didn’t like other things in the bill, but in the end he decided he’d rather hurt auto workers (and the rest of America, really) than help Wall Street.
I’m sorry that it wasn’t a very tidy bill that exactly met the contours of an auto bailout Sanders would approve of, but you know what? That’s the job. Bills are rarely perfectly “clean” affairs, they often involve compromise and catering to a variety of interests. As a Senator he has to decide whether a bill will do more harm than good, and as a President he’ll have to do the same. Sanders needs to take responsibility for being on the wrong side of the TARP vote.
Not that the rest of TARP was a mistake anyway; it saved the economy and kept us all from partying like it’s 1932. For an FDR fan, you’d think Bernie would realize the first thing FDR did was stabilize the banks, much like TARP in broad strokes.
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 10, 2016King,
I notice you ignore the first sentence because you can’t refute it, and then you mind read Sanders reasoning. You can’t argue she doesn’t lie, or insinuate half truths as well. You will have plenty to defend Hiillary over in the general election. Prepare yourself for that, because our disagreement will seem very minor at that point.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 10, 2016“I notice you ignore the first sentence because you can’t refute it”
What, the thing about single payer? That whole discussion is about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, since Bernie will have died of old age before we have a Congress willing to pass single payer anyway.
“You can’t argue she doesn’t lie, or insinuate half truths as well.”
I can’t, but I AM saying that she’s entirely right to accuse Bernie of voting against the auto bailout. If anything she wasn’t explicit enough about it: Bernie had the opportunity to vote in favor of auto workers and the common man in general, and instead he voted against because doing so would also benefit institutions he was less appreciative of. Behold the great champion of the people, who will champion them only on his terms and not if doing so requires compromise. He hates the 1% more than he cares about the 99%, which makes him unfit for office.
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 10, 2016I have read where you have accused Bernie of being “unfit for office” a ” mendacious weasel” , stated his desire to drag down the Democratic Party if necessary to get elected, also of his supporters,”They’ve collectively been working to poison the well, and I don’t see much hope that earnest Bernie supporters will turn around and support Hillary, even if Bernie asks nicely in June the Democratic Party if necessary to get elected,”, and even ridiculously state there was no criminal activity involved in the financial collapse. Thereappears no limit to what you will say to trash him or his supporters in support of Hillary, even though she carries more baggage than Bernie. After listening to your defense of the police in the Tamir Rice post, I am wondering what is next from you regarding Bernie…”Kike” perhaps? I have mentioned hat I will support the Democratic nominee, if that isn’t good enough for you, too damn bad.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 10, 2016“and even ridiculously state there was no criminal activity involved in the financial collapse”
I didn’t say that there was “no criminal activity”, only that MUCH OF what went on was perfectly legal. Still waiting for you to explain what the point of deregulation is, if not to make formerly illegal activities legal.
I wouldn’t call Bernie a “kike”; his record provides all the reason I need to be opposed to him.
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 10, 2016What “two fer one” team along with the truly mendacious Phil Graham of Texas deregulated by repealing the Glass-Stegall Act? You think that wise political leadership?
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 10, 2016You can’t even answer a simple question directly.
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 10, 2016Waiting for you to tell me why this team made previously illegal activities legal. FDR was rolling in his grave because of the ignorance of these two.
LikeLike
Michael Gaden
/ March 8, 2016This isn’t very sophisticated or erudite. Dr. Maddow should find or crop a picture of Trump with the “T” out of the picture and the Donald below, so that it has him and the word “rump”. She should leave this picture on the screen for, oh, say 38 seconds, at least.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 9, 2016That’s “Saint” Rachel Maddow around here! At least that’s what I call her. And she wouldn’t stoop so low as to do something like that, even to Donald Drumpf!
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016The question comes up “well why do businesses contribute money to politicians, what are they getting in return?” and the answer is a little bit, well, grey.
What is the business hoping to buy? As much control over the politician as possible.
What is the business actually buying? I think they are buying two and possibly three things:
1) A reason for the politician to be reluctant to harm the interests of that business. Note that “a reason” doesn’t guarantee anything; it just means that a politician will be aware that an unfavorable vote may mean less in contributions later. It will factor into their thinking but is by no means necessarily a decisive factor; politicians are always pissing somebody off no matter what they do, so that donation just means that you factor into the arithmetic.
2) A guarantee that the politician will return their calls. If you’ve given a significant amount of money to a politician, they will at least listen to you. The rest of us do not necessarily get a call back if we try to contact a politician.
3) The third thing — the thing Bernie is implying about Hillary because he’s a mendacious weasel — is that, if you take money from a business, they have bought your vote. Now that’s true of too many politicians, I’m sure; the GOP is not exactly known for their putting the good of their constituents above the good of the wealthy, and even the odd Democrat (like Jim Traficant, beamed up too early) succumbs to it. But most Democrats do not show signs of this sort of corruption in any compelling ways. I tend to see only indirect, circumstantial, and unconvincing “proofs”, such as “Hillary takes Wall Street money and she is not actively hostile to Wall Street therefore she is bought and paid for”.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 9, 2016I agree with 1) and 2) and as far as 3), there are, of course, corrupt and corruptible Democrats, though moneyed interests seem to do much better betting on Republicans, in terms of getting what they want.
As an example of Democratic corruption more widespread than one guy or gal, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently and back in 2010, for instance, have been called out for taking money from unseemly businesses. Here is a great quote from a 2010 TheGrio article:
It’s that kind of stuff that undermines all politicians, even the honest ones. If you take money from unions, you are in the “pockets of big labor.” If you take money from bankers, you are associated with “Wall Street crooks.” While I am fervently in favor of getting big money out of politics, it is still reasonable to hold the position that in some (probably rare) cases, when people give politicians barrels full of money, it may be because they are already doing things they like.
Duane
LikeLike
Ben Field
/ March 9, 2016King,
I am not going to start name calling each other’s primary choice, that’s a Republican thing. Nobody has said that Hillary is bought and paid for, but money buys influence, always has and apparently always will.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 9, 2016I hear all the time that Hillary has been bought and paid for. You can argue that the people saying this are fact-impaired, but their votes count as much as the next guy’s.
LikeLike
Anonymous
/ March 10, 2016My Brotha you are right! Well stated!! People better wake up and see this senseless attack on Hillary, or they’ll be standing in soup lines because of Cruz and his cronies running “all” of government(s).
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 11, 2016Hillary is held to a double standard that’s for sure. The other night she was, yet again, asked a question about her honesty that no other candidate has to answer. We all know Donald Drumpf has told countless lies, so many that they are hard for fact-checkers to keep track of. Yet I have never heard anyone ask Drumpf if he has ever lied to the public, nor does he, time after time, have to explain why it is that people think he is dishonest. In most of the long interviews Hillary does, she is inevitably faced with the honesty question, which helps continue the Republican narrative against her. I get tired of it and Bernie should stop profiting from it.
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ March 11, 2016Hillary is also the only candidate who ever prompts the question, “why do they want to become president?” It would be a damn insulting question asked of anyone else, yet people ask it about Hillary all the time. Maybe I’m paying attention to the wrong people (i.e. the far Left) but they make like Hillary’s motives are inherently suspect the way that Sanders’ or Trump’s are not.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ March 11, 2016I think you make a good point. There is, on the part of some professional journalists, a tendency to see Hillary Clinton as having some impure motives behind her quest to be president. Bernie gets just the opposite treatment in my view. His motives are never, and I mean never, questioned. His quest is presented as a noble effort.
As far as Trump, I think his motives are never challenged for a different reason. It seems clear to everyone what his motives are: self-aggrandizement. But I think he should be asked about his motives, and his honesty, constantly. Just like is done to Hillary Clinton. ‘Cept that won’t happen.
LikeLike