Home | About | Donate

Is 'Russiagate' Collapsing as a Political Strategy


#1

Is 'Russiagate' Collapsing as a Political Strategy

Norman Solomon

The plan for Democrats to run against Russia may be falling apart.

After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the horrific presidency of Donald Trump…

After blaming America’s dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia more than on plutocrats in America…

After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian than pro-working-people…


#3

Wake UP Democrats! The problem isn't Russian meddling. It's your feeble attempts to please everybody across the aisle.

I've been around for 83 years and remember FDR and LBJ. They were able to govern with power. They instituted policies for the working taxpayers not the corporate non-taxpayers. Many of Trump's supporters used to be Democrats until they got repeatedly screwed by the pro corporate laws that were passed by the weaker presidential successors.who seemingly attempted to win Republican corporate votes.

Instead of winning votes it allowed for union busting, corporate expansion and mega mergers, the deterioration of health care and low wages. It permitted corporations to export jobs and even their corporate offices to avoid taxes. You can't blame this on the Russians. Thanks to weak Democratic pro corporate leadership we are left with a minority party that must legislate by being obstructionists. It's time to reclaim leadership! How are you going to do it? Or are you going to continue to whimp along as an obstructionist minority.\?


#4

"Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way: “We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement..."
The Dems have had eight years to focus relentlessly on the economy which resulted in a very weak "recovery" and Barack telling us that jobs were never coming back to America.
I know this is anathema to Progressives but maybe the you should realize that it's the free market that builds the economy, lifts people out of poverty and grows the middle class.
Unless someone has a logical and well thought out response, I now await the usual name calling and insults that typically follow a non-PC CD post.


#5

Obviously the corporatists are going to focus on Russia rather than the bread and butter issues because focusing on the former does not impact their big donors the way focusing on the latter might. It is no coincidence that the corporatist Democrats became obsessed with Russia right after Bernie created new energy for a progressive takeover of the party, As long as the Russia nonsense takes up all the oxygen in the room, there is nothing left for addressing real issues and attacking the corporatists for being on the wrong side of them.

The Russian plutocrats aren't responsible for the subversion of our democracy; the American plutocrats are.


#6

I don't buy the implication that there's nothing there, and even less that those who began investigating are tools of "political strategy." What our democracy needs is to leave the party labels at the ballot box. We the people must demand governance, including investigations of error, by public servants rather than party dogs. And that means, among other things, that we stop wasting our own energies on trying to tell the party dogs how to strategize against each other.


#7

Well, the article quotes D-party strategists who clearly state that 'Russia, Russia, Russia' is their game plan, so I don't understand your not buying it.

But you're right about this: I hope people stop giving the D-Party advice. I prefer they stay the course into the dustbin of history.


#8

May be the game plan of strategists, but that doesn't mean there's no there there, or that it doesn't matter in any way but Dem strategy.


#9

As a whiny projection of the D-Party's need to distract and deflect from their lack of a brand, soul, or actual policy--I'd suggest it matters a lot. And if an investigation turns up little or nothing, which seems to be the case right now, the Russia obsession will look even more trite and petty.

But I'll repeat: I hope they stay the course.


#10

The Democrats are truly lost.


#11

It's not that your post is non-PC, it's just ill informed and ignorant. To begin with Obama was no progressive, he is and always was a neo-liberal. Peter Welch supported Hillary over Bernie, revealing him to be a neo-liberal as well. Neo-liberals don't give a shit about the little guy.

As for "it's the free market that builds the economy", that may be true if there was such a thing as a free market. On small scales with individual transactions there may be a free market. Barter and flea markets may possibly considered free markets, but the minute you have any kind of regulation, there is no longer a free market. Taxes, laws, regulations and environmental considerations mean that governments can and do make winners and losers. With huge monopolies endemic and entrenched, there are no free markets. How can a mom and pop grocery store compete against Wal-Mart? They can't even lobby in the same way Wal-Mart does. The deck is stacked against them. Free markets mean that businesses that are not competitive go out of business. We have a systems where non competitive big banks are too big to fail and are bailed out. We have a market of, by, and for the largest corporations and the richest people. Your comment is high school Ayn Rand drivel. Our society now has less class mobility than since the Guilded age..."lifts people out of poverty"...HA!


#12

You know, I'm not sure what to do with all these new labels everyone is tossing around. I've always considered myself a conservative and highly suspicious of government, no matter who is in office. Neoliberal? How about Marxist? If it looks like a duck...

While I agree that we don't have a truly free market, my point is that reducing the massive regulations is how we bring it back. That being one of things Trump campaigned on and one of the reason he was elected. As far as too big to fail, I would have preferred GM go bankrupt and individuals who know how to build cars people want to buy to pick up the pieces. If we didn't have an FDIC to guarantee everyone's saving, maybe the banks would be a little more conservative in where they made investments. For the most part, the smaller home town banks came through the crisis just fine. I don't agree with public/private partnerships since they tend to spend our money on foolishness. Solyndra comes to mind.

And sorry there dogpaddle, but we don't live in a caste system. The poor don't have to stay poor. A lot of poor folks are young people just starting out in life. I know several people, whom I can call friends, that are now millionaires. They started out with nothing but a dream and it was capitalism that made them prosperous.

And as far as Ayn Rand is concerned, I've never read any of her work.


#13

A reasoned reply, but the fact is that we do live in a caste system. A society is only as good as its concern for the vulnerable.

What has been happening here is that a program is created, then it is defunded, then it is pointed to as a failure of government. It is destined to fail when it is defunded. Government works when it works for the people.

BTW capitalism requires that growth occurs to be successful. The problem is that we live on a finite planet, with finite resources. Growth cannot continue indefinitely. At some point, the system will crash. At the present time, the people are consuming roughly 1.6 times what is sustainable, so we are at the point where capitalism cannot continue to function. The rich are feathering their nest to keep themselves comfortable with little regard for what happens to the rest of us.


#14

Sorry, but I strongly disagree and as I stated, anyone can move ahead if they apply themselves.
Maybe we need to define who are the "most vulnerable"? Your's is probably different than mine.
Using the government program example is interesting for two reasons.
First, what government program has EVER gotten defunded?
The government has seen constant growth since for decades, with no signs of even slowing down.
The only things passed by Congress that seems to have a "sunset" are tax cuts.
(I know, they're always for the wealthy.)
And the other point is designing a program to fail when defunded. Is that what the ACA was designed to do?
I say government governs best when it governs least. Get out of the way and let the imagination and ingenuity of the American people do the work, not the government.
Not sure where you come up with some of the theories of what sustains capitalism, but it will sustain itself if you work it. I'm a small business owner, I create my own demand the more people I contact.
And as far as running out of resources, where is this 1.6 number your using? :thinking: That's a new one.
As far as Naomi Klein, don't have the time.
I'm a history buff, so if not on line talking with you and other folks, I'm...


#15

Here's one source for the 1.6 figure:

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable


#16

Just a reminder that not a single investigation into this has been closed. Not one.


#17

And with no time limit and unlimited budget, it never will.


#18

Well, that's one. Give me three more from totally disparate sources and it might have more foundation in truth.


#19





There's 4.


#20

OK dogpaddle, the world is coming to an end so all that is left to do is "eat and drink for tomorrow we die".