Home | About | Donate

This Sort of Spineless Corporate Pandering Is Why Democrats Keep Losing


#1

This Sort of Spineless Corporate Pandering Is Why Democrats Keep Losing

Jamie Henn

When we were fighting the Keystone XL pipeline back during the Obama Administration, I learned to watch out for Friday afternoons. That was the Administration’s favorite time to put out a news dump, whether it was a faulty environmental impact statement or some sort of waffling delay of the project. We knew the Obama team was conflicted about the pipeline and increasingly realized that it undid all of their rhetorical commitment to climate action.


#4

There’s still no report of who actually attended the meeting and who the two votes for sanity were. We know that the great progressive Christine Pelosi was there, as was her mom (no nepotism there), as was Tom Perez.

Beyond them, not much. Deputy DNC Chair Keith Ellison? Bernie? Other “progressives”? (Remember only two voted against the flip-flop).

Stay tuned to your Tweets folks for yet another episode presented by the Dim troupe of the Kapitalist Kabuki Kongress Theatre on “As the World Burns” (literally).


#5

The D-party just cannot take a stand and stick with it. To do so would pigeonhole them to the extent that they couldn’t pander to each constituency as need be. as they try to please everyone, they end up pleasing fewer and fewer voters.

And this article is pretty much a joke. It amounts to one more meaningless ‘strongly worded letter’ that translates into: You Dems are up to your typical corporate ass-kissing but we’re voting for you anyway.

Once again, I say to the D-Party dead enders: thank your lucky stars for Trump–he’s making your party relevant.


#6

Let’s see what the author is saying, here. Don’t give up on the party. Trust the party to do the right thing. (What, retake 1000 or more, here?) And after a stunt like this, to boot. Gee, why am I not feeling all that willing to trust?


#7

I say let them corporation democrats do the thing that will make us notice. Just like this move they just made. What a crock of horseshit this is. And the DNC really thinks this is their best path. I agree it is their best path to nowhere. They have giving us the fuel we need to get out and rally the people to vote them all out of office. People how much more do you need to see before you just get sick and tired of this crap?. I mean for real AMERICA. They are showing and telling us to go get F’ked. HELLO! anybody out there?.


#8

My understanding is that this was a vote of the DNC Executive Committee. Bernie is not a member of that. In total there are 64 members of which 32 were in attendance (presumably - unless there were abstentions). The closest I can find to a list of the executive committee is at www.p2016.org/parties/dnc17.html

Note that the 28-4 vote was the more important one since the idea of everyday workers contributing is much different than the accepting money from the industry PACs. I would also like to know who those 4 are and who the 28 are.


#9

How do you convince an entire cabal to relinquish the bent-over prone position when the opiated pose fills them with such mind numbing poison? Pelosi can’t even do any more face lifts and coupled with the foregoing, is a walking emblem of predation’s consequences. Guess folks just want to get their ‘moneys worth’ on the final curtain when she and her shriveled ilk are taken out in hearse.

Plausible deniability that denial of enslavement parasitism on a colossal scale is their feed bag is the corporate “UNITED” being promised. There is no creative, healthy spine and brain left. They are Trump facilitators of the first order.

Reverse Citizens United


#10

Thanks.


#11

What else do you need to see? There’s only one way of interpreting this, there are people in the party that want to do the right thing, the thing WE want them to do, but the corrupt leadership will not allow them to.
The time is right for a palace revolution. Drive the Vichy democrat, Clintonite scum from the party.


#12

This flip flop is puzzling but the big picture seems much more positive as many Democrats who are running for office are not accepting money from PACs funded by corporations or in some cases from PACs at all. So far small contributions from individual donors seem to be flowing in fast enough for these Democrats to have adequate funding. I think this is evidence that Democrats are distancing themselves for corporate money although they are doing it individually, not through the DNC. Meanwhile, all Republicans candidates continue to take PAC money. A bad loss in the election this November may get the Republicans to rethink their view on accepting PAC money. This may be a time of change where corporate influence on the political parties may begin to decline. So many people are fed up with corporate influence on politics that finally the politicians may be listening.


#13

To reverse Citizens United you’d need to have democrats that weren’t happily profiting from it.


#14

The D’s who wont accept corporate graft are the same ones you throw sh!t at every single day carrying water for the New Democrat/Clintonite pigs.
STFU.


#15

This article is about corporate influence and the establishment wing of your party–the wing with all the actual power–continuing to bow before corporate power. That’s the point: Your party doesn’t listen.


#16

Not sure why this still needs to be said: There’s a difference between being spineless and being a backstabber. And unless you’re an owl, they can’t stab you in the back if you keep your eyes on them and know what to expect.


#17

“Note that the 28-4 vote was the more important one since the idea of everyday workers contributing is much different than the accepting money from the industry PACs. I would also like to know who those 4 are and who the 28 are.”

Can you clarify the latter part of your statement, because it is contradictory to what I have read elsewhere. Such as this;

" People for Bernie pointed to the four words of the resolution that caused anger and concern ahead of and following Friday’s vote—language that allows employees of oil and gas companies to donate through corporate political action committees (PACs)."


#18

No, I could not disagree more!


#19

Your quote is exactly what I was talking about. The 28-4 vote was to remove those infamous four words.


#20

Sorry if my question was not clear. What I needed clarification on was your post that implied that PACs were not being utilized, when in fact they are.

These PACs also don’t make a distinction between workers and executives. That presents a problem in that it allows the industry a workaround from the previous restriction. I think we need to be clear on this.


#21

correct - the 28 to 4 vote went the wrong way. I was just pointing out that there were 4 reasonable actors in that room - not 2.


#22

Are you suspicious about this vote being specifically aimed to open up avenues for Koch Bros money to flow into DNC coffers? Because the timing of the Koch/Trump feud and this vote are mighty coincidental.

And if the Kochs are now ready to buy the Dems (who are very much for sale), it further confirms the ‘not a dime’s worth of difference’ meme. I actually thought one of Obama’s better performances as president was on the environment. Then again, drilling on land reached an all-time high as did oil production on his watch, Ken Salazar was a joke, and Obama dragged his feet on Keystone XL.