I've posted previously on Perez's biography with nary a response. Perez supported Clinton and worked for Obama--that's all that matters. He's a sellout, a shill for the 1% (isn't everybody at this point?), and corrupt because, well, something about the DNC, corporations, and the "establishment" (keyword we toss around). That he was a great labor secretary, finalizing new regulations that took years to create and rebuilt the justice department's civil rights division and prosecuted multiple employers for violating worker's rights doesn't matter.
As progressives, our job is to define what "progressive" means at all turns, depending on the hot topic of the moment, and more importantly, ensure all are excluded who lean our direction generally but who don't fit our shifting definition.
Sanders clearly sez who the enemy is here.
Or the Independents, like Bernie.
Sanders does speak to it--Perez does not.
What has he actually done? A label is one thing. Actual acts are another.
People change. Money corrupts. No one is immune.
This story explains how whatever good things he did for labor are overshadowed by his fealty to big financial power. This is of course a strong recurring theme in the Democratic establishment: throw some crumbs to the masses, but support the really meaningful structural impediments to reform.
I don't know if this will help, but "Lackey of the wealthy few" is not my phrase but an attempt to reflect the thinking of a number of people that post on Common Dreams. I, personally, am open to Tom Perez becoming a strong, progressive leader.
Bernie, what the hell are you doing?
The planet's only known anarcho-Democrat jabs!
Honestly, struggling for the Democratic party should bring you shame enough. But defending a neoliberal Secretary of Labor as 'defending labor" is about on par with 'Progressive Reformist' Betsy DeVos.
I'm not sure there's a compass big enough to lead you out of the wilderness you managed to get stuck in.
As a disgusted Berniecrat who has gone over to my local Green Party, I can tell you that Stein is last year's news. The Greens are becoming the true home of PO'd Berniecrats, and will have a platform for true progressives, and will be in far more races than in past off-year elections. My goal, and I think it's the right one, is to send the corporate Dems the way of the Whigs - to the ash heap of history. The Greens will be the party of common people and will NEVER take corporate, or billionaire money. Period. #Demexit to the Green Party 2017!
It seems that the only function of The Intercept (financed and run by an Ayn Randite tech Billionaire Pierre Omidyar) is to engage in a privatized form of COINTELPRO - specifically the planting of rumors and fake news pursuant to preventing any kind of viable left from getting organized. Look at how Greenwald attacked Dilma Roussef and the PT in his home country of Brazil - and now that they have been ejected and replaced by a corrupt pro-business right wing....nothing from him. Has there even ever been an article critical of Trump yet from the Intercept?
This article is typical - it's entirely scraped up circumstantial factoids hobbled together to fabricate a phony assertion. Such an article as this could easily be written about Bernie Sanders - or even Noam Chomsky if they were motivated to do so - and at some point thy will probably be motivated to do so!
I dislike what Sanders is doing. Supporting corporate democrats is counter to everything he advocates short of continued aggressive military spending and action which, while hoping he does oppose, he at best says nothing and at worst continues to support with his votes. On the other hand, he is a clever and intelligent politician who knows that in this system a third party stand on a national level is the kiss of death - figuratively and possibly literally. His stand here is to lay the foundation for a run in 2000 representing the Democrat Party. The best hope for real progressive values lies in seizing control of the party by a strong and determined progressive faction or a successful third party. Either of these will require a massive and consistent show of huge numbers on a regular basis demanding the change we must have; otherwise, it is business as usual and the only choice will be to vote corporate Democratic as they are the "Not Trump" party.
Please define a "neoliberal" - and then show how Perez is one of these "neoliberals"?
He is also a "neoliberal" - a word thrown out that clearly is referring to something originating in the emotional and irrational and superstitious folds of their brains that means something entirely different than simply the word used to describe the current phase of post Fordist/post social democratic capitalism.
Life on "Lord-of-the-Flies Island" continues. And you and me are "Piggy" Watch out for that big rock the kids of the new-alt-left are about to roll onto us!
Wikipedia is your friend...
Now, what are your accomplishments in the area of labor rights, civil rights and consumer rights?
Try actually reading the Intercept, which contains sharp criticism of Trump and his administration. Greenwald certainly acknowledges Roussef's shortcomings. You're really deflecting here.
You mean Temer's shortcomings? Dilma's shortcomings seem to be the only ones Greenwald seems to have talked about.
Also, Greenwald is no leftist. He is a pro-capitalist US-style libertarian.