Clinton Criticizes Sanders for Running the Campaign She Ran in 2008

Share
 

In 2008, then Senator Hillary Clinton ran a campaign for president that looked very much like the Sanders campaign that she criticizes today. She questioned the “Super Delegate” system, took heat for her “weak stance on gun control” and “plan to ensure universal healthcare” (ie: the “mandate”), questioned her opponent’s qualifications to be president, and her rabid supporters… known as P.U.M.A.’s (“Party Unity, My Ass!”)… rejected calls for their candidate to drop out and instead, some in openly racist language, threatened to vote for John McCain before they’d vote for “secret Muslim Barack Hussein Obama (which, arguably, was invented by Hillary supporters, not Trump, who added in “place of birth” to justify the “secret Muslim” label), protesting right up until the Convention. Does any of this sound familiar? Does any of it sound worse? By May of that year, Hillary Clinton was behind in the polls and the calls for her to drop out “for the good of the Party” grew louder, yet she refused, continuing to question the “readiness” and inexperience of her opponent… lines of attack that were tailor-made for Obama’s rival should he win the nomination.

I was reminded last week listening to the radio that “in 2008, as many as 20% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters were vowing to vote for McCain if she were not the Party’s nominee. So I went “a’Googlin'” back to the 2008 race between her and Barack Obama… a race that most remember as being particularly nasty, even extending beyond the point Senator Obama officially locked up the Democratic nomination. (Mugsy’s Rap Sheet: “Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it”, dont’cha know?)

On Feb 5, 2008, twenty-four states and territories all held their Democratic primaries on the same day, including the big prize: California. Obama won 14 of the 24 but lost California (43% to 51%). He then went on to win 10-in-a-row and five of the next 12. By the end of May, calls for Clinton to drop out of the race… which began during her ten state losing streak in February… became even louder as the bruising primary battle between her and Senator Obama grew nastier by the day. People became concerned that the longer she dragged it out, she might end up hurting Barack Obama’s chances of winning in November. But Clinton was not about to concede.

Her refusal to drop out early raised a lot of eyebrows when on May 23, 2008, she cited the fact that “In 1968, Robert Kennedy was still running in June” when an assassin’s bullet took his life after winning the California Primary. Was Clinton suggesting she was staying in the race “just in case” the first ever likely black nominee for president were assassinated before November? It sure sounded like that to a lot of people and Clinton was forced to apologize. In all fairness, the upcoming 40th anniversary of RFK’s assassination was in the news a lot that week, and footage of RFK still competing for the nomination as late as June were being seen daily, so I never believed Clinton was suggesting she was staying on in anticipation that something terrible might happen to her opponent. But it WAS an early example of a tendency all Conservatives… including Hillary… share, and that is to speak/act without thinking about the consequences when it comes to pursuing their own self-interests (see: Iraq.) I refer you back to her questioning the “readiness” and inexperience of Obama without regard for how her own words might be used against him in the General should the “impossible” happen and she loses the nomination.

Some video from the 2008 campaign:
 

In 2008, Clinton was accused of being too deferential to the rights of gun owners and not the rights of victims of gun crime:


 

Clinton bemoaned the (ab)use of the “Super Delegate” system to portray Barack Obama as having a lead over her that he didn’t really have:


 

On June 3, 2008, Barack Obama officially locks up the Democratic nomination, yet Clinton refuses to concede:


 

Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe publicly refuses to concede the nomination to Barack Obama after surpassing the Delegate threshold:


 
 

That whole “secret Muslim” thing didn’t originate with Donald Trump, it originated when the Clinton campaign mailed out this photo of Senator Obama dressed in ceremonial garb during a visit to Kenya (For what possible reason was this photo sent?):
 
 

Obama in Kenyan garb

 

Leading us to lovely people like this…

Co-Founder of Clinton’s PUMA’s makes racist claim to defend never voting for Obama

 

Clinton finally conceded the race to Obama four days later after meeting with him, endorsing him and encouraging her supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee, yet 17% of her supporters vowed to vote for the Republican nominee, questioning the readiness… and even the eligibility… of Obama to be president of the United States. Anything Sanders has said about HIS opponent (Hillary) pales in comparison to anything Hillary said & did to her opponent (Obama) in 2008.
 

Hillary Clinton has been attacking Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail, lobbing criticisms against him that were lobbed against HER in 2008. Repeated (false) attacks questioning the “qualifications” of her opponent (without regard for how those accusations could be used against the Democratic nominee if somehow she were to lose), with surrogates questioning for months if she were staying in the race beyond a point when most pundits were saying she “just can’t win” and therefor should “drop out for the good of the party”, and questioning the very same “Super Delegate” system she now defends. One of the very reasons I support Sanders over Clinton is his “consistency” of being right on the issues. The most consistent thing about Clinton (and Trump) is her “inconsistency“.

I’ve been pointing out this past week that prior to the New York Primary, Sanders had won seven of the previous eight contests, and that his “loss” in New York looked like this:
 

2016 NY Primary results

 

To me, that looks like a “pocket win” for Bernie.
 

Five states will be holding their primaries tomorrow/Tuesday (with Pennsylvania being the big prize). The Media is already putting their thumb on the scale predicting a Clinton sweep that would make a Sanders comeback all but impossible (So why even bother showing up, right?)

But keep in mind the above clips. The hypocrisy is stunning. The only thing Hillary Clinton has been consistent on is her willingness to throw her fellow Democrats under the bus if they come between her and the presidency. Her “Scorched Earth” style of politics might be an asset in the General against a Republican opponent, but eventually the campaign is over and you have to work with those you worked so hard to destroy.
 
 

And, as an added bonus from yesterday:


 

I believe this is exactly what Bernie warned us about. Clinton is the Conservative’s favorite Democrat.

 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

April 25, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · One Comment - Add
Posted in: Election, myth busting, Politics, rewriting history

STUNNING: If Super Delegates Were Apportioned, Clinton would only lead by 20 (UPDATE #2)

Share
 

(Update 4/10/16)

On Monday, I reported how “Meet the Press” created an entirely new number of Super Delegates in order to falsely/incorrectly claim that even by “Bernie’s own means of apportioning Super Delegates,” he’d still be way behind Hillary Clinton in the SD count. I have NO idea what they think Senator Sanders is requesting, but creating an entirely new Super Delegate system from scratch ain’t it. That made absolutely no sense, so I plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet, and what I found was STUNNING!

I don’t know if #MtP just didn’t understand Senator Sanders’ request, or if they are just really bad at math, but somehow they created an additional 106 Super Delegates out of thin air (“106” is the total number of “unbound” delegates), awarding an additional 4 SD’s to Clinton and 99 SD’s to Sanders… not enough to close the over 400 SD lead Clinton already enjoys over Sanders.

As a refresher, “Super Delegates” are current & former elected Democratic officials and members of the DNC. “Elected officials” includes members of Congress, governors and former Presidents/VP’s. But members of the DNC can be anyone with power & influence (corporate leaders.) So it is no surprise they would be predisposed to favor Clinton. They were an invention following the chaotic DNC Convention of 1968. You’ll note that the GOP does not (yet) use “Super Delegates”. So there is no justifiable argument to allow these representatives of the voters in their state to vote differently than the voters of their state.

To be clear, what Senator Sanders is requesting is for the Super Delegate votes in each state to be distributed PROPORTIONALLY according to each candidate’s win percentage. So if the state votes 50/50 for Bernie vs Hillary, the SD’s should be split 50/50 as well. That seems fair, right? I have no idea what method #MtP used or thought Senator Sanders was proposing.

Presently, “Super Delegates” can vote any way they like regardless of how the voters of their state voted. I examined the vote totals (source) and how the Super Delegates were distributed, and what I found made me sick:

States Bernie won…

  1. New Hampshire, Hillary takes all 6 (of 8) super delegates. (Sanders won 61% of vote)
  2. Colorado, Hillary takes all 8 of the 12 super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 59% of vote)
  3. Minnesota, Hillary takes 13 of 15 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 61.6% of vote)
  4. Oklahoma, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 51.9% of vote)
  5. Vermont, Hillary takes 3 of 9 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 86.1% of vote)
  6. Kansas, Hillary takes the only (1 of 4) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 67.7% of vote)
  7. Nebraska, Hillary takes all 3 (of 5) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 57.1% of vote)
  8. Maine, Hillary takes 3 of 4 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 64.3% of vote)
  9. Dems Abroad, Hillary takes 2 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 68.9% of vote)
  10. Michigan, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 49.8% of vote, Clinton 48.3%)
  11. Idaho, Hillary takes 1 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 78% of vote)
  12. Utah, Hillary takes 2 of 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 79.3% of vote)
  13. Alaska, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 81.6% of vote)
  14. Hawaii, Hillary takes 6 of 8 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 69.8% of vote)
  15. Washington, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 72.7% of vote)
  16. Wisconsin, Hillary takes 6 of the 7 (with 3 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 56% of vote)
  17. Wyoming, Hillary takes all 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 55.7% of vote)

By no standard I can imagine does ANY of that seem fair. How does the LOSER of a race come away with most… or in many cases ALL Super Delegates belonging to a particular state?

Number of states Bernie WON where he didn’t receive a single Super Delegate: SEVEN

States… win or lose… where Sanders was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NINETEEN

  1. Iowa
  2. New Hampshire
  3. South Carolina
  4. Alabama
  5. Arkansas
  6. Colorado
  7. Georgia
  8. Tennessee
  9. Texas
  10. Virginia
  11. Louisiana
  12. Kansas
  13. Nebraska
  14. Michigan
  15. Northern Marianas Is.
  16. Illinois
  17. Missouri
  18. Washington
  19. Wyoming

States… win or lose… where Clinton was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NONE

If Super Delegates were apportioned by same percentage each candidate won:

   Hillary: 205
   Sanders: 185
——————————-
Difference: 20
(Note: “Pledged” delegates ALSO are not distributed proportionately by state. Difference in “PLEDGED” delegates if distributed proportionately: 237 [vs 290].)

Clinton’s Super Delegate lead would be cut to just TWENTY if they were awarded proportionally/fairly as Sanders suggests they should be. That’s a HUGE reduction from the FOUR-HUNDRED & THIRTY-NINE SD lead she currently enjoys as of this writing.

Notice, I did NOT award the winner of each state every Super Delegate as some might try to claim Sanders is asking, as if he’s trying to “game The System” to reap some sort of unfair advantage. No, I split the SD’s “proportionally” based on the percentage by which each candidate won. If anyone is benefiting from an unfair system here, it’s Clinton.

Now, reapportioning the Super Delegates alone doesn’t give Bernie the lead. We await the apportioning of the “Pledged” delegates for Wisconsin, but he currently trails by only slightly more than 200 delegates (with just under Two-Thousand delegates remaining). Subtracting those hundreds of undemocratically “gifted” Super Delegates awarded to Clinton definitely reveals her lead is FAR less insurmountable and her victory far less inevitable (not to mention: more reflective of the electorate.)

Senator Sanders has now won 17 states as compared to Clinton’s 20. He has won 7 of the last 8 contests. If Super Delegates are distributed according to win ratios, Sanders only needs to win the remaining states by an average of 57.03% in order to win the Democratic nomination. That’s about as close to a TIE as you’re gonna get.

Super Delegates are a “thumb on the scale” that allowed Clinton claim a 400+ “Delegate” lead before even a single vote was cast. The intent is obvious: to suppress support/turnout for her opponents by discouragement. They should not be allowed to announce whom they are supporting early. Direct anyone who says Bernie is “too far behind to win” to read this post.

Postscript: The GOP establishment behind the “Stop Trump” effort is assisting a dangerous “End Times” evangelical psychopath (Ted Cruz) win the GOP nomination simply because he is the only candidate with enough delegates to beat Donald Trump. It’s a dangerous game they are playing.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

April 6, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · One Comment - Add
Posted in: Election, myth busting, Politics, Scandals, Seems Obvious to Me, voting

Meet the Press’ Bad Delegate Math. Misstates delegate math suggesting Sanders can’t win

Share
 

 
(FOLLOW-UP ANALYSIS HERE.)

On Sunday’s “Meet the Press”, Chuck Todd cited Bernie’s call for Super Delegates to pledge to vote according to the wishes of the voters of their state so that they accurately represent them, suggesting that even under his method, Sanders still would not win. But when they posted their “adjusted” delegate figures for Clinton & Sanders, I happened to notice BOTH candidates came out with MORE delegates. If you shift delegates from one candidate to the other, someone would have to lose votes:
 

MtP’s reassigned delegate numbers. BOTH candidates gain???
MtP's bad math

 

And they were NOT counting pledged Delegates in states that had yet to vote. Todd specifically said this was only “states that had already voted. The graphic clearly reads “States that have voted”.

278 Super Delegates currently pledged, 384 AFTER reassignment. I tried to figure out where they picked up an additional 106 delegates (the number of “unpledged” delegates. He’s counting them TWICE), but I haven’t a clue. If it was a mistake, I await their correction. If not, I await explanation. It’s seems like a pretty obvious and amateurish mistake to make. If Sanders gains 99 delegates, Clinton should LOSE 99 delegates, not pickup seven. If their shift for Bernie can be believed, Clinton would only have 154 Super Delegates to Bernie’s 124, a difference of only 30 delegates (not 136). To broadcast such a clearly wrong claim during the most watched political talk show on national TV on the eve of a crucial election in Wisconsin was (without question) an attempt to suggest Senator Sanders is too far behind to win. It is hard to believe this was “an innocent mistake.”

(Sorry folks, short update this week. Computer trouble. I’m having to post this remotely. – Mugsy)
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

April 4, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, General, mystery, myth busting, rewriting history

Ted Cruz Promises Massive War if Elected. Vows to “get” ISIS using “overwhelming force”.

Share
 

I agree with Andy Borowitz. “I’m concerned that our obsession with Trump is distracting us from how terrifying Ted Cruz is.” (link) As reported two weeks ago, Cruz is an Apocalyptic “End Times” evangelical nutcase. So when he started pledging a massive invasion of the Middle East using “overwhelming force” to “get ISIS”, I noticed. I’m not sure how many others did as well. Cruz was invited onto Fox “news” Sunday yesterday to rant about Trump criticizing his wife’s looks (and possible connection to claims of his infidelity by The National Enquirer), to fear-monger over the latest ISIS attack in Brussels, and then criticize the Obama Administration for failing to protect Europe from terrorism. Cruz then vowed… with all the simplicity of Sarah Palin… to “utterly defeat” ISIS once and for all by carpet-bombing an unspecified region of the Middle-East, “get” ISIS, and come home. I have no doubt that to Ted, it really is just that simple.
 

Cruz: If elected, I promise a massive war (:55)

 
This was following a long fear-filled rant about how “the terrorists are coming to get us!” But don’t worry! Elect me and I’ll go in and “carpet bomb” the entire region, wiping “them” out so you can go back to living in your happy little bubble where the outside world can’t hurt you! Hey, you’ve got a gun, right? So what are you so afraid of?

It was pointed out to Cruz during one of the GOP debates that “carpet bombing” is a war crime (when he said he would “carpet bomb” the city of Raqqa… population: 300,000… to “get” several thousand ISIS fighters (by no means ALL of them) hiding within. He explained that by indiscriminate “carpet” bombing, he actually meant “targeted” bombing… the exact opposite of “carpet bombing”. But now, here he is again, responding to criticism of his calling for “carpet bombing” by vowing to “carpet bomb” till we “get” ISIS. WHERE exactly does he plan to “carpet bomb”? He never actually says in that clip. (Remember this is the same many who “joked” about “finding out if sand glows in the dark” last year.)

But no matter. “Carpet bombing” wasn’t the only war crime Cruz promised to commit if elected. No more of this “refusing to torture prisoners” nonsense either. If elected, he vowed (like Trump), to end all this “political correctness” regarding our refusal to torture prisoners to collect insanely unreliable and dubious intel from prisoners using a process that takes twice as long as established & more reliable means. (Speaking of “political correctness”, Cruz also whined… yet again… over “President Obama’s refusal to use the words ‘Radical Islamic terrorism.” This is a popular complaint on the Right. Apparently, ISIS is like Beetlejuice. It doesn’t work unless you say their name.)

Part of his plan to “go in” involves “arming the Kurds”… something our close ally Turkey… the largest Muslim Democracy on the planet… would just adore us for. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish incursions into South East Turkey for decades (longer?) But who cares about Turkey? They’re just another Muslim nation that needs to fear us, right? It’s not like they’re helping us over there.

Cruz said he wants to “go in with overwhelming force”. “Go in?” Where? He seems to think all 30,000 ISIS fighters commute back home (to Raqqa?) each night. They probably share a split level condo, watch “Syria’s Got Talent” on Al Jazzera, and in the morning, pack a PB&J for lunch before heading out for a day of “terrorizing”.
 

ISIS lies mostly in Syria
ISIS mostly in Syria

 
ISIS resides mostly in Syria… which is not just a sovereign nation, but a close ally of Russia, protected by Russia, of whom would not hesitate to rush to their defense if the U.S. invaded in the name of “getting” ISIS. So (just as with Hillary Clinton and her “No Fly Zone”), you now have the U.S. at war with Russia. Iraq is also a sovereign nation (like it or not Ted), and they DON’T want U.S. troops back in their country. Could Ted get permission to send in a massive military force to get ISIS strongholds in Iraq? Possibly. But he ISN’T going to get permission to send hundreds of thousands of American troops into Syria. And… pardon the analogy… that’s like trying to kill your dogs fleas by washing only his hind legs.

So we send in hundreds of thousands of American troops. Where do they all come from? Hey, it’s not HIS kids he’ll be sending in as part of that “overwhelming force”. What’s a few thousand dead soldiers if it means saving the lives of… uh… how many Americans have died on U.S. soil at the hands of ISIS fighters who traveled here from the Middle East? Oh yeah. ZERO (no, the San Bernadino couple does not count. They were ISIS sympathizers, loners already in the U.S..) But according to Ted Cruz… an apocalyptic “End Times” religious radical, all we have to do is send in hundreds of thousands of YOUR kids into a war zone to get a bunch of apocalyptic “End Times” religious radicals. I’m sure they’ll all return safe & sound. And after we “get them”, that’ll be it. We can just come home. That was George Bush’s plan for Iraq, wasn’t it? There’s ZERO chance their angry followers, family members and orphaned children will follow in the footsteps of their beloved martyrs. They’ll be too terrified of President Cruz (cough) to risk us coming back to do it again. At least, that’s how it plays out in “Cruz Land”… the most delusional place on earth.

Everyone talks about how disastrous a Trump presidency would be (mostly for the GOP.) The fact that Ted Cruz is a terrified, paranoid, anti-Islamic, apocalyptic, Evangelical “End Times” xenophobe that talks of war like it’s something we can do in an afternoon and be home in time for supper concerns me FAR more than Trump’s clownish antics, racism and foppish misbehavior. No question both would be disastrous presidents, but I fear Ted Cruz for what he openly says he WANTS to do, not the catastrophic blundering Trump might stumble us into because thinks he has all the answers.. just so long as you don’t bother him with details.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

March 28, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · One Comment - Add
Posted in: Election, Middle East, Religion, Right-wing Facism, Right-Wing Insanity, Terrorism, War

Claims Hillary Has Better Chance of Winning Not Only False, but now moot amid GOP chaos

Share
 

For months now, many Clinton supporters have been citing Hillary’s chances of defeating Trump in the General election in November as their reason for voting for her. They just don’t believe that an admitted “Democratic Socialist” can win the election. As far as I’m aware, there has never been an official poll taken of Clinton supporters asking them why they support her over Sanders, but in searching the Internet, the Top 3 reasons always seem to be: “She has the best chance of winning“, “First woman president“, and “most experienced“. Well, all the polls (below) show Reason #1 is flat out wrong. Reason #2 applied just as well to Carly Fiorina, so that’s not really a very good (nor honest) reason, and Reason #3 is a matter for debate (that I’ve already covered in past posts.) But it’s that first reason, “a better chance of winning”… not only is it not true, but as recent chaos within the GOP has made painfully obvious, if THAT is your primary reason for picking Clinton over Sanders, that is no longer a concern. If Trump goes into the RNC Convention with a clear majority of votes yet is somehow denied the nomination, he is very likely to split off and run as an Independent. That much we knew. BUT, the GOP “Establishment” is so distraught by the idea of Donald Trump being their standard bearer that there are now threats by Republicans to leave the GOP to form a third party and pick their own candidate to run against Trump, splitting the Conservative vote. The GOP is in chaos and there are now two very likely scenarios in which the GOP vote is split in half, making “best chance of winning” the weakest reason of all for choosing Hillary over Bernie.

First, those polls I mentioned. Clinton & Sanders vs Trump:
 

Sanders beats Trump by more than Clinton:
Clinton and Sanders vs Trump
(Clinton doesn’t even break 50%.)
 


If Cruz is the nominee, Hillary looses, while Sanders crushes him:
Clinton and Sanders vs Cruz
 

Why is this the case? There are a few reasons: One, Republicans DESPISE Hillary Clinton. If she is the Democratic nominee, Republican voters will turn out en masse to defeat her. Two, despite what you may think about Bernie’s record on gun control, it makes him much more electable in the General than Clinton.

For Donald Trump to win the nomination outright, he needs to win just over 53% of the remaining (1049) GOP delegates. For Ted Cruz to win the nomination outright, he would need 77.5% of the remaining GOP delegates to win (based on 1,049 delegates remaining out of number needed for each candidate to reach the 50% threshold.) Rubio has dropped out, while Kasich’s only hope is to be awarded the nomination like a prize via “brokered convention”, which almost guarantees a third party run.

If Trump is the nominee, the GOP “Establishment” will never support him. Clinton could still defeat Trump (as the above polls show), but it’s by no means the sure thing many Clinton supporters seem to believe it to be. Ted Cruz is so despised by everyone that has ever worked with him that not even his fellow Senator from Texas has endorsed him for president. That’s pretty bad. Cruz is an apocalyptic “End Times” teabagging nut, and the majority of voters know it. If Cruz steals the nomination from Trump and “The Donald” doesn’t go “3rd Party”, a good many Trump supporters will support Sanders. “Free Trade”. It’s one of the few issues where Sanders & Trump overlap. And those who liked Trump’s portrayal of a “self-funded, can’t be bought, beholden to no one” campaign will likewise be drawn to Sanders. Rubio supporters will also never vote for Cruz or Trump. But Marco lambasted Clinton, so his supporters won’t be defecting to her either, but they could go for Sanders.

As mentioned in the opening, not only could Trump go “3rd Party” if denied the nomination, if Trump IS the GOP nominee, a number of establishment Republicans are discussing whether THEY may form a 3rd Party believing that the GOP no longer represents THEM. And who do they have in mind to run against Trump and the Democratic nominee? One floated name, former Senator Tom Coburn, who retired from the Senate to be treated for Cancer (and has emphatically said he doesn’t want the job), and everybody’s favorite tree-stump Rick “Oops” Perry, a man who was doing great in 2012 until he opened his mouth. Perry then donned glasses trying to make himself look smart (which should tell you just how bright he really is) and returned in 2015 to try again, but this time he was fooling no one and dropped out of the race when he failed to break 2%.

So even if you (falsely) believed Sanders was “unelectable”, that is no longer a valid concern as the GOP is likely to split their own vote come November. You should actually be more concerned if the GOP doesn’t split and they rally behind Ted Cruz (see above poll) or even John Kasich (see Sanders vs Kasich here.)
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

March 21, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, myth busting, Predictions, Seems Obvious to Me

Trump’s Antics Only Helping Ted Cruz Look Reasonable By Comparison

Share
 

I didn’t think it could be done, but somehow, Donald Trump has managed to make Ted Cruz seem like a sane & rational alternative. While Trump is a bigot and an egomaniac, Cruz is downright delusional (if not outright dangerous). Ted Cruz is Conservative ideology on steroids. He truly believes all that Right Wing fiction the GOP has been feeding Republican voters for the last 35 years:trickle-down economics”, “Iran was so terrified of Reagan they released the hostages the day he took office”, we CAN “round up & deport 10 Million undocumented Mexican immigrants” and “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme”. But beyond ordinary GOP stupidity like that, Cruz is a “strict Evangelical fundamentalist” religious nut raised by a manifestly insane Messianic crank of the most bone-chilling degree: Rafael Cruz believes his son is ordained by God Almighty himself to bring about “The End Times”. And thanks to Trump’s Orwellian hour-long “2-minutes of hate” campaign events, every “establishment” Republican is looking to… of all people… Ted Cruz to “rescue” the GOP from a Trump nomination.

Trump has repeatedly pointed out that Cruz is SO disliked within his own Party, that not a single fellow Senator that has worked with him has endorsed him, but as of last week, that is no longer true as fellow Teabagging idiot Mike Lee of Utah (a state most people don’t realize is Redder than Texas & Oklahoma combined) endorsed him. If you are not familiar with Lee, he is Cruz’s ideological twin. In 2013, Time Magazine labeled him “The Man Responsible for the Shutdown”. Every bit as nuts as Cruz, in 2011, Lee called child labor laws unconstitutional, and is currently holding up aid to Flint, MI because (quote) “They have all the government resources they need”. This is the one & only Senator yet to endorse Ted Cruz for president (and even HE took his time doing it.)

Legally, Cruz isn’t even eligible to be president. Legal “scholars” debate on whether being born in Canada to an American mother granted him “dual citizenship” that renders him “natural born”, but they all overlook one very important fact: NOT A SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER WAS BORN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Whether or not Cruz is a “Natural Born” citizen is irrelevant. You had to be born on (what is now recognized as) U.S. soil. That includes American embassies & military based in foreign countries. It also provides exception to Americans “visiting” foreign countries at the time of their birth. It does NOT however include people who had taken up residence in foreign countries like Cruz’s parents had. Many people throughout history have been born to one or more American parents living in another country (Winston Churchill and Prince Hashim of Jordan were both born to American mothers on foreign soil. Were/Are they also qualified to run for president of the United States?) In a normal election season, Cruz would have been barred from even running in the first place, but thanks to Trump, “Read the Constitution!” Republicans are likely to rewrite the rules of elective office without so much as a challenge all because they are desperate to see anyone else but Trump win their Party’s nomination.

But back to what makes Ted Cruz such a dangerous figure.

Cruz is a Climate Change denier, calling it religious dogma, “not science”, and telling NBC’s Seth Meyers “Global Warming is a hoax.” Evangelicals like Cruz refuse to believe Climate Change is real because it contradicts an obscure Bible passage about the world always being here for our exploitation (but nothing about how long WE will exist to exploit it.)

People seem to have forgotten that only recently, Cruz was calling for the “carpet bombing” of an entire Syrian city (Raqqa) to “get” ISIS (a war crime), but clearly didn’t understand the difference between “carpet bombing” and “targeted bombing”, contradicting himself when asked about his call for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (including children) just to “get” a few hundred ISIS fighters hiding in a city of some 200,000 people. Just what you want in a “Commander-in-Chief”, someone that doesn’t understand the consequences of what they are ordering the worlds most powerful military to do with all that firepower.

It quickly became apparent upon his taking office that Cruz not only shares the face, but the paranoia of Joseph McCarthy. As a Senate candidate in 2012, Cruz declared that “Sharia law is an enormous problem”, and upon taking office in 2013, Cruz told reporters that “There were fewer declared Republicans in the [Harvard Law] faculty when we were there than Communists!

Keep in mind the man who raised him: the Cuban-born “Pastor” Rafael Cruz. A man who believes “Public education is a Communist Plot”, that “evolution is a Communist lie”, “Marxist Obama” should go “back to Kenya” (noticing a trend yet?), believes Sarah Palin was “maligned” for revealing the existence of “ObamaCare’s Death Panels”, has been invited to give speeches at various Fundamentalist churches across the nation to assure his fellow End Timers that his “anointed” son will be there to “fulfill God’s prophecies” and “return the spoils of war” back home to the wealthy, and just last week called the legalization of gay marriage “the work of Satan”. The Cruz campaign has stated that the elder Cruz “does not speak for his son’s campaign”, but have yet to disavow or refute anything his father has said (You know what they say about the nut not falling far from the tree.)
 

Ted Cruz’s Iowa victory speech, flanked by Steve King and Dad
Cruz flanked by King & Dad

 

I posted the above photo before. Cruz was flanked by close friend the despicable Rep. Steve King (who proposed building an electrified fence across our Southern border, and Cruz’s wacko-bird father (who held this exact pose for several minutes, staring straight ahead without blinking.)

Ted’s wife is similarly odd. Pastor Cruz told the Christian Fundamentalist program “Dove TV” that his son’s decision whether or not to run for president came after a “two hour prayer session” on their knees, when Ted’s wife Heidi said God told her to tell her husband to “seek God’s face, not his hand” by running for president, suggesting (AFAICT) her husband has (or would reveal) “the face of God” if elected. For a group of people who take the Bible literally, they sure love to talk in metaphor to describe their connection to it, so I can’t say “exactly” what Mrs. Cruz meant by that remark, though there is no question the two are implying “divine intervention” pending a Cruz presidency (one can’t help but wonder why The Almighty, who supposedly wants Cruz to win so badly, didn’t help him win more states or… at the very least… ensure he was born on U.S. soil to avoid any challenge to his eligibility. But hey, I’m not the one claiming to know the mind of God.

Senator Cruz now supports the ridiculous “Personhood” Amendment granting Constitutional rights to fertilized eggs, making many forms of birth control illegal and every miscarriage subject to a criminal murder investigation. Cruz recently stated: “I believe we should protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of death”, yet at the time insisted he didn’t support “Personhood”. That didn’t sit will with Evangelicals (his core demographic) who refused to support him until he relented. Cruz repeats at every stump speech that he won’t rest until we have “repealed every last word of ObamaCare” and replace it with the GOP alternative: “tax-free health savings accounts”. I’m not entirely sure how repealing The Affordable Care Act and bringing back denials over preexisting conditions “protects every human life from conception to death”, but I’m sure it is nothing short of “miraculous”.

People forget that very early on, when the GOP race still had some sixteen candidates, Cruz was very low in the polls (4%). But when his fellow Republicans started attacking Trump for his racists comments about “Mexicans”, Cruz refused to criticize Trump, resulting in a big bounce in his poll numbers. Pundits noted the ensuing “bromance” between Cruz & Trump, with the two of them repeatedly complimenting each other. Cruz even tweeted last December: “@realDonaldTrump is terrific. #DealWithIt”

While Trump’s own obvious bigotry & nastiness is out for the world to see, what we DON’T see are the number of Christo-Fascist racists coalescing around the Cruz Campaign as highlighted in this clip from The Rachel Maddow Show last February (jump ahead to 8:20 to skip the “Fundamentalist” setup):
 


 

The Cruz campaign did not reject the endorsements of the “kill the gays” pastor (though they did later admit, albeit quietly, that “attending the conference” was “a mistake”), the “God sent Hitler to hunt the Jews” pastor, or the insane rantings of anti-Semitic racist misogynist Ted Nugent. No, in fact they’ve proudly trumpeted those endorsements on their website [ibid video], knowing full well the kinds of Conservative voters they’d appeal to, hoping to take advantage of motivated Fundamentalist Christian activists that vote en masse for like-minded candidates. (Previously, it was enough to get a high enough percentage of them to the polls to win elections despite their low numbers (see: Bush 2000), but as their extremism drove larger numbers to the polls to counter their influence, we started to see the rise of “voter suppression” tactics like “Voter ID” to limit the opposition.)

Glenn Beck (who suggested Scalia’s death was God’s way of motivating Cruz supporters to the polls) says he fears for the future of our Democracy if Cruz is NOT elected president (the opposite of what every sane individual on Earth believes), and though Rush Limbaugh has yet to “officially” endorse a candidate, he has saved his highest praise for Ted Cruz.

Ye shall know him by his friends (and the man who bore him.)
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

March 14, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, Politics, Racism, Religion, Right-wing Facism, Right-Wing Insanity

Are Republicans Responsible For Hillary’s Huge Wins in Deep Red Primary States? UPDATED

Share

 
(ADDENDUM 3/9/16: As predicted, Sanders wins another Blue State… Michigan… whereas Clinton wins yet another deep red state with an Open Primary: Mississippi.)
 

Not to sound conspiratorial, but why is Bernie winning Caucus states by double digits but Hillary is winning Deep Red (eVoting) Primary states by enormous 30/40/50 point margins? Anyone who has followed my column lo these past eleven years knows I despise “conspiracy theories”, so I apologize in advance if it seems like I’m suggesting one now. But when a pattern starts to emerge, only a fool would ignore it. There have been exactly 22 Democratic races so far, sixteen (16) Primaries and six (6) caucuses. Bernie has won NINE ten (10) races (including “Americans Overseas”). Hillary has won thirteen (including American Samoa). Five (5) of Sanders’ ten wins were caucuses, won by double digits, nearly tied in Iowa (diff: 0.3%), and lost Nevada by only 5.2%. Clinton’s greatest caucus victory? American Samoa by 46%. As I’m sure you already know, voters must actually stick around for a headcount on Election Day to be counted in a caucus.

Meanwhile, of the fourteen sixteen “Primary” states, Hillary has won nine (9) eleven (11) of them. Of those eleven, nine were in the deep red South (the lone exception being Massachusetts where she won by 1.8%), winning by huge margins often of 30-points or more. EIGHT of the nine were OPEN primary states (exception: Louisiana), meaning anyone of either Party can crossover to vote in either Party’s primary.

During the 2008 election, radio host Rush Limbaugh called on his listeners to cross over and “vote for Hillary” in order to deny Obama an early victory, stringing out the Primary season for as long as possible while the two candidates beat each other up prior to the November election. The name he gave it was “Operation Chaos”. And despite trailing well behind Obama in delegates, and despite the very real likelihood that Clinton was only being kept afloat by Republicans seeking to sabotage the Democratic primaries, as late as May, of that year, Clinton was still refusing to drop out of the race:
 

On May 23rd [2008], at an editorial-board meeting in South Dakota, Clinton was asked, again, whether she should drop out of the race for the good of the Party. Clinton, saying she would not, employed a historical reference meant to remind her listeners that the nomination process had extended into June in previous primary campaigns. “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” – The New Yorker

(You might remember there was a brief flurry of concern with Clinton bringing up the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in her justification for staying in the race, almost seeming to suggest the possibility that then-Senator Obama might be killed before the race was over. Hillary had to quickly apologize just a few hours later assuring reporters & concerned Obama supporters that that is not what she meant.)
 

In any case, I can’t help but be bothered by the margins by which Clinton is winning in Southern Primary states where people vote on electronic “black box” voting machines, yet losing in Caucus states (where there must be a physical head count) by double-digits. Hillary has won only two caucuses, both very early on: Iowa (by 1.8%) & Nevada (by 5.2%) for an average margin of victory of just 3.5%. Compare that to her average margin of victory in Southern Primary states by a whopping 41% (I excluded her 1.4% win in MA to avoid skewing the result.) (ADDENDUM: Clinton wins Mississippi… another Open Primary red state… by a whopping 66%, yet loses Michigan… a state she was “predicted” to win by 17 points… by 1.7%… a nearly 20 point swing. Clearly, someone was trying to discourage Sanders voters.)

Now, of course, logic dictates that the most likely reasonable explanation would be that younger Bernie supporters are more willing to stand around for hours attending a caucus and waiting to be counted than the “65 & older” demographic that Clinton leads in. But Clinton’s lead among seniors is well below Bernie’s lead with the “under 45” demographic. And consider that just as many younger voters will show up to vote in an ordinary primary as attend a caucus (five of Sanders’ ten wins have been Primaries), so “older” voters alone can’t account for huge 30/40/50 (and now 66) point margins of victory. There MUST be something else going on. And I argue that that “something else” is “Conservative Crossover”. As I pointed out above, seven eight of Clinton’s nine ten (non-caucus) wins were “open primaries” in the Deep South (the lone exception being Louisiana. Massachusetts, her only non-Southern primary win, was “Closed”.) The remaining twenty-nine (29) states are disproportionately Blue or Purple… a map that favors Sanders.

I suppose it is possible all those deep red Southern states Clinton is winning will all vote Blue come November. If you believe that, you probably also believe Goldman-Sachs just wanted financial advice from the former Secretary of State.

And as I’ve repeatedly stated on Facebook (or at least I did. I have had TWO Facebook accounts deleted in the past week… without warning… suddenly demanding I produce ID, which despite doing so, have yet to be reinstated), Hillary is “a scandal bomb waiting to go off”. Just last Thursday, the DoJ granted immunity to the man who set up Clinton’s email server. You don’t give someone “immunity” from prosecution unless you believe there is an even greater concern of criminal wrong-doing by someone else. Likewise Hillary has still as of yet refused to release the transcripts of her $675,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs (view the Clinton “transcript clock” here, counting the days since Clinton promised to “look into” releasing those transcripts over one month ago). During last night’s debate in Flint, MI, Clinton said she would release her transcripts “when everyone else does.” Sanders waved his empty arms. “There! I’ve just released all my transcripts!”

To date, Clinton’s wins have been almost exclusively in deep red Southern states that are almost certain not to vote for her in November. Meanwhile, Sanders is winning by double digits in states that are far more likely to vote Blue in November if he is the nominee. Yesterday on Fox “news” Sunday, GOP-tool George Will predicted that if Hillary gets the nomination, Trump will concentrate heavily on courting disaffected Sanders voters on issues of “Free Trade” and “sending a message” to the “Powers that be” (read: Debbie Wasserman Schultz). Now, you may think Bernie voters will never vote for someone like Trump… the antithesis of everything Bernie supports, but all Trump needs is to pick off JUST THREE PERCENT of Bernie voters and suddenly we’re looking at “President Trump”.

Despite the fact Hillary only leads Bernie with just twelve thirteen (13) wins to Sanders’ nine ten (10), The Media, pundits and Hillary Supporters all point to her huge 2-to-1 lead in Delegates to suggest he is so far behind he can not win and perhaps should drop out now so she can concentrate on defeating Trump in November. Seriously? “Delegates” are meaningless outside of a “brokered” convention. They always vote with the candidate who has won the most states, and as I’m pointing out, Hillary is running out of Red states to keep her afloat (and all this “inevitability” talk has GOT to be killing her fundraising too. Why donate to her campaign if she has already effectively won?)

On the flip side, if Trump is “defeated” or otherwise “cheated” out of the GOP nomination via “brokered convention”… which is starting to look more & more likely, as long as he doesn’t decide to play spoiler and run third-party out of spite, an awful lot of Trump’s “anti-free trade, hates Hillary” supporters will migrate over to Independent Bernie Sanders to defeat whomever the GOP “elects” to replace him (Cruz or perhaps even Romney again), ensuring an easy victory for Sanders in November.

I know that’s a lot to think about but I encourage you to do so.

POSTSCRIPT: Last week, Facebook shutdown the account I have been using for the last eight years because “I did not appear to be using my real name.” But they were nice about it, giving me two options: 1) either I prove my legal name really is “Mugsy RapSheet” or 2) Build a new page linked to my “personal” Facebook account that uses my real name. Problem is, that method intermingles every post notification of my personal page in with my private page, and every time I send a Friend Request, it does so using my real name. Totally unacceptable. So I instead have been forced to create an entirely new account and attempt to rebuild my friends list from scratch. If you previously friended me on Facebook, I invite you to rejoin me at the new address. – Mugsy

ADDENDUM: As noted up top, my SECOND Facebook account was shutdown without warning as well. Worse, when I linked to this Op/Ed on “DailyKOS”, they too disabled my posting rights for three days based solely on FOUR accusations I was spreading “Conspiracy Theories”. I ask you? Do you think I’ve earned the right to be paranoid yet?
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

March 7, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · One Comment - Add
Posted in: Election, mystery, Politics, Scandals, voting

Facebook Shut Me Down. Demands I reveal my identity in the name of “security”. Whose?

Share
 

A quick update for my regular readers on Facebook (as “Mugsy RapSheet”):

For some unknown reason, after 8 years on Facebook using the above pseudonym, suddenly they have have locked me out of my account, demanding I provide my true identity (and that it must match the name being used on my account) before I am allowed access again. Since (quite obviously) my real name is not “Mugsy RapSheet”, I can not produce ID proving my a “nom de plume” is indeed me.

I logged into Facebook from another account and it appears my entire Facebook page itself has been disabled. Any friends that the page has acquired over the past eight years is likewise unavailable. I can’t even post a message explaining my absence! I jokingly wonder if a Hillary fan reported my account and got me shut down following all my posts regarding her & Bernie (no, I don’t think this is true, but why now after eight years?)

Most infuriating is they are claiming to be doing this in the name of “privacy & security”. WHOSE? Clearly not mine. How exactly does revealing one’s identity to the world ensure their “privacy & security”?

In any case, any “challenge” submitted to Facebook (according to Google) can take up to “60 days” to resolve (if ever).

I will continue my posting duties here on this blog next Monday and will let you know if the Facebook issue is ever resolved (you can’t imagine my frustration!)

Thanks for your patience.

Share

March 1, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · One Comment - Add
Posted in: General

Why I Support Bernie. A long and consistent record as a Progressive champion

Share
 

Over the past seven years, Republicans have made clear everything they oppose. But as Democrats, we repeatedly say, “It’s not enough to say what you’re *against*, tell us what you’re *FOR*. What’s *YOUR* solution?” Two weeks ago, I posted a lengthy list of inconsistencies & concerns that I have about Hillary Clinton. But it’s not enough to give you reasons NOT to vote for Hillary, I need to give you a reason to vote FOR Sanders. That is the focus of this week’s (lengthy) Op/Ed. Unlike many, I didn’t just learn of Bernie Sanders last year after he declared he was running. I’ve been following him for years as a regular guest of Progressive talk radio. Ideologically, Bernie’s doppelganger is Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Both have made fighting for social & economic justice the focus of their careers. And when Warren stayed true to her word and declared she absolutely would not run, the next obvious choice for millions was Sanders. I ask Clinton supporters: If Hillary were running against Warren… taking “gender” off the table… would Hillary still be your preferred candidate for president? If the answer is “No” or “not sure”, then you’re not choosing your candidate based on “issues” or “qualifications”. Sanders, co-founder of the “Congressional Progressive Caucus”, has an extensive & documented history of consistently being on the right side of the issues going back decades… fighting for the poor & middle class, economic justice, civil rights, health care, and the judicious use of military force.

But as I said, you need specific reasons to pick one candidate over another. In the week between the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, Chris Christie pounded Marco Rubio mercilessly for his inexperience and canned responses. That criticism was probably most responsible for Rubio’s distant fifth place finish in New Hampshire. But all the attacks didn’t help Christie, who ended up finishing behind Rubio in sixth place and Christie dropping out. He only gave voters a reason not to NOT vote for Rubio not vote FOR him.

I recommend starting off with this List of Bernie’s accomplishments while in Washington.

Here is my own list of reasons to vote FOR Senator Sanders for president (in no particular order):
 

1. Civil Rights

Sanders arrest during civil rights protest, 1960 – Chicago Tribune
Sanders arrested during civil rights protest 1960

Senator Sanders is famous for two things: fighting for “Economic Justice” and his long & documented record of fighting for “Civil Rights” going back to the early 1960’s. If you ask even the most casual voter to tell you something about Bernie, you can bet it’ll fall under one of those two categories.

I found it particularly offensive the other day when famed Civil Rights leader and longtime Clinton friend Representative John Lewis questioned Sanders’ long & documented history of fighting for Civil Rights in order to (falsely) claim the “Congressional Black Caucus” was endorsing Hillary Clinton, saying (quote):
 

“I never saw him. I never met him…. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.” (translation: they were there. You were not.)

 

In 1962, Lewis’ own “CORE: Congress of Racial Equality” appointed the 20-year old Sanders as one of only two people from the University of Chicago to head a commission to investigate on-campus housing discrimination that Sanders had been protesting. (ibid: “documented” above.)

In 1964, 17 year old Hillary Clinton was a “Goldwater Girl”, supporting the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater known today as “The father of American Conservatism“, and while not a racist, called school desegregation “an abuse of power by the Court” when he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Lewis likewise never met Bill Clinton until 1970, and in Lewis’ own autobiography, every mention of Bill Clinton in his book Walking With The Wind described an instance where Bill OPPOSED some policy that Lewis cherished (source). Tens of thousands of people of all races across the country stood up for Lewis’ civil rights… including Bernie Sanders. Just because they were never in the spotlight does not make their contributions any less important.

While Secretary Clinton is now talking about issues like “economic inequality” that weren’t even on the radar of most Democrats prior to this election, Sanders has been completely consistent on this issue for decades. In this 1988 video, then Burlington Mayor Sanders enthusiastically endorsed Civil Rights icon Jesse Jackson for president, citing Jackson’s work fighting “income inequality.” 28 years (let alone 54) is pretty damn consistent (go back to last week’s column for a review of Clinton’s own inconsistency on a litany of issues.) Last week, Jackson… who marched with Lewis AND Dr. King, returned the favor, coming to the defense of Sanders following Congressman Lewis’ attempt to impugn the Senator Sanders’ record. Bernie has also been endorsed by former head of the NAACP Ben Jealous and another Civil Rights icon, singer Harry Belafonte.

After the 2000 election was stolen (thanks in part to then Florida Governor Jeb Bush), a 2004 investigation by investigative reporter Greg Palast revealed that some 90,000 eligible voters had been knocked off the voting rolls… some 60,000+ of whom were African-American. To draw Media interest in the findings in an election year, Lewis’ own Congressional Black Caucus held a protest inviting ALL members of Congress to attend. “Senator Sanders was the only white person to show up”. Senator Clinton was a no-show.

Congressman Lewis took a lot of heat… not just from Sanders supporters but even from other black leaders and members of the CBC. Rep. Keith Ellison, also of the CBC and a supporter of Sanders, says neither he… nor anyone else in the CBC… was consulted about the “endorsement”, and that it was actually “the CBC SuperPAC that had endorsed Clinton, NOT the CBC itself.

Lewis has (as of this writing) yet to apologize to Senator Sanders after questioning his record of fighting for racial equality, only going so far as to claim “I never meant to imply” that Sanders’ contributions were less important, and that he likewise didn’t mean to suggest the Clintons had a “better” record of fighting for Civil Rights (though that is clearly what he was implying.) His “non-apology apology” smacks of “I’m sorry if you were offended, but…”, except that he didn’t even use the words “I’m sorry.” And in this writer’s opinion, Rep. Lewis does indeed owe the Senator a heartfelt apology.

One of my Facebook followers, a Hillary supporter, also dismissed Sanders’ early work on Civil Rights, basically asking me “Okay, but what has he done for me lately?” Even if Bernie had never done anything else on the issue… and he has… dismissing his incredible bravery & work all those years ago as insufficient to justify ones’ respect today is likewise offensive. I’m not aware of Hillary Clinton being particularly well known as a tireless fighter for Civil Rights. But for those who need something more recent”, here are “19 ways Bernie Sanders has stood up for civil and minority rights.”

I defy anyone to distinguish this clip of Senator Sanders in 2014 decrying “income inequality” and high black youth unemployment from a campaign speech given by him today. The “wisdom, judgement & consistency” of Senator Sanders can’t be ignored. Which brings us (naturally) to…
 

2. Trade, the Economy, Jobs & Economic Justice

As I’ve already noted in links going back to the 1960’s, Bernie Sanders has been raising the issue of social justice literally for decades. But “social justice” and “economic justice” go hand-in-hand. Senator Elizabeth Warren… his near ideological twin… voted the same as Senator Sanders 87% of the time according to OpenCongress.org (Clinton & Warren never served together, so a voting comparison is not possible.)

 

Warren vs Sanders

 

The only reason why everyone… even Republicans… are suddenly talking about “income inequality” is because Sanders & Warren dragged it into the spotlight. Before Warren became a Senator, Bernie was a lone voice in Congress championing the issue, and famously filibustered extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for 8-1/2 hours in 2010 (without a bathroom break). In 2009, Senator Sanders put forth a bill to cap credit card interest rates at 15%. The bill failed. His bill was in response to a 2008 bill to cap interest rates at a whopping 30%. Senators Obama & Sanders voted against it, Senator Clinton voted for it (expressing a desire to see it even lower, but by the time Sanders’ bill made it to the floor in May of 2009 [ibid “cap”], Hillary had already resigned from Congress to serve as Secretary of State.)

Hillary is only now talking about “income inequality” thanks to people like Sanders & Warren bringing up the issue. Before they made this a national issue, did you EVER hear ANYONE talking about “income inequality”? Sanders is driving the conversation. Clinton is talking about these issues only because Sanders has made it an issue.

Bernie famously grilled Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan before Congress in 2003 where he essentially predicted the collapse of the banks 5 years later. If you haven’t watched this 5-minute clip by now, you should. Sanders blasts Greenspan for suggesting “it doesn’t matter where products are made” because our economy is so strong. Five years later following the collapse of Wall Street, Greenspan admitted his “ideology was flawed” [ibid same video] and isn’t sure where he made his mistake.

In 2010, Bernie called for President Obama to appoint Senator Warren head of the new “Consumer Protection Agency” that “she championed”.

In 2013, the Republican Controlled Congress voted to “cap” student loan rates at 8.25%. Sounds like a good idea, no? The bill passed 81-18. Seventeen of the 18 “No” votes were Democrats, among them Senator’s Warren and Sanders. With passage of the bill, “need-based student loan rates doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.” Senators Warren, Reed and Sanders argued they could not support the bill because it “profits off the backs of students.”

Senator Sanders has since proposed making all public colleges free (again), paid for via a stock market “Speculation Tax” that I cover in more detail below. Hillary has proposed “making college more affordable” but rejects the idea of extending free public education past the 12th Grade.

Then there’s the issue of so-called “Free Trade”.

I don’t hold Secretary Clinton responsible for bills her husband signed as president, and I can fully appreciate the First Lady supporting her husband on any issue, but the first Free Trade Agreement setting the standard for all terrible Free Trade Agreements to follow was NAFTA in 1993. And understandably, Hillary continues to defend it to this day. So when President Obama proposed the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” (TPP), as his Secretary of State, she defended that as well, calling it “the gold standard” of how such treaties should be done. She continued to defend the TPP after declaring her candidacy for President last year, and it was only months later when supporting the TPP… unpopular with Democratic voters… became inconvenient did she finally rescind her support for it. Did she secretly oppose the deal all along but didn’t want to be seen as contradicting her boss? Any argument that her support had anything to do with loyalty to Obama flew right out the window the moment (as mentioned last week) she sided with Senator McCain (again) and openly criticized President Obama in 2014 for refusing to arm the Syrian rebels, and blaming that decision for the rise of ISIS (and we now know roughly a quarter of the Syrian rebels were members of ISIS! Wouldn’t THAT have been a great decision for her to have made as president!)

Regardless of WHY she supported/defended these awful Free Trade Agreements, she now has a history of doing so, and there is no reason to assume she wouldn’t support another “Free Trade” agreement in the future.

Meanwhile, Bernie has opposed every “Free Trade” agreement ever proposed. In 1993, as mayor of Burlington, VT, he took the “con” side of an Op/Ed debating the passage of NAFTA:
 

Sanders on NAFTA

 
NAFTA was first proposed during the George HW Bush presidency and became the signature issue of Texas billionaire Ross Perot who ran for president as an Independent in 1992 as the only candidate who opposed it. Perot famously warned that, if passed, we would hear “a giant sucking sound” of corporations (and jobs) moving to Mexico for the cheap labor and low tax rate, importing their finished goods back into the United States without having to pay a tariff or import duties. The boom years of the late 90’s appeared to have contradicted those fears as the economy took off thanks to the dawn of the Internet and panic-tech-hiring over “Y2K”. But the tech bubble burst, “Y2K” was a bust (which I predicted), and more & more companies made good on their threats to move to Mexico. (One man told Senator Sanders recently that every time his union tries to negotiate for higher wages or more benefits, “the company simply threatens to move to Mexico.”)

During the 2012 presidential race, Senator Sanders blasted Mitt Romney for calling for even more “Free Trade” agreements in light of the closing of “56,000 factories and 5.3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs.” (We all remember Romney’s fatal “Marie Antoinette-like” 2008 response to the auto industry: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”.)

The (supposed) idea behind “Free Trade” agreements is that they “open up foreign markets to American made goods.” And at one time, America DID make a lot of goods for export. We don’t any more because countries we’ve entered into “Free Trade” agreements with made the same stuff as us only cheaper, putting American factories (and consumers) out of work. American-made clothing is now rare, and there’s no such thing as an “American-made” TV or electronics anymore. You couldn’t buy one if you wanted to. Even Apple iPhone’s are made in China.

Senator Sanders has consistently & wisely opposed all so-called “Free Trade” agreements, opposed the TPP from the beginning, and will continue to do so in the future.

He has also been a LONG time defender of Union rights. When the GOP starting making noises about wanting to privatize the U.S. Postal Service, Bernie came to their defense, for which the “American Postal Workers Union” recently showed their thanks by endorsing him (as has “National Nurses United”.)

Former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton Robert Reich (who took unemployment down to a remarkable 3.9%) is a huge Bernie supporter and has been releasing a series of videos on Youtube defending the Senator’s proposals. Of particular interest: his 10-part series on how Bernie’s plan for Wall Street reform will prevent Americans from being “screwed again”:
 

Part 4: Tame Wall Street

 

Another economist, UMass Amherst professor Gerald Friedman performed an analysis (PDF) on the impact of Bernie’s economic policies and came up with some astounding (if accurate) numbers like a 4.5% GDP (where 3.5% is considered extremely good). One columnist from “Mother Jones”, the Progressive magazine & website, believes the numbers may be too good to be true (follow-up: “on second look, maybe not” by same author two days later), and if Republicans retain control of Congress after the election, it would seem even less likely, but even if only a few of Sanders’ policies are instituted, the benefit to the country would be substantial.

One of Bernie’s best ideas (IMHO) is the proposed “1/10th of a penny Speculation tax” on every stock trade. Not only could this generate enough money to provide free public college tuition for every student, but it would also help to bring wild speculation under control. “Speculation” is responsible for the dramatic swings in the stock market we’ve been seeing since the Bush Administration. Baseless speculation in the oil market drove oil prices into the stratosphere, going from $29/barrel in March of 2003 to $147/barrel in July of 2008 resulting in global economic collapse. We saw this again recently with the panic over the collapse of the Chinese stock market. Stock Traders quick to panic-sell over the slightest hint of bad economic news would be less inclined to sell if they knew just doing so would cost them money. A “speculation tax” would calm the Markets and help stabilize the U.S. economy.

While Hillary is now on the bandwagon for breaking up the Big Banks, Bernie has long said any company that is “too big to fail is too big to exist”:
 

Sen. Sanders in 2008

 

He also questioned the Treasury Department in May of 2000 regarding “Predatory Lending Practices” and again seeming to foretell the inevitable banking crisis to follow. Look for videos of Senator Clinton saying these things before 2015. You won’t find it.

Bernie supports raising the Minimum Wage to $15/hour (a “Living Wage”), saying “No one who works full time should be living in poverty.” (Clinton has stated she is only willing to go as far as $12.) Large corporations like Wal*Mart are able to underpay their employees to where they make so little, they still qualify for Federal Assistance (like Food Stamps), making taxpayers make up the shortfall in their income. For all the fear-mongering Republicans do over “Socialism”, forcing the Federal Government to subsidize the pay of millions of underpaid full-time employees just so that corporations can pocket the savings smacks of Communism and Welfare fraud.

(BREAKING: The SEIU [Service Employees Union], which has endorsed Clinton, distributed fliers ahead of the Nevada caucus falsely suggesting Clinton supports a $15 Minimum Wage.)
 

3. National Security & Foreign Policy

Hillary is a hawk. That is well established. Everyone knows by now that Senator Sanders opposed giving President Bush unilateral power to invade Iraq when she didn’t, and as I’ve noted earlier, unlike Hillary Clinton, Senator Sanders opposed arming the Syrian rebels and agrees with President Obama in opposing a “No Fly Zone” over Syria. Consider where we might be today if Hillary had been elected President in 2008? If you recall, Russia invaded neighboring Georgia in August of 2008 right about the same week Clinton finally dropped out of a protracted & contentious race, so she never got to say much on that issue at the time. But in 2009 as Obama’s Secretary of State, despite famously bringing a big red plastic “Reset Button” with her for her meeting with Russia’s foreign minister, Hillary was openly lambasting Russia over Georgia barely a year later and signing an agreement to put a missile defense system in Poland [ibid] that President Obama previously opposed and infuriated Russia. One might defend Clinton by arguing she was only doing the White House’s bidding, but I point out again that the job of “Secretary of State” is “chief diplomat”, and her job is to “talk down” such provocative actions. I direct you to her successor, Secretary John Kerry, who brokered the first peaceful negotiations with Iran & Cuba in over 50 years.

Also in 2014, with rumors of Hillary once again likely to run for president, our former chief diplomat publicly compared Vladamir Putin to “Adolph Hitler” for annexing neighboring Crimea by force. I’m trying to picture now how Clinton expects to negotiate ANYTHING with a man she once compared to “Hitler” should she become president? Senator Sanders commended President Obama for agreeing to deal with Russia through sanctions, not using inflammatory rhetoric.

As president, Bernie agrees with President Obama in opposing a “No Fly Zone” over Syria. Clinton does not. Last week, Russia was caught on film “carpet bombing” Azaz, Syria, destroying two hospitals and a school, killing at least 22 people. If we had a “no fly zone” over Syria and started shooting down Russian planes, we might now be at war with Russia. There are consequences to hawkish rhetoric. Sanders knows this. Clinton clearly does not.

No one has yet explained to me how we prevent ISIS from hiding beneath any “No Fly Zone” (only to be protected by our own U.S. Air Force)… much the same way “Ansar al Islam” (the alQaeda splinter-group seeking to kill Saddam Hussein) hid beneath our no fly zone in Northern Iraq (and George W Bush pointed to as “proof” Saddam was “harboring” alQaeda in Iraq to justify war.)

Sanders opposes arming the Syrian rebels. More guns have never made anyplace more peaceful (keep that in mind when Clinton attacks Sanders’ position on gun control). As I pointed out above, not only did Clinton support arming the rebels but openly criticized President Obama in 2014 [ibid above] for having not done so, leading to President Obama reluctantly agreeing to seek $500 Million “to arm & train” the rebels. But that program turned into a spectacular failure last October, resulting in the Obama Administration deciding to focus on simply “arming the rebels” and forego training. What could possibly go wrong? ISIS was born of frustrated former Iraqi Sunni soldiers (then known as “AQAP” when President Bush was in office) going to Syria to fight for their fellow Sunni’s against President Assad. Imagine where we’d be today if a President Hillary Clinton had inadvertently armed ISIS, sent troops into Georgian territory to defend against Russia, and fired upon Russia fighter jets violating her “no fly zone” last week in Syria?

In December of 2007, Congress voted on the bipartisan “National Defense Authorization Act” (HR-1585) to fund the military for 2008. Sanders voted Yea along with 43 other Democrats. Obama & Hillary abstained. Bush vetoed the bill (if I read it correctly, because it didn’t give military contractors like Blackwater the same government standing as regular military). When Senate Republicans tried to pass a supplementary bill designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as “terrorists” (possibly justifying war with Iran), Sanders voted “No“, Obama abstained and Clinton voted “Yea”.

During the 2008 race, then Senator Obama chastised Clinton for suggesting the United States might “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel, saying such rhetoric was worthy of the Bush Administration. Clinton now campaigns on her work to “open the door” to reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran that led to Obama’s historic nuclear agreement last year. How does one negotiate with a nation you’ve branded as “terrorists”? What chance do you think such an agreement might of had if she had been elected president in 2008?

Last August, Senator Sanders said he would NOT end the use of drones, but criticized their overuse resulting in too many civilian deaths, declaring the U.S. should be more selective about using them.

On Israel, Senator Sanders would be Netanyahu’s worst nightmare because the Neoconservative president of Israel would not be able to bully the Jewish Sanders by stoking fears of being labeled “antisemitic” if he didn’t comply with his every whim. Bernie has embraced the “two state solution” that would grant Palestine statehood inside Israel and urged negotiations with Iran over Netanyahu’s objections.
 

“We have to negotiate with others, even Iran.” (Sen. Sanders, Aug 2015. Source.)

 

Imagine for a moment what it might mean for world peace if a Jewish president of the United States was seen as an honest-broker negotiating peace in the Middle-East. You want to talk about a “historic” election? You can’t get more historic than THAT!
 

4. Infrastructure, the Environment & Global Warming

Senator Sanders has made “Rebuilding our infrastructure” a cornerstone of his campaign. 13 months ago as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and long before he decided to run for president, Senator Sanders introduced the “Rebuild America Act” to create 13 million jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure similar to FDR’s WPA. His call to break up the big banks? Not unlike the establishment of the SEC or Teddy Roosevelt’s “Trust Busting”. Your protection against another Trillion-dollar bailout.

We have seen the catastrophic consequences of our crumbling infrastructure with the crisis in Flint, MI. Senator Sanders has demanded that Michigan Governor Snyder resign, charging that Snyder knowingly allowed a lead-poisoning crisis in Flint to continue. Hometown hero & filmmaker Michael Moore endorsed Senator Sanders, citing not only his reaction to the Flint crisis, but his storied history of fighting for Civil Rights, Universal Healthcare and Economic justice.

Sanders has been ridiculed on the right for saying “Climate Change is the greatest threat facing America”, sticking to his guns when later asked if he believed it was an even greater threat “than ISIS and alQaeda”. He pointed out that “in the sort term”, ISIS may be a grave threat, but they don’t pose the same global cataclysmic danger posed by “rising oceans”, runaway “heatwaves & drought”, larger & more deadly storms that kills tens of thousands and cause billions in property damage, wars over natural resources, all at a cost of Trillions to try & fix after it’s too late. ISIS is a flea compared to that.

He opposed the Keystone XL pipeline where as Hillary needed time to “study the issue” until she finally concluded she was against it. (Huffington Post: Bernie Sanders Will Ban Fracking. Hillary Clinton ‘Sold Fracking to the World’.)

In 2013, Bernie co-sponsored the “Climate Protection Act” along with Sen. Barbara Boxer. His long legislative work on fighting Global Warming earned him the ranking of “Best Candidate on Climate Change” by Mother Jones magazine. Sanders has a 95% rating with The League of Conservation Voters (that’s “Conservation”, not “Conservative”).
 

5. Supreme Court

With the recent passing of Conservative Justice Scalia, the question of just who the candidates might appoint to the Supreme Court has become a major issue. If the GOP Congress gets its way and stalls the appointment of Scalia’s successor until the next president takes office, the next president could conceivably take office with a Supreme Court nomination waiting for them.

Sanders has said his “litmus test” for his first judicial appointment is whether they’d “overturn Citizens United”, which we all want to see done away with. Probably one of the most destructive political rulings by the Supreme Court in the last 50 years was the 5/4 decision to allow the mega-wealthy to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns via “SuperPAC’s” (also known as legalized bribery.) The Conservative majority declared that “money = speech” and therefore restricting money was a violation of “free speech”. The result: the more money you have, the more free speech you get, flying right in the face of the tenets “one man, one vote” and “all men are created equal”. Conservatives on the court just decided wealthy businessman’s voices deserved to be heard more than yours or mine. This is why Senator Sanders is the ONLY candidate without a SuperPAC (even Donald Trump has a SuperPAC. He’s not even the largest contributor to his own campaign!) In one of her victory/concession speeches (either Iowa or NH, I can’t recall), Clinton suggested there was “no one more interested in seeing Citizens United overturned” because… “if you recall”… it was in response to a movie attacking Clinton in the middle of the 2008 race. But if I may point out, it is that very law that now makes SuperPAC’s like hers legal, and she seems to be taking full advantage of it to defeat her rival.

Supporters of SuperPAC’s believe that as long as the candidate does not receive the funds “directly”, they won’t feel beholden/obligated to any one group or individual. In the crime world, this is known as “money laundering”. Does anyone REALLY believe the candidates don’t know just who is making these large donations to their campaigns? And what happens once the candidate is in office with plans to someday run for reelection? Do you think maybe… just maybe… that elected official might feel reluctant to offend their large corporate donors by advocating and/or signing a law that might affect that industry? THAT is why SuperPAC’s are bad.

While Sanders has nearly kept pace with Clinton in individual contributions, Clinton has six (6) SuperPAC’s raising money for her (seven others that have raised $0), the largest of which… “Priorities USA”… has raised $41 Million of her $163.6 Million total, allowing her to dramatically outspend Sanders in this campaign. (Compare to Sanders’ OpenSecrets.org Corporate contributors page. I’ve never seen a politicians page so devoid of Special Interests.)

Sanders was an outspoken supporter of gay rights when Senator Clinton was still saying she believed “Marriage is between a man and a woman”. In 1995, then Representative Sanders opposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, defending the rights of gay soldiers to serve openly. The bill, signed into law by Bill Clinton, would not be repealed for another 16 years under President Obama. In 1983 two years before being elected as mayor of Burlington, Sanders backed the state’s first ever “Gay Pride Parade”.

With a 100% Pro-choice rating by NARAL, Sanders has denounced Republicans seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and there is no question he would continue to do so in any Supreme Court nomination he makes.

Once again, Bernie’s track record of being right the FIRST time around and not needing to “evolve” on an issue is what we need in a president who may very likely have to replace the three oldest Liberal Justices remaining on the Supreme Court.
 

6. Health care & drugs

Secretary Clinton has decided to accuse Senator Sanders of wanting to “repeal ObamaCare” as he attempts to replace it with “Universal Single Payer Health Care”… a program she supportsno, she opposesno, she supports. Whatever her position on the issue, it’s unfathomably dishonest and unworthy of someone claiming to be a Progressive Democrat. (In 2008, when the Obama campaign sent out mailers warning voters that Hillary’s health care plan “would force every person to buy health care”… yes, he did that… an angry Hillary Clinton responded by suggesting that no Democrat should ever attack another Democrat on health care.) As the Sanders campaign is pointing out in this photograph, the former First Lady personally thanked then-Representative Sanders in 1993 for his “work to make health care affordable.”

As Sanders himself has repeatedly stated, he is not about to “repeal” the Affordable Care Act before passing anything that might potentially replace it. It is true he was not a fan of the eventual bill that stripped out a Public Option and left the private insurance industry in charge, but it HAS provided more people with health care coverage than ever before… even if it does still leave more than 20 Million Americans without insurance. In all due honesty, Secretary Clinton may be right when she says “Single Payer will never ever happen” [ibid: opposes], but I’m not impressed by someone not even willing to TRY, and misrepresenting Bernie’s position on this issue is something I’d expect from a Conservative, but (once again) not from someone claiming to be a Progressive Democrat.

In 2011, Senator Sanders introduced two medical innovation prize bills in the Senate to de-link R&D costs from drug prices. This was an innovative solution to help control soaring drug prices due to a loophole in the Affordable Care Act, put there by Republicans to protect drug company profits. This is not a man looking to recklessly “undo” the ACA, but someone looking for better solutions within the existing system.

As Bernie repeatedly points out, in Europe, their health care systems cover everyone, cost less, and provide better outcomes. These are the programs Sanders hopes we will learn from. Michael Moore’s 2008 movie “SiCKO” was all about learning from the universal health care programs in other countries. It drove the 2008 presidential debate and perhaps was most responsible for Congress focusing on Healthcare Reform during the first year of the Obama presidency. And despite his reservations, Sanders voted “FOR” the ACA. He’s not about to repeal it without something better to replace it. (Here is video of what Bernie had to say about soaring Prescription Drug prices in May, 2012.)

Speaking of drug prices, “Medical Marijuana” is now legal in 27 states (plus DC) and “recreational” use is now legal in four. Personally, I do not use Marijuana (can’t stand the smell and don’t use intoxicants of any kind), but keeping it illegal while far worse products like alcohol and legal prescription opiates can be found almost anywhere makes absolutely no sense. It’s a way to fill up prisons with people denying the drug & alcohol industry sales of their higher-priced alternatives. Senator Sanders is also the only candidate to suggest the legalization of marijuana as part of ending the failed “War on Drugs” that has led to the disproportionate filling of our jails by the poor & minorities. Hillary has only been willing to go as far as to suggest “further research” into possible use as a medical “ingredient” in someone else’s expensive prescription drug… doing nothing to curtail rampant drug crime connected to the growing, sale & distribution of one of the most harmless drugs in existence.
 

7. Debunking “The Country Will Never Elect a 74 year old Socialist Jew” meme

Just before the New Hampshire Primary, Chris Christie during a campaign stop before a small group of supporters said:
 

“Let’s face it. Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee. The Republicans could never be so lucky as to have the Democrats pick a 74 year old  Socialist Jew as their nominee.”

 

The next day, this brilliant prognosticator was out of the race because he also predicted he’d make the Top 5 (no one ever called him out for including “Jew” in that comment BTW.) This very meme mentioned by Christie is also one of the driving forces behind Hillary Clinton’s support. It’s the “She has a better chance of getting elected” meme. But that is NOT what the polls say. “RealClearPolitics.org” maintains an up-to-date list of the largest national polls pitting the Democratic nominees against the Republican nominees. Winners are shown in Red or Blue based on party with the amount they win by. Clinton’s poll results are awash in red, loosing to Rubio in every poll, loosing to Kasich in every poll, losing to Cruz in 4 of 5 polls, with NO matchup in which she wins every poll. Even in her best matchup, Hillary beats Trump by only 7-points in one poll and Carson by just 3.

Meanwhile, Bernie’s poll results are awash in blue, leading Trump by as many as 15-points in TWO polls, and beating Ted Cruz in EVERY poll (by as many as 10-points in the Quinnipiac as of this writing.) The idea that Clinton has “a better chance of winning” is based on nothing.

To those who think the “Democratic Socialist” label will hurt Sanders, consider this: After they call him a “Socialist”, then what? How long do they sell that as the best reason to vote for them over their opponent? Who doesn’t know by now Bernie is a “Democratic Socialist” that has been in elective office for 35 years? They can’t run on that one point for four months. They’ll have to move on to other issues. And that’s when we win. Assuming all those Hillary supporters who demand Sanders Supporters pledge fealty to Clinton should she be the nominee do the same if the roles are reversed, Bernie has a FAR better chance to draw Republican & Moderate votes to his side. He is a registered “Independent” (aka: non-establishment), a champion of the Middle Class, staunch critic of Wall Street and… like it or not… his record on protecting the rights of gun owners will be far more appealing to Conservative voters that may see their own Party candidate as too extreme.

Americans forget that we’ve elected a “Socialist” president before: FDR. And he was so popular, Republicans had to pass a law limiting how many times we can reelect a president (the 22nd Amendment.) I view Sanders very much in that same mold. Roosevelt, following the collapse of Wall Street in 1929, instituted a long list of “socialist” government programs. There were work programs like the WPA (“Work Projects Administration”), the “Rural Electrification Project” and the TVA (“Tennessee Valley Authority”) to finally bring electricity to rural towns & farms (not unlike Green Energy programs being proposed today). He ordered the creation of government consumer protection agencies like the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) to regulate Wall Street and the FDIC/FSLIC to insure bank deposits so that if your bank fails, you don’t lose all your money (there is no question those programs are the only thing that prevented the 2008 crash from being worse than it was.)

But the crash of 1929 didn’t only impact America and leave the rest of the world untouched. Just as with Bush’s crash in 2008, “The Great Depression” destroyed economies the world over. In America, we elected a man who relied on “socialist” government programs to rebuild the country. Germany took the opposite route, electing a ranting/raving Corporate Fascist who told people to blame all their problems on “inferiors” like blacks, Jews & gays. They were required to carry special identification, barred entry into the country, denied their rights and treated as enemies of the state. The nation went to war and began invading countries they perceived as a threat. Is any of this starting to sound familiar? That could be the choice Americans are facing this election. Which road would you rather we go down? (Pardon me for dancing right up to the edge of Godwin’s Law.) It’s mind-numbing when I hear uneducated Conservative voters fear Sanders because they think “Socialist” means he’s a Nazi, and instead turn to someone like Cruz or Trump. #SMH

The ROI (“return on investment”) when we invest in infrastructure is enormous. Millions of children still attend schools that were built in the ’30’s during the Depression. Many still drive across bridges built in the ’30’s. In towns & cities across the country, many government buildings like “City Hall” were erected in the 1930’s. Court houses, post offices… even some roads… were built during the Depression as part of FDR’s investment in infrastructure. Any money those cities haven’t had to spend since then has been a savings of Billions (if not more). Eisenhower’s “Interstate Highway Project” is still paying dividends today, and the Hoover Dam is still generating electricity.
 

Alternatively, Republicans despise Hillary. Viscerally. Living in the South, I can tell you this from personal experience. They absolutely loath her. They consider her “a liar” and “an opportunist”. When they hear her name, they think “BenghaziTM and “Emails!” If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, it will be the greatest GOTV effort the Republican Party dare dream of. And a lot of women voters still will never forgive her for the way she trashed her husbands’ accusers regarding his philandering back in the ’90s. I don’t like saying any of that because I don’t think you should choose your candidate based on fear. But when supporters of Clinton use fear to suggest she’s “more electable” than Sanders, all the evidence proves otherwise.

Towards the end of the last debate prior to the New Hampshire primary (and again during last weeks’ Nevada Town Hall), Clinton had the gall to appoint herself the defender of President Obama’s legacy in the middle of a question about foreign policy after she herself in 2014 openly criticized President Obama for “failing to arm the Syrian Rebels” (1/4 of whom turned out to be ISIS) taking the side of Senator McCain (the man whom she said in 2008 was “more prepared” to be president than her opponent) against President Obama.

As I mentioned above in section #2, Clinton also (supposedly) disagrees with Obama on the TPP and wants a “No Fly Zone” over Syria opposed by both Obama & Sanders. Now she’s the defender of his presidency and chastising Sanders for daring to disagree with him on some issues??? That’s chutzpah.
 

I know I’ve spent a lot of time talking about Hillary here. It couldn’t be helped. I’ve long been bothered by her Conservative tendencies, first taking the Conservative position on issues like war & trade, and any time I see Bill & Hillary (and now Chelsea too) “gang up” to attack a fellow Democrat (like they did to Obama in 2008), I get that same queezy feeling in the pit of my stomach. Do you remember Michelle Obama ever going after Hillary Clinton? And not only has Jane Sanders not attacked Hillary, but she actually DEFENDED her when Trump called her “evil”. So if the issue is “character”, the Sanders’ & Obama’s have it. I’m not so sure the Clinton’s do.
 

The one issue where the Clinton campaign believes it has an advantage is on “guns”. They point out that Bernie “voted against the Brady Bill” (“waiting period”) and voted “to allow guns on Amtrak” (which I debunked in my “Hillary” column two weeks ago.) Sanders has a “D- rating” with the NRA. Sanders, coming from a rural state, believed each state should be allowed to establish its OWN waiting periods. States with lots of hunters and low gun crime might want shorter waiting periods, others might want to establish LONGER waiting periods than those mandated by a Republican controlled Congress. (And as I explained in my other column, the Amtrak vote was about baggage.) In 2013 though, Sanders voted FOR background checks and for banning “Assault Weapons”. Like it or not, Sanders’ past votes on protecting gun rights makes him MORE electable in the general election than Clinton.

Another popular criticism of Sanders is “how is he going to pay for everything he’s promising? Free college? Free healthcare? Jobs program?” I even seem to recall Hillary using the term “free stuff” to criticize Sanders’ plan in a recent speech (still looking for link). That was stunning to me considering Clinton herself recently attacked Jeb Bush for claiming her own proposals were promises of “free stuff”. Why is it Conservatives never call it “Free stuff” or “Welfare” when the money is going in the opposite direction: UP from the wages they DON’T pay their employees to the pockets of corporate CEO’s and/or the Rich? Giving away public land for oil companies to drill on only to sell the oil back to us at a premium? Public Universities doing R&D for the drug companies? And when those wells start to leak, those tankers run aground, or their drugs poison/kill people, at most they pay a fine roughly the equivalent of a few months profits. Corporations get huge tax breaks because they promise to “create jobs”, but when they end up CUTTING jobs and/or move to Mexico, do they give that money back? Hell no. Not only do we not penalize them for moving to Mexico, WE ENCOURAGE IT with still more tax breaks!
 

Bernie's Budget

As I’ve been telling people, “I don’t care if NONE of Sanders’ proposals actually pass. It’s his JUDGEMENT that I prefer & trust.” Look how much even President Obama achieved with the most insanely obstructionist Congress in history. Don’t automatically assume a President Sanders would never be able to enact any of his Progressive priorities.

President Obama has been immensely successful, rescuing the economy following Bush’s near economic collapse, but he has still been obstructed from doing many needed serious reforms, and has disappointed many Liberals (myself included) for not having taken more action on Climate Change (dramatically increasing domestic drilling, even in the fragile Arctic), supporting the TPP, and failing to imprison even ONE banker following the collapse of Wall Street. The Big Banks are bigger today than they were eight years ago (and there are fewer of them, meaning more consolidation/power). These systemic problems still exist. Electing Hillary to “continue the Obama legacy” means continuing the status quo. What law is there against striving for better than the status quo?

Fox “news” Sunday blasted Clinton for the second week in a row: “Not only is she the only candidate left who has refused to appear on our program, but her staff won’t even return our calls”, noting that during the pre-Iowa debate she said she was willing to “go anywhere anytime to find common ground.” The fact is Clinton HAS appeared on Fox… TWICEto bash Barack Obama, once as a candidate and once as president. If you deplore the “gridlock” of the last seven years, this is not a person who will be able to bring the Parties together and unite the country. As a long-time Independent with no baggage, Bernie can.
 

“Scandal-free”, not beholden to ANY “special interest”, a historic election of potentially GLOBAL consequence, and rated the “most trustworthy” of any candidate of either party:
 

YouGov Feb. 15 poll: Bernie most “honest & trustworthy” of ANY candidate. Hillary, the least:
Bernie most honest. Hillary least.

 

(An ABC/WaPo poll shows Sanders with a double-digit lead over Clinton in “honesty & trustworthiness”. Even Clinton herself acknowledges she has a problem on this issue.) Who do you think “Occupy Wall Street” supporters are behind? Hillary or Sanders? If Sanders were not on the right side of history, the Hillary campaign could just ignore him and claim the coveted “Middle Ground”. Bernie has made Hillary a better candidate. He has pulled her to the Left. She is not pulling him to the Right. Instead, both are arguing over who’s the bigger Liberal. Think about that.
 

Madison, WI
10K show up for Sanders in Madison

Birmingham, AL
7K in Birmingham

Los Angeles, CA
Sanders, LA, August 2015

Portland, OR
Bernie crowd in Portland, OR


 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

February 22, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · 2 Comments - Add
Posted in: Civil Rights, Crime, Economy, Election, Money, myth busting, Politics, Seems Obvious to Me

Republicans Are Right. Delay nomination of Scalia’s successor

Share
 

I can’t remember the last time I said this and may never say it again, so listen up: REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT. We should delay replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the election. I know how heretical that may sound, but bear with me for a moment while I explain and you may even agree.

The magnitude of this appointment is beyond words. Justice Scalia LED the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. It is difficult (if not impossible) to overstate just how much influence he had on “The Highest Court in the Land”. Of the remaining four Conservative justices on the bench, ALL have cited Scalia as their ideological role-model. Justice Alito supposedly told people that his friends called him “Scalito“, and I believe Justice Thomas only voted differently than Justice Scalia two or three times in his entire career (who will he copy off of now that Antonin is gone?). Roughly 30% of Supreme Court rulings under President Obama came down 5-4 split-decisions, and Republicans know full well that replacing Scalia with a “Liberal” justice would tip the scales in most of those narrow decisions should they be relitigated, so there is absolutely NO chance this Republican controlled Congress will approve a Progressive judge to replace him. And Democrats (including President Obama) know it.

TRIVIA: On stage before a college campus audience, Scalia once suggested that The Second Amendment arguably applied to “shoulder-fired Surface-to-Air Missiles” and even “cannons” if one were made small enough to lift. Any weapon that one could “bear in their arms” qualifies. That would however exempt things like “tanks” and “large mortar canons”, he assured skeptical students.

The most we could hope for is that President Obama nominates a mercurial “Moderate” swing-vote to the court, and even THAT will be a hard sell under this obstructionist Congress if it thinks it has a shot at winning in November.

Congressional Republicans will delay ANY nominee till the November election grows near, and if it looks like the Republican presidential nominee has ANY chance of winning, they will NEVER approve an Obama nominee… even an extremely Conservative one… prior to the election in November (maybe AFTER if they lose, happy to approve a Moderate than give the pick to Clinton or Sanders).

The Supreme court will be in recess most of the Summer and will not reconvene until “the first Monday in October”, so not having an appointed justice during that time won’t impact any rulings. And there is ZERO chance Republicans in Congress will appoint a new justice one month before the election.

I am very confident the Republican Party will not win the presidency in November. They are in total disarray, and the most Moderate candidates are despised by general Conservative voters. They have alienated every non-white non-Christian constituency there is, and Jeb Bush is doing the world a favor by reminding everyone how awful and incompetent his brother’s presidency was.

Yes, there is a chance Republicans could win the presidency and appoint the next Supreme Court justice, but replacing uber-Conservative justice Scalia with another Conservative doesn’t swing the balance of power from where it has been. And the next president is likely to get at least one more nomination.

Whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary (potentially the first woman president) or Sanders (potentially the first Jewish president), the chance to make history will already drive a huge number of Democrats to the polls in November. Knowing that a Supreme Court nomination is on the line as well will only raise the stakes.

I would MUCH rather have a President Sanders or even a President Hilary Clinton picking our next Supreme Court justice. It would be great for either of them to take office already knowing they will have the opportunity to appoint at least one, and it will be impossible for a Republican Congress to stop the appointment of a Supreme Court justice for four full years.

And who knows? Democrats could even retake the Senate in the next election and vote to approve an even MORE Progressive justice than any milquetoast Moderate President Obama could possibly get past this obstructive Republican-controlled Congress (and while I highly doubt he’d accept… nor do I desire it to happen… wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama went straight from the White House to The Supreme Court? If that’s what you’d like to see, your chances are greater if the vacancy is not filled before he leaves.)
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

February 15, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, Politics, Seems Obvious to Me

I’ll Support Hillary, BUT… Making the case against Clinton (without helping Republicans)

Share
 

First, the obligatory disclaimer: Though I am a Bernie supporter, if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. Quite frankly, I resent even having to say that. My Democratic bona fides have never been in question, but for some reason, every criticism of Hillary Clinton has been deemed “sexist” and her critics “misogynists” (but for some reason, I can’t accuse them of being “anti-Semites” for attacking Bernie.) In 2004, I was an outspoken supporter of Howard Dean… an unabashed & unapologetic Liberal. I made the case for choosing Dean over his rivals, but when John Kerry became the Party’s nominee, I campaigned for him, even volunteering at the local DNC, making and distributing Kerry yard signs and manning the front desk at my local DNC campaign office. But before that, no one ever accused me of launching “personal attacks” against Kerry for questioning just how Liberal he truly was. In 2008, my preferred candidate was former UN Ambassador Bill Richardson because after eight years of George Bush’s war-mongering, I wanted a diplomat for president. I must admit I’ve never been a fan of Hillary Clinton because she has always been a “hawk” when it comes to using military force. Even now, as she tells audiences she would only use force “as a last resort, not first”, she is inconsistent (more on that below.) Yet, despite her vote for the Iraq War (a misnomer), when Richardson dropped out after the New Hampshire primary, I threw my support to Clinton, in part because of her history of supporting “Universal Health Care” (I also foolishly believed this nation was not ready to elect a “black” president, and also some concern his nomination would drive racist Republicans to the polls en masse to defeat him.) But as the race tightened and her “inevitable win” started to look less & less “inevitable”, her rhetoric became more and more aggressive as she saw the presidency slipping away. The capper was March 3, 2008 when she told reporters that “[Republican front-runner] John McCain” was “more prepared to be president” than Barack Obama. That day, I switched my support to Barack Obama and never looked back. I have not seen anything since that demonstrates she won’t throw fellow Democrats under the bus if she thinks it will help her politically. To the contrary, she has only reinforced that belief.

When it comes to foreign policy, Hillary has always been a hawk. During the 2008 campaign, she was already saber-rattling against “Iran’s nuclear program”, threatening military action if they didn’t abandon their pursuit, to distinguish herself from Senator Obama who advocated “negotiations” (aka: “diplomacy”):
 


 
Then upon winning the presidency, Obama made her his chief diplomat (a decision that still baffles me), directing her to open a channel to begin negotiations with Iran… the very thing she criticized him for and is now taking credit for as making Obama’s historic nuclear agreement possible. YET, while she was Secretary of State, she was STILL publicly denouncing Iran as “a state sponsor of terrorism” and pursuing nuclear weapons… which might be true, but isn’t something your chief diplomat should be saying publicly when they’re trying to bring them to the negotiating table. Arguably, her adversarial rhetoric endangered the very diplomatic victory she now seeks to take credit for, and had she stayed on as “Secretary of State”, I’m not so confident we would have achieved the first disarmament agreement between the U.S. & Iran in nearly 40 years. In 2010, she told an audience:
 

“The United States is committed to pursuing [a] diplomatic path. But we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”

 

Translation: “We’re using diplomacy now, but don’t push your luck.”

In 2014, barely a year & a half out of office, Hillary joined with Republicans… siding with John McCain (once again?) against her former boss… to publicly criticize President Obama for failing to “help [ie: arm] the Syrian rebels” to mitigate the growing crisis in Syria (note, a significant number of Syrian rebels turned out to be ISIS.) She is now running as the best person to continue President Obama’s policies.

During the CNN “Town Hall” two weeks ago, Clinton responded to criticism that she accepted $650,000 in speaking fees from Goldman-Sachs. Her defense was that “at the time [she] didn’t know if [she’d] be running for president”. So then, why was she siding with Republicans to publicly criticize her former boss in 2014? Who was she trying to appeal to? Republicans have admitted that their BenghaziTM “investigation” was all about derailing her inevitable run for president. Even they knew she was going to run. If you aren’t planning to run for president, why would you care what Republicans think? Was she trying to get on the good side of the BenghaziTM Committee? If so, how naive can you get? And who wants a president who will turn on their “friends” for personal gain?

She is still calling for a “No Fly Zone” over Syria, something both Sanders AND President Obama oppose. Not only is it provocative, but Russian fighter jets have performed some of those bombing runs. Do we start shooting down Russian MIG’s and start WWIII? Clinton says she would only go to war “as a last resort”, but foolish policies could push you into something whether you want it or not.

Her first instincts always seem to tend towards “threats of force” first. Even her explanation two weeks ago as to why she voted in 2002 to give President Bush unilateral authority to declare war against Iraq… “to give him leverage in order to finish the inspections”… raises concern. Check that photo at the start of this column. It’s a copy of the ad MoveOn.org ran the month before the invasion of Iraq. It points out inspections WERE working and warned what might happen if we invade Iraq (with eerie accuracy.) It’s not like no one knew what might happen when she cast that vote. Hillary thinks her mistake was “trusting Bush” (already disqualifying in my book), NOT “threatening to go to war” when it clearly wasn’t necessary. I was one of the millions in early 2003 protesting the idea of invading Iraq.

Example: During that Town Hall two weeks ago [ibid “explanation” above], a young father expressed his concern of Clinton having “a history of interventionist foreign policy”. She assured him that she would only use force as a “last resort, not first”, but she keeps advocating actions that could inadvertently draw us into a war whether she wants it or not. IN THE SAME BREATH, after attempting to quell this mans fears of being too “interventionist”, she told him:
 

“I will not send American combat troops to Iraq or Syria. That is off the table. That would be a terrible mistake. We will continue to use Special Forces, and we have to because of the kinds of threats we face.”

 

Now, if sending “Special Forces” into another country isn’t “interventionist”, I don’t know what is. Remember the law of unintended consequences. What if those “Special Forces” are killed or captured? Once again, we find ourselves drawn into an unwanted military conflict despite claims of wanting to avoid military conflict. In 2004, John Kerry… the man who would later replace Clinton as Secretary of State… argued that “terrorism should be treated as a law-enforcement issue, not a military one”, a position that I still agree with to this day and think we would be MUCH further along if only we had taken his advice. THAT is the voice of a diplomat that seeks to avoid war.

Consider this: By the end of the next president’s first term, children who weren’t even BORN on 9/11 could be fighting in Afghanistan against other children who hadn’t even been born yet on 9/11. If your goal in choosing a president is to see the U.S. finally extricated from the Middle East, Hillary is not your candidate.

I add this without comment: Hillary Clinton Calls Henry Kissinger a Friend, Praises His Commitment to Democracy.
 

But “foreign policy” isn’t the only area in which I have grave concerns about Secretary Clinton. “Economic policy” is also a major issue with which we disagree.

Sanders has made “Campaign finance reform” a big part of his campaign (no SuperPAC). As mentioned above, Hillary has accepted over $650,000 just from Goldman-Sachs (and perhaps as much as $25 Million in 2014 alone) then “dared” anyone to find “evidence” she changed her position on an issue because or it.

Whether someone changes a particular stated position on an issue just because they were paid to speak is not the point. That rarely happens. Clinton has not been in office since early 2013, and hasn’t voted on any legislation since 2008, so daring people to find evidence of her changing her vote based on who gave her money is a safe challenge. No, the concern is not that she “flipped” a stated position after being paid to speak, it’s that money will influence her position on FUTURE legislation. When a company pays you that much money to speak privately, it’s for one of two reasons:

  1. Either they consider you an expert that will teach them how to make more money.
  2.  
    – OR –
     

  3. They are hoping to buy *influence*.

Now you tell me, do you think a major Wall Street investment firm was looking for “investment strategies” from a former “Secretary of State”? Or do you think they were hoping to “influence” the presumptive Democratic nominee and likely “next president of the United States”? (more on who is contributing to the Clinton Campaign below.)

McDonald-Douglas doesn’t advertise during the Sunday News Shows because they’re hoping to sell me a Stealth Bomber, they do it because they know their money makes the network less likely to criticize them.

Something else that bugs the hell out of me:
 

Hillary's 2016 Logo

 

There is NO doubt in my mind that Hillary’s “Red Arrow” logo was an intentional subliminal reminder to GOP voters of her Conservative tendencies. I mean, how does one NOT see that when asked to approve the logo? Does anyone believe for one second the designers of that logo… an expert team of graphic designers that spend millions researching how the public responds to the images they see… didn’t know EXACTLY what they were doing when they came up with that design? I noticed the moment I first saw it. And once the Hillary Campaign started taking criticism for the design, first they denied its obvious implication, and then suddenly started offering attendees at her rallies an alternative poster using a blue arrow (but still pointing right):
 

Both Red and Blue arrows

 

And this is the Hillary campaign last Saturday in New Hampshire:
 

Only blue arrows now
Only blue arrows in NH

 

Tell me again that the arrow’s color & direction is just a coincidence.
 

Hillary has a history of voting with Conservatives. She opposed Same-Sex marriage, even taking to the Senate floor to declare she believed “marriage was between a man & a woman.” During last Friday’s New Hampshire debate, she (albeit reluctantly) restated her continued support for the Death Penalty (which affects minority voters disproportionately.) She voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, and again for the “revised” Patriot Act 2 in 2006. It was her husband who undid “Glass-Steagall”… enacted by FDR to prohibit banks from gambling with depositor’s money… in a futile bid to appease Republicans when they were trying to impeach him, so as you might expect, she is unwilling to admit that was a mistake or call for its reinstatement. However, during Friday’s debate, she did call for a “twenty-first century” version of the act. She originally supported the Keystone XL pipeline but now claims to oppose it. And perhaps most famously, she called the TPP (“Trans-Pacific Partnership”)… supported by every GOP candidate and most Republicans in Congress… “the Gold-Standard” of trade agreements before deciding she was against it just last year.

She says she wants “Universal Health care”, but then spent the two weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucus to attack Bernie Sanders for advocating a “Single Payer Universal Health Care system”, even going as far as to say Single-Payer will “never ever” happen, continuing to suggest a President Sanders would dismantle The Affordable Care Act before replacing it with an entirely new system built from scratch. She has been attacking Sanders on his support of some seemingly “pro-gun” legislation, singling out a vote to “allow firearms on Amtrak” trains. But she is knowingly committing the sin of omission by leaving out the fact that the law only permits firearms to be transported as “checked luggage” in the baggage compartment or trains, not carried around by passengers (Sanders comes from a rural state and hunters needed to be able to ship their weapons with them while traveling.) And during the New Hampshire debate, she made the disingenuous (and wholly Conservative) accusation that Bernie’s health care plan “would cost over a trillion dollars” (it wouldn’t.) As I pointed out above regarding her 2014 attack on Obama, Hillary has never been afraid to adopt Republican talking points to attack fellow Democrats for personal gain.

While touting her desire for “Clean Energy” to fight Global Warming, the Clinton campaign has yet to reveal her position on Fracking (even attending a fundraiser two weeks before Iowa in the headquarters of a major investor in Fracking) and her SuperPAC’s website brags about “Clinton’s aggressive pro-fracking record” [ibid]. When told her campaign received $150,000 from the oil & gas industry, she plead ignorance.

Most polls seem to indicate Clinton has the “African-American vote locked up”, in great part due to her husband being bestowed the label of “our first black president” for addressing minority issues. But Hillary may not be so worthy of their unquestioned support. During the 2008 race, she was the only candidate who refused to “retroactively reduce/repeal extended penalties of those convicted of using ‘crack’ cocaine vs ‘powdered’.” and she is presently only willing to consider “more research” on the legalization of medical marijuana despite a “sentencing disparity” that disproportional affects African-Americans. She opposes raising the Minimum Wage to $15/hour (only willing to go to $12) which affects more minorities than whites. And one might also wonder why the Private Prison industry is raising cash for the Clinton campaign (private prisons push for more & more “minimum sentencing” laws to fill up the prisons… and their coffers)… the scourge of African American voters.

In 2008, as the race tightened between her and then-Senator Obama, her attacks became more personal. I noted in the intro how she suggested John McCain was more ready to be president than Barack Obama… not once but twice, first stating McCain had more experience, and then dismissing Obama’s qualifications as nothing more than a speech he gave in 2002.” This is the same person now bemoaning criticism from Senator Sanders as “personal attacks”, and how “disappointed” she is that he has resorted to them. But as we are presently seeing, it appears she is quick to resort to misleading attacks and disparaging the character of her opponent as she sees the possibility of the presidency slipping away. I have no qualms against a “fighter”, but please don’t take pages from the Conservative playbook to do it (see: “Amtrak” above.)

Hillary IS a “Progressive”, though not exactly a strong “Liberal”. Her civil rights bona fides go back to 1972, when she investigated school discrimination in Dothan, Ala., for the Children’s Defense Fund. In 1980, she condemned prisoner abuses in Arkansas prior to her husband becoming governor. She had a “75% lifetime rating” with the ACLU prior to the 2008 election (though it took a bit of a nose-dive to just 67% in 2007 as she campaigned against Barack Obama for president (I’ll let you decide if that means anything.) Both she & Sanders have a 100% rating with NARAL Pro-Choice America and (while Senator) she had an 89% rating with the “Human Rights Campaign” (who endorsed her over Sanders with a 100% lifetime rating.) “Crowdpac”, the voter education website, rated Hillary at “6.5L” (or 65% Liberal) behind O’Malley (6.7L) and Sanders “7.6L” (for reference, Trump has a “0.4L” rating and Ted Cruz rates “9.5C”… 95% Conservative rating.)

Early last year, when people like me were urging Senator Sanders to enter the race, the thinking was “even if it is futile… with a Clinton victory already appearing inevitable… the idea of her running unopposed with no one there to push her to the Left was a distressing thought.” If nothing else, a competitive campaign would be good Debate-Prep for the General election. The last thing anyone wants is for their candidate to go in cold, having not participated in a “real” debate in nearly eight years. Simply forcing Hillary… with her Conservative tendencies… to track Left has already been a huge victory for the Sanders campaign.

Now, if it turns out Hillary wins the DNC nomination, as I stated in the intro, I will vote for her. I’m hoping my saying that doesn’t work against Sanders with people thinking the safe vote is Hillary since Bernie supporters have promised they’ll vote for her anyway. Bernie was right at the pre-New Hamphire debate last Friday that “both of us are 100x better on our worst day than anyone on the other side”, and the next president may end up nominating as many as THREE Supreme Court Justices (at least two of whom would be from the Liberal wing of the court.) I have FAR more faith in a President Hillary nominating a Progressive justice than a lunatic like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Even the seemingly benign Marco Rubio has repeated his support for a “fetal personhood Amendment that would outlaw many forms of birth control and turn every miscarriage into a murder investigation.

Before Clinton supporters start attacking me, I’ve backed up every accusation with links & sources. I invite you to draw your own conclusions.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

February 8, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · 6 Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, fake scandals, myth busting, National Security, War

Cruz Comfortably Beats Trump in Iowa. Dems still too close to call. Suspicious Clinton bounce repealed.

Share
 

Going into the wee hours of the morning, I was watching Hillary Clinton’s delegate lead shrink all night, when around 9pm CST, with 18% of precincts left to go, leading by only 11 delegates, the Clinton campaign declared victory despite all the pollsters saying it was “too close to call.” Her lead continued to shrink with every update. By the time the number of precincts was down to just 10% remaining, her lead had shrunk to just THREE delegates when she decided to make her (pseudo) “victory” speech. Then suddenly, with an additional 1% of precincts, her lead suddenly jumped to a whopping ELEVEN delegates. That lead held for another 20 minutes when it suddenly plunged back down to just 3. The explanation? According to Chuck Todd: “A reporting error” was to blame that was caught & corrected. Hmmm. Those kind of “innocent mistakes” make me extremely uncomfortable.

With 2% of precincts still remaining as of midnight (around 1,600+ precincts), the Sanders campaign reported “90 Precincts presently had no DNC staff” (on site?), meaning no one available to count votes. Uncomfortable #2. The DNC rebuked the Sanders claim, though saying only the staff is “available” but not “on site” to tally those votes. Sounds to me like the Sanders’ campaign was right.

Most under-reported story of the night? How badly 5th place Rand Paul beat 6th place Jeb Bush (by roughly 3,200 votes.)

What does a second place finish mean for Trump? Consider his entire campaign has been one big ego trip, so coming in second was a wake-up call for him. He should win New Hampshire easily, but I doubt he’ll be taking future races for granted.

Final tally with “99% of precincts reporting” (not including those unstaffed 90 precincts and with recounts and “reporting errors” yet to be reviewed)… Hillary: 696 – Sanders: 693 – O’Malley: 8. Shortly after midnight, O’Malley officially dropped out. (note: by 12:50am, Bernies’ delegate count had fallen by one vote? Uncomfortable #3.) You can see my final hour Live-blog updates here.

MORNING UPDATE: Went to bed after 1AM. Super-Delegate count for Hillary & Bernie was 20 each. Was tied all night long. Woke up to see total is now Hillary-29/Bernie-21.
 
Rubio’s subtle hat-tip to the “Project for A New American Century”? (more here):

Rubio's nod to PNAC?

 
Ted Cruz flanked by the despicable Steve King and Cruz’s wacko-bird father (who held this exact pose for several minutes, staring straight ahead without blinking.)
The despicable threesome.

 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share

February 2, 2016 · Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, General, Politics, Predictions, voting