Showing posts with label DNC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DNC. Show all posts

Friday, February 28, 2020

Is Bloomberg Buying the DNC? If So, What Does He Plan to Do With It?

From Naked Capitalism - and Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report

World behavior (and reader in better run emerging economies will no doubt say that that’s not a feature of their political landscape). But the US crossed that Rubicon with the intel-security state acting as if it has the authority to approve who sits in the White House. 
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny!

Paradise lost. One misstep is all it takes to take the proud down low.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud.
—With apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

This is a small point that leads to a larger one. Consider what Mike Bloomberg is building within the Democratic Party, within the DNC. According to the following analysis he’s turning the DNC into an anti-Sanders machine, a force loyal to himself, that will operate even after Sanders is nominated, even after Sanders is elected, if he so chooses.
With that he hopes to limit and control what Sanders and his rebellion can do. It’s the ultimate billionaire counter-rebellion — own the Party machine that the president normally controls, then use it against him.
Our source for this thought is Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report. Ford is one of the more vitriolic defenders of radical change in America, but in this analysis I don’t think he’s wrong, at least in making the case that Bloomberg is giving himself that option. But do decide for yourself.
Here’s his case:
Bloomberg Wants to Swallow the Democrats and Spit Out the Sandernistas
If, somehow, Bernie Sanders is allowed to win the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and other plutocrats will have created a Democratic Party machinery purpose-built to defy Sanders — as nominee, and even as president.
The details of his argument are here (emphasis added):
Bloomberg has already laid the groundwork to directly seize the party machinery, the old fashioned way: by buying it and stacking it with his own, paid operatives, with a war-against-the-left budget far bigger than the existing Democratic operation. Bloomberg’s participation in Wednesday’s debate, against all the rules, is proof-of-purchase.
In addition to the nearly million dollar down payment to the party in November that sealed the deal for the debate rules change, Bloomberg has already pledged to pay the full salaries of 500 political staffers for the Democratic National Committee all the way through the November election, no matter who wins the nomination. Essentially, Bloomberg will be running the election for the corporate wing of the party, even if Sanders is the nominee.
In an interview with PBS’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday night, senior Bloomberg advisor Timothy O’Brien made it clear that the DNC is in no condition to refuse being devoured by Bloomberg, even if they wanted to. O’brien predicted the Republicans will spend at least $900 million on the election, while the DNC has only about $8 million on hand. Even the oligarch’s underlings are telegraphing the takeover game plan.
Bloomberg is not so much running for president as making sure that the Democrats don’t go “rogue” anti-corporate to accommodate the Sandernistas. He is ensuring that the Democratic Party will be an even more hostile environment for anti-austerity politics than in the past – not in spite of the phenomenal success of the Sanders project, but because of it.
Ford has not much love for Bernie Sanders, as he finds Sanders (and his supporters) weak for sticking with the Democrats. Ford thinks Sanders should go “third party” in his opposition to the corrupt duopoly that owns our politics. That’s a point on which we can disagree without disagreeing that the duopoly is indeed corrupt, or that Bloomberg is setting himself up for post-electoral mischief.
Ford also thinks the Party will split in the face of this anti-Sanders resistance, especially if the counter-resistance continues after a President Sanders is inaugurated.
We’ll see about all that. Ford may be right in his estimate of Bloomberg’s intentions. He may also be right in Bloomberg’s ability to carry through if his intentions are indeed as Machiavellian as he says.
On the other hand, Sanders may gather to himself enough control of the DNC and other Party machinery that he does indeed transform it, and with it, slowly, the Party itself. That’s certainly been his game plan, and if he does indeed have a movement behind him — a really big one — I wouldn’t bet against him being right. I myself don’t see a way for a third party to succeed in the U.S. unless it’s a “virtual third party” — but more on that at another time.
The Larger Point
So this is our smaller point, that Mike Bloomberg may be positioning himself to “own” the DNC, and with it enough of the Democratic Party, so that he can himself rein in a President Sanders. Is that his goal? It certainly seems possible. “Mini-Mike” is certainly Machiavellian.
Which leads to the larger point: How much rebellion, within the DNC and elsewhere, with or without Bloomberg’s interference, will someone like President Sanders encounter and how long will it last? If it lasts throughout his presidency, that’s a horse of a different color — a much darker one.
In fact, the dark horse of today’s American politics is the entrenched, corrupt (and frankly, pathological) über-rich and their death grip on all of our governing institutions, including the press. Will that death grip tighten as the Sanders movement grows? And will they continue to squeeze the throats of the working class, even as the victims find their own throats and tighten in response?
Would you bet, in other words, that the rich who rule us wouldn’t kill the country that feeds their wealth — wouldn’t spark such a confused and violent rebellion that even they would be forced at last to flee — won’t do all all this out of animus, pique and world-historical hubris?
That bet is even money all the way. They just might try it, just might be willing to strangle the body itself, the political body, just to see how far it they can get by doing it.
Whom the gods would destroy…

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Did the DNC Pass a Perez Resolution Reversing Ban on Donations From Fossil Fuel PACs? -- Common Dreams

Just two months after the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was celebrated by environmentalists for banning donations from fossil fuel companies, it voted 30-2 on Friday to adopt a resolution from Chair Tom Perez that critics said effectively reverses the ban and represents "an absolute failure by the DNC."... Common Dreams
A good chunk of the socialist left despises the Democratic Party and believes working within the party is a dead end. Stories like this helps them make a case. I have been tilting back and forth myself -- paint me confused -- which is why I am reading all sides and posting various points of view --- I just don't want to be trapped in a left bubble.
 
Whenever you think it's safe to jump back into the fight for the Democratic Party you read a story like this. I still think there are not currently any realistic alternatives than to put leftward pressure on the party from below. But despite tilting left, the center is strong with money being a major factor. Changing the party at the top will not be easy -- but from below, maybe. Right now electoral politics is the game and will a blue wave sweep the party and if so how does that play in the nation as a whole?
 
Oh -- NY Times columnist David Brooks just said on Meet the Press "How will the Democrats manage to screw it up this time because they always do?" Then he said as long as they don't swing too far left -- and he says other than a few places, they haven't. [More about this soon where the NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg makes the opposite case - that the left is making important inroads.]
 
Is this a screw up or a smart move? I think making the left enraged will not help the Dems. I mean they can try to snare the more progressive Republicans but this is a short term solution. I just don't see how to bridge the distance between so many disparate points of view even if the uniting factor is despising Trump.

On the other hand, the DNC is claiming it is not a reversal so is this a bit of distorted reporting?
DNC Passes Perez Resolution Reversing Ban on Donations From Fossil Fuel PACs
 
Published on
by
Activists immediately denounced the measure, which "also recommits the party to an 'all of the above' energy stance."
by
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Tom Perez was elected to his current role at a meeting in February of 2017. (Photo: Edward Kimmel/Flickr/cc)

The Huffington Post's Alexander Kaufman tweeted Friday:

UPDATE: resolution passed in a 30-to-2 vote.

from DNC epic: “After hearing concerns from Labor that this was an attack on workers, this resolution acknowledges the generous contributions of workers, including those in energy, who organize and donate to Democratic candidates.”

Read the entire CD story here:


In an email to me, a DNC spokeswoman disputed the characterization in my story, saying "it's not a reversal."
But the resolution opens the door donations from fossil fuel “employers’ political action committees" and nods to “forward-looking employers” that are “powering America’s all-of-the-above energy economy."
  • Molly Kelly, a former New Hampshire state lawmaker running for governor, just put out a statement condemning the DNC resolution.