DNC closes ranks: new rule excludes interlopers

[TriPolar]

@asahi

Right, the right wing is bat shit insane, so blame the Democrats.

It’s the Democrats fault the batshit insane are in power. How deluded are you? The Democrats have been on a steady losing streak and even with the most corrupt nutbag president of all time in office it’s unclear if they can even take back the House in the midterms. Now their plan comes right out of the GOP playbook, doubling down on the stupid. Step back and think about what is happening, stop blaming everyone else for the party’s failures. The Democratic Party needs to be more inclusive, not less so.

[OldGuy]

I wish we in CT had rules that would have prevented Lieberman from running as an Independent, excuse me Connecticut for Lieberman party candidate. This was a party he never even joined remaining a registered Democrat. He then carried the state in 2006 with many Republicans voting for him in a three party race.

He remained registered as a Democrat and caucused with them for a bit, but effectively became a Republican. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2008 endorsing McCain. I understand he was McCain’s choice as VP, but higher ups did not approve. It was his refusal to support the public option in the ACA that led to its withdrawal as he was the crucial 60th vote. I’ll never forgive him for that.

[Wesley_Clark]

@eschereal

If Bernie were president, we would not have Gorsuch, or Pruitt or DeVos or Cow-Pai, and most of the rest of the world would have at least a half a shred of respect left for the US. And he probably would have vetoed that ridiculous tax bill. So, a little less destruction would have been better than what we have.

These are all valid points. Judges wouldn’t be getting confirmed, the tax bill never would’ve gotten passed, the cabinet would be full of professionals, and the world would respect us more.

All valid. However I wonder if Trump is worth the possibility that he will move society away from his white nationalist agenda. Had Bernie or Hillary won, the GOP would pick up even more seats on the state and federal level, resulting in even more right wing legislation down the road. But who knows maybe Trump just makes white nationalism more socially acceptable w/o harming the GOP. That is also a realistic outcome of his reign, the GOP is just as powerful as it always was but now it is more shamelessly white nationalist and authoritarian.

@TriPolar

The Democratic Party put us there. What have they done for this country this century? And don’t say the ACA, they fought Obama tooth and nail on that one, and he had to win the primaries with grass roots populism. Don’t forget Hillary started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ crap that led to Birtherism. They keep talking big and delivering nothing because they’re practicing machine politics. The political party system is a blight on this country and now they’re making it worse. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans can win an election with just their members anymore, Trump has sent a lot of Republicans to the ‘I’ column, this is not the way to pick them up.

The ACA was a heritage plan that removed every reform that would’ve actually reduced medical costs, because reforms that reduce medical costs anger and enrage rich and powerful people. That is partly why Bernie was so popular. Bernie knows single payer enrages the rich and powerful, and he doesn’t care.

Hillary didn’t start birtherism. Birtherism was started by angry white republicans

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk

Income inequality keeps going up. Our democracy is under assault by domestic and foreign threats. People can’t afford health care or education. Unemployment is low but wages aren’t going up. And it feels like all the democratic party offers are platitudes while then going on and doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. We need genuine reform.

Granted, things did improve a little under Obama. Tax rates on the rich went up nearly 6 points. The ACA was better than nothing and a good start. But I think the entirety of Obama’s 8 years of tax hikes on the rich was wiped out with 1 bill passed by the GOP via budget reconciliation. What does that tell you, it takes Obama 8 years to do what the GOP did in 1?

But for a lot of us, these are our choices.

Mild improvements under the democrats.
Massive declines under the republicans.

People are tired of being asked to vote for 1 step left, or 3 steps to the right as their only options. Yeah, 1 step left is better than 3 steps right, but why can’t our side offer 3 steps left too. Where are our FDRs, LBJs, etc who would push us 3 steps left?

[TriPolar]

@Wesley_Clark

The ACA was a heritage plan that removed every reform that would’ve actually reduced medical costs, because reforms that reduce medical costs anger and enrage rich and powerful people. That is partly why Bernie was so popular. Bernie knows single payer enrages the rich and powerful, and he doesn’t care.

The ACA turned into a bastardized version of what Obama wanted because of the lack of support by the Democrats. And it’s because they were obeying their masters in the insurance and health care industry just like the Republicans.

Hillary didn’t start birtherism. Birtherism was started by angry white republicans

You know very well that the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ chant started in the Hillary campaign. And she didn’t stand up against it, she left that to McCain, Obama’s opponent in the general election. And it was the precursor of Birtherism because Hillary did the GOP and alt-right’s marketing research for them.

[GIGObuster]

:sigh:

It looks like the perfect is still the enemy of the good.

[Bone]

@Ravenman

We have had tons of True Scotsman lefties run for President in the Democratic primaries. Before 2016, I guess nobody saw the need to have a rule closing the “Air Bud Loophole” - there isn’t anything in the rule book saying a dog can’t play basketball.

And most of those lefties have lost primaries in a generally convincing way. Let’s not pretend that radicalism is mainstream.

“Air Bud loophole” is an awesome reference

[GIGObuster]

@TriPolar

You know very well that the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ chant started in the Hillary campaign. And she didn’t stand up against it, she left that to McCain, Obama’s opponent in the general election. And it was the precursor of Birtherism because Hillary did the GOP and alt-right’s marketing research for them.

No, that is well known incorrect information pushed by right wing sources of information:

Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk

The website promoted the theory with an email that read, “Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President,” as Daily Beast editor John Avlon has documented.

According to Avlon, Linda Starr, a Clinton volunteer in Texas, was key to spreading the rumor. She connected with with Philip Berger, an attorney and Clinton supporter, who sued to block Obama’s nomination. The suit was thrown out.

But this is not the same thing as Clinton or her campaign promoting the theory. There is no evidence that they ever have done so. Clinton has dismissed the allegation when Trump made his accusation last September in an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon.

“That is — no. That is so ludicrous, Don. You know, honestly, I just believe that, first of all, it’s totally untrue, and secondly, you know, the president and I have never had any kind of confrontation like that,” Clinton said. “You know, I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me.”

(Another thing to note: Clinton volunteers forwarded emails promoting the myth that Obama is a Muslim. As we have previously reported, both resigned from the campaign after they were found to have spread the rumor. The Clinton campaign condemned their actions and said it was unauthorized.)

Our ruling

Trump said, “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy.”

There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama. But the record does not show Clinton or her campaign ever promoting the birther theory, let alone starting it.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

[TriPolar]

@GIGObuster

No, that is well known incorrect information pushed by right wing sources of information:

PolitiFact | Fact-checking Donald Trump's claim Hillary Clinton started Obama birther movement

I’ve known it was Hillary from the beginning. I heard it first from a Democratic Party insider before it even hit the news. It doesn’t matter exactly who started it and when, it matters that Hillary didn’t stand up to defend Obama. Just another reason she lost in the primaries in 2008, and the general in 2016.

[GIGObuster]

@TriPolar

I’ve known it was Hillary from the beginning. I heard it first from a Democratic Party insider before it even hit the news. It doesn’t matter exactly who started it and when, it matters that Hillary didn’t stand up to defend Obama. Just another reason she lost in the primaries in 2008, and the general in 2016.

It seems that it also helps to not read the articles cited already by** Wesley Clark **to continue to be mistaken.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

After years of denying the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency, it was only in the midst of his own presidential campaign that Donald Trump began falsely claiming Hillary Clinton was the true progenitor of the “birther” conspiracy theory claiming Obama was not born in the United States.

But that’s swapping one discredited claim for another. Numerous fact checks, reports and interviews — in 2008 and 2011, when Trump revived the controversy — revealed that although some Clinton supporters circulated rumors about Obama’s citizenship, the campaign and Clinton herself never trafficked in it.

“There has never been evidence that Clinton or her campaign started the birther rumors,” said Ben Smith, editor in chief of BuzzFeed, who as a POLITICO reporter in 2011 linked the origin of the “birther” movement to a fringe politician in Illinois. Some hardcore Clinton backers circulated the rumors in 2008, but the campaign itself steered clear.

“As we reported, some of her supporters flirted with the idea in 2008 — but it has its origins in the fever swamps beginning in Illinois in 2004,” he said.

In fact, birtherism, as it’s been called, reportedly began with innuendo by serial Illinois political candidate Andy Martin, who painted Obama as a closet Muslim in 2004. That spiraled into a concerted effort by conspiracy theorists to raise doubts about Obama’s birthplace and religion — and essentially paint him as un-American.

Martin, who briefly launched a little-noticed presidential campaign last year, has disavowed the movement he’s often credited with starting, though he still foments similarly discredited doubts about Obama’s religion.

Clinton’s 2008 hands are recoiling at Trump’s revisionism about their role in propagating the lie about Obama’s citizenship. “The suggestion that the Hillary campaign was pushing birtherism in 2008 is bunk. It’s fiction,” said Phil Singer, who was Clinton’s 2008 press secretary.

Much of the insinuation that Clinton had a hand in birtherism traces to the role of her then-senior strategist Mark Penn, who issued a memo in 2007 suggesting that Clinton emphasize Obama’s upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia and paint him as fundamentally un-American. The memo never questioned Obama’s citizenship but did suggest highlighting his “lack of American roots.”

“[H]is roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited,” Penn wrote. “I cannot imagine electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

The Clinton campaign never employed Penn’s strategy, and to this day it provokes sharply different perceptions among those who remember discussing it. Two sources with knowledge of the deliberations say Penn’s memo caused a “near-staff revolt” at the time it came up and contributed to factional infighting that would later hobble the campaign.

Another source who recalled the discussion dismissed that perception as revisionist, arguing instead that the memo was barely considered at all. “This memo got about 30 seconds of discussion and the only recommendation was that she emphasize her Midwest upbringing,” the source said. “While the campaign may have disagreed on going negative on Barack Obama, this paragraph had nothing to do with those discussions and it did not in any cause any discussion of his citizenship.”

[TriPolar]

Gigo, I don’t know what you are talking about, and neither do you. I didn’t say Hillary started Birtherism. Her campaign started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ bullshit, and she went along with it, and that paved the way for Birtherism.

[GIGObuster]

@TriPolar

Gigo, I don’t know what you are talking about, and neither do you. I didn’t say Hillary started Birtherism. Her campaign started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ bullshit, and she went along with it, and that paved the way for Birtherism.

Well, I do know what a straw man is. So you are also wrong about what I’m talking about.

Even that last bit about “Her campaign started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ bullshit, and she went along with it” is wrong, please read the cites again.

[Lord_Feldon]

Does this actually change anything in practice, or have anything to do with Bernie? IIRC there were states that required a similar declaration before a candidate could get on the ballot, and he got on those ballots just fine.

[Banquet_Bear]

@TriPolar

Her campaign started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ bullshit, and she went along with it, and that paved the way for Birtherism.

…cite?

[TriPolar]

@GIGObuster

Well, I do know what a straw man is. So you are also wrong about what I’m talking about.

Even that last bit about “Her campaign started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ bullshit, and she went along with it” is wrong, please read the cites again.

Your cites range from not countering what I stated to being flat out wrong. My statement has nothing to do with anything Trump said, I pay no more attention to what he says than the barking of the yappy dog across the street.

[GIGObuster]

@TriPolar

Your cites range from not countering what I stated to being flat out wrong. My statement has nothing to do with anything Trump said, I pay no more attention to what he says than the barking of the yappy dog across the street.

Well, since I trust less what someone says on the internet I do look at the reporters that investigated the issue, and I do quote them.

And what you are saying is not what Trump said exactly, but the findings also show that it is also wrong to claim that “Her campaign started the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ bullshit, and she went along with it”

[BigT]

I really need to read the article before typing up long replies based on the summaries. It wastes times if the summary is inaccurate.

I see absolutely no claim in the article that someone must swear or affirm allegiance to the party. All I see is a rule that they must be a part of the party, accept the Democratic nomination, and “run and serve” as a member.

So my first complaint doesn’t apply: there is no swearing allegiance. There is nothing saying that the Democratic Party can control you.

My second complaint, however, does still apply. I don’t see how this would keep anyone out. If someone wants to undermine the party, they would have no problem doing all of these things. It’s like asking a liar if they are lying–it’s pointless.

As for the Bernie issue: I do see an argument that he fractured the party in a way that he was unable to heal. The way he ran against Clinton hurt her, and there were people who were Bernie-or-bust. And the percentage Clinton lost by was small enough that this could have made a difference. Plus Stein (the pro-Bernie protest vote) did get higher vote totals than the Trump margin in key states.

What I haven’t seen, however, is the argument that shows this was because Bernie was an Independent. I don’t see why this couldn’t have happened with any challenger that ran to the left. What did Sanders do in this election that a “true Democrat” would not have done? Claim corruption in his opponent’s favor? Run anti-establishment? I bet a non-Clinton Democrat would have done that, too.

[foolsguinea]

@Ravenman

Why not? To be part of the leadership of an organization, a person should be (a) in the organization and (b) support in a general sense the goals of the organization.

The Democratic Party has goals?

[kaylasdad99]

Maybe not, but if they’re looking for one, I’d like to suggest the utter annihilation of the Republican Party.

[Alessan]

@asahi

Right, the right wing is bat shit insane, so blame the Democrats.

Say what you want about the tenets of the Republican Party, but at least it’s an ethos.

[BobLibDem]

Hillary did not start the “Obama is a Muslim” bullshit.

As for the myth that Obama is a Muslim, the record shows that a couple of Clinton campaign volunteers in Iowa passed along emails with that claim. Such emails had been circulating for several months. The volunteers did not share this rumor widely, and at least one paid Clinton staffer immediately renounced it. The Clinton campaign moved quickly to remove the volunteers. We could find no evidence of a deeper connection to Clinton or her campaign.

I support limiting Democratic presidential candidates to those who are actually Democrats. If Bernie wanted to run as a Democrat, then he should join the party. He’s going to be too old to run in 2020 anyway and it was his painstakingly long delay in endorsing Hillary that had a small part in her defeat.

If you’re worried about third party candidates, don’t bother. I don’t take seriously anyone who votes for third party candidates, some of them (Jill Stein, Ralph Nader) just ran on massive ego trips and one party (Libertarian) just run on a pseudo-intellectual morally bankrupt philosophy that just appeals to the far right fringes.