More of Hillary's Prominent Allies Are Dishonest about Bernie

As rising support for Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought an end to the first-place status of ex-sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in polling about the two earliest contests in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, namely the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the number of well-known backers of the former secretary of State who have hurled invalid attacks on the ex-mayor of Burlington spiked.

In Politico, ex-representative Barney Frank (D-MA) argued liberals should support Clinton, whom Sanders trails in nationwide polling.  Next is a candid paraphrase of one part of the former state legislator's column, followed by quotes of it and by rebuttals.

Clinton (Dept. of State)

Frank:  The momentum behind Sanders is preventing Clinton from having a cakewalk to the top of the ticket!  To incite such an inconvenience to the queen quintessential candidate of the establishment essence of the Democratic Party by compelling her to work for a nomination to again reside in the White House is just bad form.  Ergo, you pesky peasants populists ought to learn that competition is overrated and stop causing the former first lady's campaign to campaign.  It has better things to do before the coronation convention, like raise an obscene amount of corporate money, which would be useful against the Republican standard-bearer, whose operation will also have an obscene amount of corporate money but who we will allege is somehow more beholden to the economic elite than Clinton is.

Reality:  Whoever will attain the Democratic nomination, regardless of what his attainment of it will have cost his campaign, does not deserve to win the presidency if he will find arduousness in the attempt to vanquish whichever menace the Republicans put forward.

Frank:  "[T]he most effective thing liberals... can do to advance our... goals on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reduction of income inequality, completion of the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protection of women's autonomy... and other critical matters... is to help Clinton win our nomination early."

Reality, issue by issue:  Sanders, endorsed by National Nurses United (the largest organization of nurses in this country), is in the plurality of Americans that backs the proposal of Medicare-for-All, a.k.a. single-payer.  Clinton is not.  In 1993, then-Rep. Bernie Sanders led a concerted effort to persuade Clinton to embrace that idea while she chaired the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, which was impaneled by her husband, who was chief executive of this land at the time.  However, she nixed the solution and presented a mainly corporatist concoction: the "Health Security Act," which the then-president sent to Congress but which died in committee in each house of it.

Sanders remains a proponent of Medicare-for-All.  But Clinton, in her original quest for the presidency, lurched to the right on health care coverage by offering the thrust of what congressional Republicans had counter-proposed 14 years earlier.

Obama (Peter
Souza / White House)

As then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran against Clinton in 2008, he warned that her plan for an individual mandate, i.e. a financial penalty for the choice not to buy private health-insurance, would create "a situation, which we see... in... Massachusetts, where people... choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford [health insurance] even with the subsidies."  He added, "The insurance companies don't mind [the proposal for government to] make sure everyone has to purchase their product."

By the way, despite having knocked that element, Obama codified it as president when he signed the "Affordable Care Act," which is similar to the Republicans' old bill and was penned by a former executive of the most colossal health-insurance corporation in the United States.

Sanders voted against, and Clinton voted in favor of, construction of the fence along the border between the United States and Mexico.  As for the question of whether to allow driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, Clinton has been in favor, been opposed, and been both simultaneously.

Sanders proposes a breakup of the financial institutions of at least the size that, amid the meltdown of 2008, was of the smallest to be described by its executives as "too big to fail" and to thus receive a federal bailout.  Specifically, he backs a bill to restore the Glass-Steagall Act, which was one of the measures President Franklin Roosevelt signed to prevent another financial crash of the type that had triggered the Great Depression.

Gore (Dept. of State)

Sanders voted against the repeal of that law.  Clinton favors the repeal.  Al Gore, who was vice president when the repeal was signed, has called it "a big mistake."  For his first term in that role, Gore served alongside Robert Reich, who was secretary of Labor then.  Reich has also condemned the repeal and has denounced Pres. Obama's choice not to pursue restoration of Glass-Steagall when Democrats were the majority in both houses of Congress.  Additionally, Reich has asserted that unless the restoration is achieved, those "too big to fail" banks, which are 35% larger than they were immediately before the meltdown, will provoke another on as vast a scale.

Sanders voted against, and Clinton voted in favor of, the aforementioned bailout, which contained $120 million for Signature Bank, on whose board of directors Frank sits.  Maybe Frank's acceptance of a total of nearly $4.5 million from the finance, insurance and real-estate sector for his last 11 campaigns helps him relate to Clinton, who accepted a total of over $31 million from that sector for her previous bids for office.

Seven months after the Bankruptcy Reform Act was pocket-vetoed with Clinton's approval, she voted in favor of what was basically the same bill, which failed once more to become law.  In 2005, Clinton made another change of position on this issue but was absent when the Senate again passed that legislation, against which Sanders always voted.  It proceeded to be signed by George W. Bush and became a principal agent of the foreclosure crisis by majorly compounding the difficulty of 1) declaration of bankruptcy and 2) renegotiation of credit-card debt.

Free trade concentrates wealth by facilitating corporations' transference of jobs from their own country to places where workers can be exploited to a greater extent.  Clinton has supported and opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement.  She voted in favor of free-trade pacts with Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco and Oman.  With regard to the one with Peru, she missed the vote but announced support for it.  With respect to the free-trade pact with Colombia and the one with South Korea, Clinton has supported and opposed each.  Sanders voted against eight of those nine pacts, the exception being the last listed, on which he missed the vote but against which he spoke.

Reich
("Democracy Now!")

Clinton has voiced support for, but now has a vague stance on, the TPP.  The Obama administration has inexplicably classified that proposed free-trade agreement and lets members of Congress read it only without carrying any electronic device, without writing notes they would bring out of the room, and without any staff member who lacks a security clearance.  Sanders has always voted to hinder the TPP.

Clinton supported the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," a.k.a. "welfare reform," which intensified extreme poverty among children.  Sanders voted against that law.  He proposes a minimum wage of $15 per hour by 2020.  Clinton's platform replaces that $15 with $12, which would be a poverty wage for households of at least four people.

The payroll tax applies exclusively to the first $118,500 of one's annual income.  Sanders calls for lifting that cap so more money would be collected from the wealthy and could then be utilized to strengthen Social Security.  On this idea, Clinton declined to take a stance, then stood in opposition, then returned to having no stance.

By endorsing Sanders's current candidacy, several divisions of the AFL-CIO -- which is this country's largest federation of labor unions -- have rebelled against its usual obsequiousness toward corporatist politicians.

Since 1972, Sanders has been on record in favor of removal from law all discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Accordingly, he voted against the "Defense of Marriage Act," which prohibited federal recognition of any same-sex marriage and which allowed each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages granted elsewhere.

Frank (Congressional
Pictorial Directory)

In Clinton's first public appearance as a senatorial candidate after she took residence in the Empire State, she said she would have voted in favor of that law, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor.  Clinton did not endorse marriage equality until 2013, which was after its national inevitability became obvious.

Clinton was predictably a cosponsor of the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005," which then-Sen. Richard Santorum (R-PA) introduced.  Other cosponsors of it included then-Sen. Samuel Brownback (R-KS), then-Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK), then-Rep. William Todd Akin (R-MO) and then-Rep. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (R-LA).  That potential amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have, as Mother Jones reported, created a plausible defense for those who refuse "to perform key aspects of their jobs -- say, pharmacists who won't fill birth-control prescriptions, or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics."

Frank:  "[H]er position on the war [in Iraq] is a legitimate concern...  The question then becomes whether this was a manifestation of a general tendency to support unwise military intervention, or the case of joining every other Democratic senator who had serious presidential ambitions in voting for a war the Bush-Cheney administration had successfully hyped as a necessary defense against terrorism."

Reality:  Whether a decision results from wrongheadedness or from self-interest, the consequence is the same.  Hence, the question is whether either is acceptable from someone who asks to be the most powerful person on Earth.

Clinton neglected to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted to authorize Bush to invade it in violation of the United Nations Charter and, therefore, of the United States Constitution.  Clinton's oath of office was to "defend the Constitution," not to serve herself.  The excuse Frank makes for Clinton is an attack on the rule of law.

Sanders voted against said authorization and that of the Gulf War.  Clinton voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice to be secretary of State even though she obviously had lied in order to, as national security advisor, sell the invasion of and occupation of Iraq.

Sanders (Cmte. on Health,
Education, Labor & Pensions)

Until Clinton declared her first candidacy for president, she voted in favor of every allowance to prolong that occupation.  In the same period, Sanders voted against four such measures.  Clinton did not favor any step toward impeachment of Rice and/or Richard Cheney and/or Bush for offenses related to Iraq or to anything else.  Sanders cosponsored a resolution that would have formed a select committee to investigate the Bush-Cheney administration's misconduct about Iraq and then "make recommendations with regard to grounds for possible impeachment."

Sanders opposed escalation of the occupation of Iraq.  Clinton also did, but simply for the sake of her then-imminent presidential candidacy.  Not until nearly a decade after most voters realized the invasion was wrong did she call her vote to permit it a mistake.

Clinton voted in favor of, and Sanders voted against, authorization for Bush to invade Iran.  Citing unproven danger, Clinton illegally threatened an invasion of that country.  On her advice, Obama escalated the occupation of Afghanistan, which he did without a clear purpose, and ordered an illegal and counterproductive invasion of Libya.

Sanders sharply questioned the escalation in Afghanistan, conveyed the grievance about Obama's choice to invade Libya without congressional consent, urged him to withdraw from there as quickly as possible, and bemoaned the cost of that intervention.  Clinton advised Obama to illegally invade Syria.  Sanders opposed that idea.

Frank:  "There is... no chance... for Sanders to win a national election."

Reality:  The day Frank's piece was published, a CNN/ORC poll of registered voters nationwide commenced.  Upon completion, it showed Sanders trouncing Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, 59% to 38%, which would be the biggest victory in the popular vote in a general election for president of this country since 1972.  To boot, Sanders exceeded Trump by 5 percentage points more than Clinton did in that survey, which debunks almost all of the rest of Frank's piece.

In Business Insider, ex-rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) -- whose wife is employed by Clinton -- claimed that Sanders, who has won elections only when he ran independently of any party, had not explained his decision to seek the Democratic nomination.

Weiner (CPD)

"After a career of steadfastly insisting the Democratic Party was not his home, ...he wants to be not only a member of the party but its standard-bearer," the former NYC councilman stated.

In Vermont, parties exist as organizations with ballot lines but voter registration does not offer party enrollment.  If a candidate in any primary of a given party has never identified with it but represents its electorate better than his opponents who have long embraced that party do, the situation is an indictment of the party's establishment far more than of the candidate in question.

"Is Bernie's newfound party affiliation just a practical decision to run in a party that can win rather than risk being a Nader-esque spoiler on a third party line in November?" 

That question was answered months before Weiner asked it.  For instance, in March, The San Francisco Chronicle reported Sanders "promised he does not aim to be a spoiler.  And he could run as a Democrat."  (In order to stay on topic, I postpone, until a future entry, my explanation of how Ralph Nader did not spoil the 2000 presidential election.)

The article quotes Sanders reasoning, "The difficulty of a candidacy as an independent is that... to get on the ballot in all 50 states... is virtually impossible...  The advantage[s] of a candidacy in the Democratic [process include]... to be in debates with other candidates [and to] attract more media attention."

Weiner's commentary continued, "That's a fair calculation, but doesn't it wipe away Bernie's three decades of standing as a principled Socialist?  Many times over the course of his career, Bernie has repeated... that his independence made him more able to speak truth.  He forcefully argued that his identity was as a Socialist..."

A false premise is generated by capitalization of "socialist" in this matter.  Sanders remains a socialist, i.e. a person whose ideal is a strand of socialism.  For as long as he has lived in the Green Mountain State, he has never been a Socialist, i.e. a member of or candidate of any party that has "Socialist" or a variant thereof in its name.  Sanders's truthfulness and policies are consistent with what they were before he began to contend for the Democratic nomination.

"[H]is battle cry on behalf of American workers is almost as good as that of... Clinton."

Cuomo (nysenate.gov)

What is Clinton's battle cry on behalf of American workers?

Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) told reporters, "I don't think there's any comparison between Hillary Clinton's credentials and qualifications and positions, and Bernie Sanders's," which is a valid statement, given that Clinton pales in contrast to Sanders.

Nonetheless, because the former state attorney general meant the reverse, a juxtaposition of the résumés the two candidates have amassed in public office is appropriate.  Sanders spent eight years as mayor of the largest city in his state.  Clinton has never been chief executive of any government.  Sanders was a member of the House of Representatives for 16 years.  Clinton never served in that chamber.  Sanders has been a senator for longer than Clinton was.  Although Sanders has not headed the Department of State, Clinton has had difficulty citing what she accomplished in it.

Cuomo, who was secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Clinton's spouse, did not specify any issue on which Clinton supposedly has a better position than Sanders does.  But one was named by Gov. Dannel Malloy (D-CT) when "Clinton's campaign dispatched Malloy to New Hampshire," as The Stamford Advocate reported, "to help shore up her support with liberals" who have noticed how conservative she is.

The ex-mayor of Stamford is quoted saying on gun regulation, Clinton's "position among the Democrats is a lot more popular than" is Sanders's, as if popularity determines rightness.  Malloy's lone example: the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, against which Sanders voted due solely to his concern about the aspect under which:

• during the five years the legislation allotted for creation of a nationwide capacity for instant background-checks, no transfer of any handgun from any licensed gun-seller to anyone lacking an applicable permit could occur until at least five days after the seller had requested for the local police to conduct a background check on the potential purchaser, and
• the police department in question would be required to reasonably attempt to honor that request.

Malloy (Jocelyn
Augustino / FEMA)

The said aspect was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States.

[CORRECTION:  With reliance upon Politifact's misinterpretation of the amendment that allotted five years, I wrote Sanders backed an amendment that would have prevented federally-mandated waiting periods.  The latter amendment never existed.]

Moreover, as a candidate for re-election to the Senate, Sanders was rated at merely 8% by the National Rifle Association.  Plus, in October, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released a scorecard that documents that ever since Sanders began his first successful bid for Congress, his campaigns had not received any money from any organization listed on the scorecard as one that lobbies on behalf of corporate manufacturers of guns.

Clinton has supported and opposed a national registry of guns.  But I concede that any candidate who takes every position is sure to have the most popular one.

Preview of BEST OF ENEMIES, Which Opens Tomorrow

In the heat of the most tumultuous year in American history, the flagship of each wing of the bald eagle met in the eye of the storm and, before the eyes of the nation, actualized the quintessence of the clash that was nearly tearing this Union apart.

Already Desperate, Hillary Surrogates Dishonestly Bash Bernie

Two members of Congress who have endorsed the presidential candidacy of former senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were not ready to wait for a truthful basis on which to attack her main rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), as polls showed the lead held in early February by the former secretary of State over the ex-representative shrinking in Iowa by nearly seven-tenths and in New Hampshire by six-sevenths.  Those states will, as is traditional, be the first two in each major party's contest for its presidential nomination.

Clinton (Michael Gross / Dept. of
State), Sanders (berniesanders.com)

On the June 11 edition of Ora's PoliticKING with Larry King, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said of the ex-mayor of Burlington, "I don't know if he likes immigrants, because he doesn't seem to talk about immigrants."

Gutierrez offered no substantive criticism of Sanders, who voted against the fence along the US-Mexico border, who often mentions that his father was an immigrant, and who does discuss immigration.  Clinton, however, voted in favor of that fence and falsely claimed each of her grandparents was an immigrant.  Merely one of them was.

Yet, the congressman confirmed King's remark, "You support Hillary Clinton, who was against driver's licenses for [undocumented immigrants] and now is for it."  (Clinton's blatant waffling on that issue in a debate was arguably the start of the downfall of her first bid to be chief executive of this country.)

Moreover, in the runoff campaign that was held this year for mayor of Chicago, Sanders endorsed populist challenger Jesús García, who is an immigrant.  In contrast, Gutierrez backed corporatist incumbent Rahm Emanuel, who is neither an immigrant nor the son of any immigrant.

On the June 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) stated, "I think the media is giving Bernie a pass right now.  I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he's a socialist...  [T]hey are not really giving the same scrutiny to Bernie Sanders that they're giving to, certainly, Hillary Clinton."

Apparently, McCaskill very rarely reads coverage of Sanders or even listens to any.

She continued, "Any other candidate [who were to have] the numbers Hillary Clinton ha[s]... would be talked about as absolutely untouchable."

Given that the margin between Clinton and Sanders in the Granite State has dwindled to eight percentage points, McCaskill should be asked to name a previous candidate the media considered invincible when his lead with regard to the first presidential primary was as slim.

Gutierrez, McCaskill
(Congressional Pictorial Directory)

"I think Bernie is too liberal to... become president."

A poll conducted by Gallup last month found that 47% of adults in the US (including 26% of Republicans!) are already willing to put a socialist in this nation's highest office -- a percentage that is likely to expand as Sanders continues to explain what socialism means to him.  But due to the following factors, support for him might already be sufficient.

• Said willingness could be higher among registered voters and/or likely voters than among all adults.
• The measurement of that willingness is likely weighed down by the states the Democratic ticket will not try to win.
• The national popular vote is irrelevant to the selection of the president.

The 19 states (DC included) the Democratic ticket carried in each of the last six presidential elections total 242 votes in the Electoral College.  To assert Sanders cannot both hold those and garner the 28 Electoral votes he would need from elsewhere is silly.  Here are some reasons why.

• Florida has 29 Electoral votes.
• The Republican Party will probably be in a weak position when its 15 (or more) presidential candidates have finished their battle against each other, during which they will expose their foolishness.
• The existence of all those candidacies creates a serious possibility of a scenario in which nobody secures a majority of delegates to the Republican National Convention before it is held.  In that case, the intra-party fight would stretch into the summer of 2016.

When granted the opportunity to scrutinize Sanders by citing three elements of what she had just called his "extreme message," McCaskill made several attempts to avoid specification of such examples but eventually gave the following responses.

"He would like to see Medicare-for-All."

So would a plurality of Americans.

"He would like to see expansion of entitlement."

So would McCaskill.  So, by her logic, she is extreme.  By the way, "entitlement" is used as a misnomer for earned benefits.

"He is not worried about a debt at all."

Maybe Sanders should have mentioned the national debt more than the literally 87 times he did during his eight-hour filibuster of the 2010 extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the highest incomes.

"He... is, frankly, against trade."

Opposition by Sanders to the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not mean he opposes trade in general.

Gutierrez and McCaskill gave publicity to the former first lady's much lesser-known opponent only to show us that her team feels vulnerable to his campaign, has no facts to use against him, and is willing to lie.  Smooth.

Today is the Real Independence Day

Although the break by the United States from the United Kingdom was declared on July 4, 1776, the vote by the delegates to the Second Continental Congress to officially adopt independence occurred two days prior.

Abigail Adams, John Adams
(Benjamin Blyth)

Delegate John Adams (MA), who was the leading proponent of that separation and would be the first vice president of and second president of this country, believed the date of the adoption rather than of the declaration should be when the American Revolution is annually honored, as he wrote to his wife Abigail:

The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha in the History of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding Generations as the great anniversary Festival.  It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty.  It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Sh[o]ws, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

Acclaim to Louisiana for Its Legalization of Medical Marijuana

Laws in 24 states and in three territories now reflect an awareness, a sensibility and a compassion the federal government continues to resist for reasons it does not make clear, although they may include fealty to the pharmaceutical industry and to the private prison industry.

 

At least spring brought the resignation of Drug Enforcement administrator Michele Leonhart, who was nominated by George W. Bush, was renominated by President Obama and is perhaps best known for her spectacularly disastrous attempts in front of Congress to defend the racist, dishonest, wasteful, destructive and cruel war on marijuana -- including on medicinal cannabis.

Leonhart also impeded research of the substance.  But the pressure that caused her exit was actually due to the revelation of use of public money by some agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration to hire prostitutes at parties held by drug cartels abroad.

Mourning a Diligent, Intrepid Champion of Truth & Justice

Vincent Bugliosi, who died Saturday, was known mostly as the lawyer who carried out the successful prosecution of Charles Manson for his notorious murders and who chronicled that prosecution in Helter Skelter, the best-selling true crime book ever.

Bugliosi
("Democracy Now!")

I learned of Bugliosi as he promoted his book The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, which is an expansion of his piece "None Dare Call It Treason: Five Supreme Court Justices Are Criminals in the Truest Sense of the Word," which generated more feedback than did anything else The Nation had ever published.

Bugliosi had already lambasted the High Court upon penning No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton: The Supreme Court on Trial, which analyzes the decision that allows for a civil lawsuit against an incumbent president of the United States to be heard and therefore distract him from his exceptionally important duties.

In the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, which is the subject of two documentaries, Bugliosi spells out a case according to which Bush is guilty of having unlawfully killed thousands of US troops by ordering them into Iraq under pretenses he knew to be false.  For as long as Bush lives without a pardon for the misconduct at issue, that case can be brought against him, with regard to any said victim, in a criminal court whose jurisdiction covers the final residence of the victim.

Bugliosi's magnum opus is Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which proves beyond all doubt the murder of the 35th chief executive of this country was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald and which proves beyond a reasonable doubt the crime did not result from any conspiracy.

Bugliosi, with his apt frankness and his passionate devotion to logic and to the rule of law, set a shining example of citizenship, including by waging two campaigns for district attorney of the County of Los Angeles.  Neither ended in victory but he attained a record of 105-1 in felony jury trials as a deputy DA and managed to produce the album Greatest Latin Love Songs of the Century.

Bernie Punctures the Myth of Conservatism as Mainstream

The major news-outlets' coverage of the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for the Democratic presidential nomination, while quite unfair, is vast enough to surprise some of us when we consider that the ex-representative has spent his career fighting abuse by corporations and that corporations own an overwhelming majority of the US media and would be satisfied by the election of frontrunner and ex-sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), whose campaign logo fittingly includes an arrow that points rightward.

Sanders ("Democracy Now!"),
Clinton (Minh Ngo / Dept. of State)

The former secretary of State, not yet validating her campaign staff's remarks that say she understands the need to "work for and earn" votes, has been so elusive as to allow the traction Sanders has attained via an abundance of interviews and of crowded town-hall-style meetings.  Reason would lead us to expect that the appeal of his openness will only grow as Clinton waits another week to hold her kickoff rally, holds it in one of the few least accessible locations in the Big Apple, and waits until weeks from now before she holds events at which she will engage voters who will not be preselected.

With so much of the national spotlight on Sanders, he is skillfully utilizing his opportunity to do something that is of great importance not only for his candidacy but for future left-wing candidacies across this land and that has been done by others but not, in recent years, by anyone with as prominent a platform: boldly advocate liberal stances, concisely explain their wisdom, sharply defend them, and mention that a strong majority of them are popular.

The propaganda according to which liberalism (despite its responsibility for the foundation of this country and for every progression in its history) is generally opposed by the public has persuaded most liberals to drop -- or never develop --  the confidence required to maintain this nation's course toward the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.  The example the former mayor of Burlington now sets is likely to encourage many liberals to (re)gain such confidence.

The widespread support for leftist ideas is evident in statistics such as the following.

Praise to Nebraska for Its Abolition of the Death Penalty

Facts about the racist, classist, cruel, erroneous, ineffective, costly and otherwise objectionable aspects of capital punishment in the United States are available here.

Courage Celebrated & Demonstrated at the Academy Awards

Here are previews of three of my favorite Oscar-winning films that inspire us to be courageous.  After the titles are the years of release, the categories of the Oscars these productions won, and the winners' names, which link to video of their acceptances.

ERIN BROCKOVICH (2000)

Actress in a Leading Role: Julia Roberts

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (2006)

Documentary Feature: director Davis Guggenheim
Original Song: Melissa Etheridge

MILK (2008)

Actor in a Leading Role: Sean Penn
Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black

 

The following are brave statements delivered at Academy Award ceremonies.  These remarks drew reactions that indicate Hollywood is not as liberal as it is often said to be.  Again, years cited are of release.

Declining the award for Actor in a Leading Role for Marlon Brando's

performance in THE GODFATHER (1972), Sacheen Littlefeather refers to

a deadly confrontation between American Indians and the US government.

Accepting the award for Actress in a Supporting Role for her performance

in JULIA (1977), Vanessa Redgrave refers to death threats from people who

sought the termination of her career because of her defense of the Palestinians.

Accepting the award for Documentary Feature for BOWLING FOR

COLUMBINE (2002), director Michael Moore refers to the invasion of Iraq

and to tactics the Bush-Cheney administration employed to scare the public.

Why I Would Support Stein over Sanders

Jill Stein MD announced Friday she has formed a committee to explore the option of pursuing the Green presidential nomination after winning it in 2012 and subsequently receiving the highest percentage of the popular vote of any female contender for president of the United States ever -- a percentage triple the one garnered by the previous standard-bearer of her party.  Those who accepted that nomination in 2000, 2004 and 2008 declined to go for it again.  Now, all who share Stein's basic vision should stand by to take advantage of her consistent and respectable leadership.

Stein (Stein '12 campaign), Sanders
(US Senate Historical Office)

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has values similar to those of Stein and also might seek the highest office in this land but has not used his stature as an independent official to help build a third party, which the public needs and wants*.  The ex-mayor of Burlington apparently remains unwilling to do so.

Additionally, the longest-serving independent member of Congress in history says if he were to wage a campaign outside the major parties, he would suspend it if in fear of being "a spoiler."  Assuming the Democratic nominee in that case would be a corporatist such as former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though, I assert the adage, "One cannot spoil what is already rotten."

Nonetheless, Sanders seems inclined to run as a Democrat if at all even though the Democratic Party has -- despite continual polls showing most in that party and in this country at large are liberal on most issues -- followed the Republicans rightward for decades and would therefore be unlikely to welcome him, a socialist.  Furthermore, I thought the highlight of a Democratic bid by Sanders could be his performance in the primary debates, yet we read Clinton is thinking of simply ducking such confrontations.

As this nation endures an unemployment rate of 23.2%, the largest gap in wealth since before the Great Depression, and other urgent problems, we should not want the entry of a presidential candidate who might, in effect, pull a bait-and-switch by setting forth a leftist platform that will draw people into the political process and then, upon losing the primary race, encouraging them to vote for the status-quo in the general election.

If Sanders were to somehow clinch the nomination, his coattails would -- barring a deep revolution in the party -- be rolled out for, mainly, the same type of Democratic politicians who have resisted the overwhelming majority of his ideas thus far.  The Green standard-bearer, however, surely will head a slate that is devoted to populism and lead a party that will keep fighting for it beyond the next administration.

UPDATE: Great thanks to Mayor David Doonan (G - Greenwich, NY) for publishing this entry at Green Papers and sharing it on the website, Facebook page and Twitter page of the Green Party.

*Gallup's description of the Democratic Party as center-left is false.  Both major parties are center-right.