David Sirota: A Deepening Democratic Party Divide

[marmar]

from truthdig:


A Deepening Democratic Party Divide

Posted on Apr 4, 2015
By David Sirota


For those pining for a Democratic Party that tries to represent more than the whims of the rich and powerful, these are, to say the least, confusing times.

On the presidential campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has been promoting standard pro-middle class rhetoric, yet also has been raking in speaking fees from financial firms. One of her potential primary challengers, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, has been sounding anti-Wall Street themes, but only after finishing up two terms in office that saw his state plow more public pension money into Wall Street firms, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in financial fees.

Similarly, in Washington, the anti-Wall Street fervor of those such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren sometimes seems as if it is on the ascent—that is, until big money comes calling.

Indeed, on the very same day Reuters reported on big banks threatening to withhold campaign contributions from Democratic coffers, Democratic lawmakers abruptly coalesced around Charles Schumer as their next U.S. Senate leader. CNN captured in a blaring headline how unflinching an ally the New York senator has been to the financial elite: “Wall Street welcomes expected Chuck Schumer promotion.” Notably, Democrats appeared ready to promote Schumer over Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, who once dared to publicly complain that “banks frankly own” Capitol Hill.

It would be easy to conclude that the status quo is winning Democratic politics—but a series of high-profile elections shows the trends are markedly different outside the national political arena. .....................(more)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_deepening_democratic_party_divide_20150404

[yeoman6987]

1. So because Republicans are a mess, the media has to say

"See Democratic Party is a mess too". The Democratic Party will be cohesive once we have our nominee. The same cannot be said of Republicans.

[still_one]

2. Exactly. In fact, just looking at 8 years of Obama verses 8 years of bush, if people cannot see the

difference, then either they are not paying attention, or they have major comprehension issues

[marmar]

4. The article isn't about differences between Republicans and Democrats......

...... but about the friction between the Wall Street and populist wings of the Democratic Party. To pretend that there isn't is naive at best.

[still_one]

6. sure it is. Dodd/Frank was a Demographic piece of legislation that not one republican supported.

The financial industry was and is extremely opposed to it and any regulation. In fact they want it repealed. Dodd was no populist, however, the financial regulation bill was a step in the right direction, and even Schumer voted for it:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00208

Ironically Russ Feingold voted against it, because he said it didn't go far enough, and though he was correct, just like the ACA they got something, and it was better than they had before

[yeoman6987]

8. You are right but I don't like the way they are covering it

[sabrina 1]

7. David Sirota is not the Corporate Media. He is a longtime Liberal Blogger who has gone after the

Right on various Liberal forums since the Bush era.

He is correct once again.

I recall him as a writer on DK when that split began before we all realized the CAUSE of it.

The Dem party is losing registered voters, now down to 32% of registered voters.

They can keep claiming there is no split in the party, OR they can start accepting the fact that Dem voters do not support Wall St and/or the MIC controlling their party.

And they can STOP trashing the Left in an attempt to push Wall St policies or the split will be even wider.

[truebluegreen]

10. That's exactly right. Thank you. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

31. My local paper carries his column

Whether you consider him corporate or not he is published in print media.

[sabrina 1]

32. It's about time he got paid for the work he has done over the years. His writing hasn't

changed, nor his views of the issues.

So no, he is not part of the Corporate Media until, unless, he sells out.

Local papers are the best chance for Liberal writers.

It's not uncommon for them to hire good bloggers and writers like Sirota.

[99Forever]

3. The last two paragraphs have a message CorpoDems had better take seriously.

“We’ve put every Democrat in America on notice that there’s a political price to pay for putting the demands of hedge-fund billionaires ahead of the needs of working families,” said Kristen Crowell, executive director of the grassroots Chicago group United Working Families, a sister organization of New York’s progressive Working Families Party.

As perplexing as the Democratic Party’s divide is, Crowell’s straightforward statement rings true. National Democratic politicians may not yet be hearing the message, but if they hope to hang onto power, they probably should start listening.
"

[HereSince1628]

14. Definitely need DCdems to return to concepts of Keynesian economics

and the government as exploiter of surplus productive capacity.

I seriously recommend some democratic hopeful pick-up on Keynesian economics and promote national programs to suck up surplus productive capacity...many as suggested by Obama in the way-back

--creation/expansion of a federal health and safety net system of Federally In-Network clinics & pharmacies for underserved areas specifically designed to work -with- medicaid and medicare,
--support for radial distribution of health centers at the metro-rural maring
--supported by an expanded program to produce more healthcare providers for underserved areas through swaps
of service for forgiveness of educational debt and/or support for malpractice/liability insurance.
--targeted farm-to-food desert nutrition programs that facilitate urban andrural linkages that promote nutiritional
health and regional/local economies
--development of universal rural digital access
--rail and road bridges
--mass transit and high-speed rail circuits
--development of a functional National Smart Grid that accepts small and larger alternative energy inputs.

[sabrina 1]

17. The party faithful won them the House, Senate and the WH. Then they lost both the House

and Senate and had the audacity to BLAME THE VOTERS.

Mostly the Left of the Party were responsible for those victories, then got trashed by the leadership for daring to expect their party to represent them and their interests.

[Karmadillo]

5. You cannot serve the People and mammon.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. w0w ... great graphic. love it. thanks! eom

[Pooka Fey]

11. Campaign finance reform = public (taxpayer) finance of campaigns, repeal of Citizen's United

It needs to be illegal to buy politicians. Until we return to a 'one citizen equals one vote standard', politics is pretty much just theater. Election season has become about popularity, and not issues. I don't think reform is possible, I think things are too far gone. But if a change was possible to achieve, it would start with a complete campaign finance overhaul. This could take 100 years - could the Left commit to something like this?

The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters

[GeorgeGist]

12. Citizens united ...

to divide and conquer the government.

[antigop]

13. Spot on. nt

[bigtree]

15. politicians from Dem voters, maybe

...but the party faithful aren't divided. Sirota should know this.

[sabrina 1]

16. Sirota is correct, the party faithful ARE divided. Many Dems have left the party due to the

division, and are now registered as Independents.

Sirota is a longtime Democrat who has been writing for years and witnessed, as many of us did, the beginning of that divide, when the Dem Party leadership began trashing the Left.

The Left will not shut up about issues, such as War Crimes and Wall St Corruption, nor should they.

They will never become apologists for corruption or bailouts for corrupt Wall St bankers.

That appears to be inconvenient for the Third Way wing of the party.

We've seen the attempts to silence the Left.

The party has a choice, start responding to the voters. stop blaming THEM for THEIR losses.

[bigtree]

18. not enough to make it significant in elections

...and pointing to the midterms isn't a true indicator.

Like I said, there's a disconnect between the politicians and voters, but I think we'll see the same trend in the presidential election as the last one with record numbers of voters voting Democratic. I don't see any large 'independent' movement that is going to transcend voter identification at the polls which actually matter away from the Democratic party, no matter how Sirota frames the division.

[sabrina 1]

19. When a party loses approx 10% of its base, that IS significant. Especially if they refuse to

acknowledge the reasons why.

During the Bush years Dem Party membership was over 40% AND they had the support of the left leaning Independent vote.

That is why they were able to win the Senate, Congress and the WH.

Now they are down approx 10% of their membership. Republicans are down also of course.

That 10% will be needed to win back the House and Senate and the WH.

So far, see the mid terms, that hasn't happened due to the party's refusal to provide and support Progressive Dems over Third Way dems who have been losing while Progressive Dems are holding their seats as voters WILL come out, and DID in both mid terms, to keep them there.

Like I said, Sirota is correct. It's up to the leadership to start listening and if they lose AGAIN, it will AGAIN by THEIR fault, certainly not the voters.

[zappaman]

20. Not true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

As this graph clearly shows, Democratic membership is at 31%. It's peak was in 1988 and 2008 at 36%. Independents are climbing and Republican membership has decreased to 25%.

[marmar]

23. rap and free phones?

[bigtree]

28. oh, I see now. You're a racist and a bigot

...remarking on Democratic values behind a facade of hatred and privilege.

[bigtree]

29. "Obama supporters say the darndest things"

...this one says go fuck yourself.

[bigtree]

27. midterms are crap for indicators

...attended mostly by people who are dissatisfied; eschewed by those who are indifferent or content with their politician. Moreover, they're a referendum on individual candidates in states, more than a reflection on the national party.

You sound as if you're looking at politics from a very recent and limited lens.

[DeSwiss]

21. The stink of corruption is a smell that doesn't go away......

...until the corruption is gone. This moribund, dying system is a perfect fit for the likes of ol' Chuckie boy.

- He is welcomed to it as I have no use for it.

[center]''No Public Breastfeeding Controversy Here.''

[/center]

[Thinkingabout]

26. David Sirota, who gets paid for his work on radio and his opinions, does not have any

rank in saying others should not get paid for what they do. More than likely if David Sirota could get the fees for giving speeches as Hillary does he would grab the money and run. If he does not think people should get paid for their work he should refuse any compensation in the future, we will see where he stand. He is acting as a divider, he speaks of Hillary getting paid for her services but I did not read anything where she has been a long time advocate for the issues important to middle class working people in the US. He needs to give the complete undistorted story or either he will remain a divider.

[Major Hogwash]

30. Wall Street owns Schumer, he's bought and paid for.

I'm surprised that he removed the price tag after he got in to the Senate.

But, just today we find out that Schumer is against the Iran nuclear arms deal, suggesting that the Republican-controlled Congress has the right to weigh in on the subject, which would naturally reject that historic arms agreement.
Schumer said he supports Corker's bill which they are working on now, that would accomplish the means to that end.
Yet, Corker is a die-in-the-wool Republican.
So, why would Schumer cozy up to Corker?

Money, plain and simple.
Don't believe me?
Then explain why Harry Reid gave Schumer high praise and laurel wreaths last week, anointing him to be the next majority leader of the Senate after Reid retires in 2016?
Because Harry actually has a lot of money tied up in the stock market!

Nevertheless, if there is no difference between the deference that the Republicans and Democrats make towards Wall Street, then why the fuck should we vote for either?

Sirota is absolutely correct when he suggests that Wall Street vs Main Street will be the most important issue in 2016.