Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz good for the Democratic Party?

Will the Democratic Party's move toward big money be a positive in the long run?

Will the apparent rift between progressives and the establishment cost the Democrats the white house?

Bill Moyers opines...

As we recently wrote, “… She embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence.”

And that ain’t all. As a member of Congress, particularly egregious has been her support of the payday loan business, defying new regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would rein in an industry that soaks desperate borrowers. As President Obama said, “While payday loans might seem like easy money, folks often end up trapped in a cycle of debt.”................

But we digress. It’s the skullduggery going on within the Democratic Party establishment that’s our current concern and as we wrote in March, Rep. Wasserman Schultz “has played games with the party’s voter database, been accused of restricting the number of Democratic candidate debates and scheduling them at odd days and times to favor Hillary Clinton, and recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper that superdelegates — strongly establishment and pro-Clinton — are necessary at the party’s convention so deserving incumbent officials and party leaders don’t have to run for delegate slots ‘against grassroots activists.’ Let that sink in, but hold your nose against the aroma of entitlement.”

Now Wasserman Schultz has waded into the controversy over what happened or didn’t happen last weekend when Sanders supporters loudly and vehemently objected to the rules at the Nevada State Democratic Convention. In truth, some behaved badly at the event and others made trollish, violent and obscene threats to Democratic state chair Roberta Lange via phone, email and social media. There’s no excuse for such aggressive, creepy conduct, and Sanders was quick and direct in apologizing for the behavior of the rowdies and bullies.

But there is a double standard at play here. Why, pray tell, shouldn’t the peaceful majority of Sanders people be angry at the slow-motion, largely invisible rigging of the political process by Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton machine — all for the benefit of Secretary Clinton?................

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/bill-mo ... ultz-goes/

If the question is is she good for running the party into the ground? Then yes.

But that would be misogynistic of me...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

She's not good for the DNC. She's the type that welcomes opens discussions...but is very demeaning if your opinions aren't in-line with where she thinks the DNC should be. I think she's also so entrenched in her opinions that she's lost track of the fact that there are many types of people within the party...and how to civilly disagree with those that don't share her views. Overall, she just comes off as an asshole.

∞∞∞ wrote:She's not good for the DNC. She's the type that welcomes opens discussions...but is very demeaning if your opinions aren't in-line with where she thinks the DNC should be. I think she's also so entrenched in her opinions that she's lost track of the fact that there are many types of people within the party...and how to civilly disagree with those that don't share her views. Overall, she just comes off as an asshole.

In other words, she's a typical progressive who always talks about tolerance and diversity, but don't tolerate ideological diversity.

CitadelGrad wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:She's not good for the DNC. She's the type that welcomes opens discussions...but is very demeaning if your opinions aren't in-line with where she thinks the DNC should be. I think she's also so entrenched in her opinions that she's lost track of the fact that there are many types of people within the party...and how to civilly disagree with those that don't share her views. Overall, she just comes off as an asshole.

In other words, she's a typical progressive who always talks about tolerance and diversity, but don't tolerate ideological diversity.

She's like a typical conservative/evangelical republican who wants you to do as they say.

CitadelGrad wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:She's not good for the DNC. She's the type that welcomes opens discussions...but is very demeaning if your opinions aren't in-line with where she thinks the DNC should be. I think she's also so entrenched in her opinions that she's lost track of the fact that there are many types of people within the party...and how to civilly disagree with those that don't share her views. Overall, she just comes off as an asshole.

In other words, she's a typical progressive who always talks about tolerance and diversity, but don't tolerate ideological diversity.

Like Moyers is a progressive? Or Obama is a progressive? Or Bernie is a progressive?

Man...these "typical progressives" are all over the place!

CitadelGrad wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:She's not good for the DNC. She's the type that welcomes opens discussions...but is very demeaning if your opinions aren't in-line with where she thinks the DNC should be. I think she's also so entrenched in her opinions that she's lost track of the fact that there are many types of people within the party...and how to civilly disagree with those that don't share her views. Overall, she just comes off as an asshole.

In other words, she's a typical progressive who always talks about tolerance and diversity, but don't tolerate ideological diversity.

Ibanez wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
In other words, she's a typical progressive who always talks about tolerance and diversity, but don't tolerate ideological diversity.

She's like a typical conservative/evangelical republican who wants you to do as they say.

Exactly.

She's the worst of both worlds.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

And she's a feminazi loon.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
In other words, she's a typical progressive who always talks about tolerance and diversity, but don't tolerate ideological diversity.

Like Moyers is a progressive? Or Obama is a progressive? Or Bernie is a progressive?

Man...these "typical progressives" are all over the place!

Barack would be insulted. Talk to you mr accountant to make sure your returns are in order

She's not very deft.

But the weirdest thing about this is that Clinton is going to win the majority of the popular vote in the Democrat primaries.

There's no "rigging" necessary. Clinton is almost certainly going to win both California and New Jersey and even if she doesn't she's almost certainly going to have the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates.

There's no "there" there with the "rigged" stuff. Clinton is just going to beat Sanders. Even if there were no such thing as "Super Delegates" she'd win.

JohnStOnge wrote:She's not very deft.

But the weirdest thing about this is that Clinton is going to win the majority of the popular vote in the Democrat primaries.

There's no "rigging" necessary. Clinton is almost certainly going to win both California and New Jersey and even if she doesn't she's almost certainly going to have the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates.

There's no "there" there with the "rigged" stuff. Clinton is just going to beat Sanders. Even if there were no such thing as "Super Delegates" she'd win.

I searched the article for the term "rigged" and couldn't find it. It appears that "rigged" is a term you inserted into this discussion putting quotes around it as though you're attributing it to someone else.

Moyers does a fair job of describing a process that was heavily stacked in favor of your establishment candidate. From the New York registration process to the way establishment media has insisted on including the super delegate count, Hillary has been set up with great advantage to win. And that's the way you do it in a corrupt system that has less to do with democracy and more to do with money.

My...quite the Clinton surrogate you've become.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:She's not very deft.

But the weirdest thing about this is that Clinton is going to win the majority of the popular vote in the Democrat primaries.

There's no "rigging" necessary. Clinton is almost certainly going to win both California and New Jersey and even if she doesn't she's almost certainly going to have the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates.

There's no "there" there with the "rigged" stuff. Clinton is just going to beat Sanders. Even if there were no such thing as "Super Delegates" she'd win.

I searched the article for the term "rigged" and couldn't find it. It appears that "rigged" is a term you inserted into this discussion putting quotes around it as though you're attributing it to someone else.

Moyers does a fair job of describing a process that was heavily stacked in favor of your establishment candidate. From the New York registration process to the way establishment media has insisted on including the super delegate count, Hillary has been set up with great advantage to win. And that's the way you do it in a corrupt system that has less to do with democracy and more to do with money.

My...quite the Clinton surrogate you've become.

To be fair Kalm, the DNC is a bunch of people that have come together to create a political party. Like any organization, they can run it the way they want and it shouldn't be surprising that members want to protect the people that have done a lot to support it over the years. Sanders, someone who has never really been part of the party, basically rolled in expecting money and rule changes and votes and support.

If I was a super-delegate, what reason would I have to vote for him? I've probably worked with Clinton closely for years, raised money with her, created legislation with her, etc. Personally, I don't like the super-delegate process, but I get the intent behind it. And if Sanders had genuinely cared about becoming a major part of the DNC earlier, he should have joined the party long before the primaries and tried getting things changed from within. But at least he'll have a big platform at this convention to shape the DNC's path forward.

∞∞∞ wrote:

kalm wrote:
I searched the article for the term "rigged" and couldn't find it. It appears that "rigged" is a term you inserted into this discussion putting quotes around it as though you're attributing it to someone else.

Moyers does a fair job of describing a process that was heavily stacked in favor of your establishment candidate. From the New York registration process to the way establishment media has insisted on including the super delegate count, Hillary has been set up with great advantage to win. And that's the way you do it in a corrupt system that has less to do with democracy and more to do with money.

My...quite the Clinton surrogate you've become.

To be fair Kalm, the DNC is a bunch of people that have come together to create a political party. Like any organization, they can run it the way they want and it shouldn't be surprising that members want to protect the people that have done a lot to support it over the years. Sanders, someone who has never really been part of the party, basically rolled in expecting money and rule changes and votes and support.

If I was a super-delegate, what reason would I have to vote for him?

I'm not saying they shouldn't run it the way they want. I'm criticizing them for the way they run it.

There are a ton of reasons to vote for him. You believe he has a better chance of winning the general. You're concerned about Hillary's legal troubles. You actually have liberal principles (like limiting the influence of money in politics, belief in democracy, against an aggressive foreign policy).

But you're right. If you've achieved the status of Democratic Party super delegate, you're likely to not think this way. And you will continue to push independents and true liberals away from your party.

I feel sorry for Wasserman Schultz since Ed Rendell insulted her along with all of those other women.

If Bernie gets rid of Wasserman-Schnutz, that obnoxious beyotch, even I will send him $27!

∞∞∞ wrote:

kalm wrote:
I searched the article for the term "rigged" and couldn't find it. It appears that "rigged" is a term you inserted into this discussion putting quotes around it as though you're attributing it to someone else.

Moyers does a fair job of describing a process that was heavily stacked in favor of your establishment candidate. From the New York registration process to the way establishment media has insisted on including the super delegate count, Hillary has been set up with great advantage to win. And that's the way you do it in a corrupt system that has less to do with democracy and more to do with money.

My...quite the Clinton surrogate you've become.

To be fair Kalm, the DNC is a bunch of people that have come together to create a political party. Like any organization, they can run it the way they want and it shouldn't be surprising that members want to protect the people that have done a lot to support it over the years. Sanders, someone who has never really been part of the party, basically rolled in expecting money and rule changes and votes and support.

If I was a super-delegate, what reason would I have to vote for him? I've probably worked with Clinton closely for years, raised money with her, created legislation with her, etc. Personally, I don't like the super-delegate process, but I get the intent behind it. And if Sanders had genuinely cared about becoming a major part of the DNC earlier, he should have joined the party long before the primaries and tried getting things changed from within. But at least he'll have a big platform at this convention to shape the DNC's path forward.

Disagree here. Sanders is running as a Democrat because the Democrats know that if he runs as an Independent Hillary has no chance. They'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out.

Ivytalk wrote:If Bernie gets rid of Wasserman-Schnutz, that obnoxious beyotch, even I will send him $27!

Sanders DID endorse one of the Dem primary opponent for her seat.

I searched the article for the term "rigged" and couldn't find it.

I wasn't talking about that article in particular. I was talking about the narrative that's been proffered by the Sanders campaign as things have unfolded. It's not hard at all to find articles associated with it. Example:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/ ... ic-primary

Another example:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/12/this_sy ... r_sanders/

And that second example is particularly interesting because Sanders is now arguing that even though Clinton is going to win the majority of the votes in the primaries and the majority of pledged delegates the Super Delegates should see to it that HE gets the nomination because HE has the best chance to win the general election.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I searched the article for the term "rigged" and couldn't find it.

I wasn't talking about that article in particular. I was talking about the narrative that's been proffered by the Sanders campaign as things have unfolded. It's not hard at all to find articles associated with it. Example:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/ ... ic-primary

Another example:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/12/this_sy ... r_sanders/

And that second example is particularly interesting because Sanders is now arguing that even though Clinton is going to win the majority of the votes in the primaries and the majority of pledged delegates the Super Delegates should see to it that HE gets the nomination because HE has the best chance to win the general election.

Those articles were never in your wheelhouse until I called your bullshit on it here in this thread. You then went hunting for them.

houndawg wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:
To be fair Kalm, the DNC is a bunch of people that have come together to create a political party. Like any organization, they can run it the way they want and it shouldn't be surprising that members want to protect the people that have done a lot to support it over the years. Sanders, someone who has never really been part of the party, basically rolled in expecting money and rule changes and votes and support.

If I was a super-delegate, what reason would I have to vote for him? I've probably worked with Clinton closely for years, raised money with her, created legislation with her, etc. Personally, I don't like the super-delegate process, but I get the intent behind it. And if Sanders had genuinely cared about becoming a major part of the DNC earlier, he should have joined the party long before the primaries and tried getting things changed from within. But at least he'll have a big platform at this convention to shape the DNC's path forward.

Disagree here. Sanders is running as a Democrat because the Democrats know that if he runs as an Independent Hillary has no chance. They'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out.

What bernie needs to realize is that he can win the damn thing going independent. I'd vote for him over Trump and hilldog...not sure I'd vote for him over Gary Johnson.

Meanwhile hilldog wants bernie to drop out because she has waited her turn nicely for this opportunity. How elitist and entitled.

I went all the way to the end against then-Senator Obama. I won nine out of the last 12 contests back in ’08. I won Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia. So I know the intense feelings that arise, particularly among your supporters as you go toward the end. But we both were following the same rules, just as both Senator Sanders and I are following the same rules, and I’m 3 million votes ahead of him and I have an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, and I’m confident that just as I did with Senator Obama, where I said, you know what? It was really close. Much closer. Much closer than it is between me and Senator Sanders right now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... is-enough/

[quote="SDHornet"][quote="houndawg"][quote="∞∞∞"]

To be fair Kalm, the DNC is a bunch of people that have come together to create a political party. Like any organization, they can run it the way they want and it shouldn't be surprising that members want to protect the people that have done a lot to support it over the years. [b][i]Sanders, someone who has never really been part of the party, basically rolled in expecting money and rule changes and votes and support. [/i][/b]

If I was a super-delegate, what reason would I have to vote for him? I've probably worked with Clinton closely for years, raised money with her, created legislation with her, etc. Personally, I don't like the super-delegate process, but I get the intent behind it. And if Sanders had genuinely cared about becoming a major part of the DNC earlier, he should have joined the party long before the primaries and tried getting things changed from within. But at least he'll have a big platform at this convention to shape the DNC's path forward.[/quote]

Disagree here. Sanders is running as a Democrat because the Democrats know that if he runs as an Independent Hillary has no chance. They'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out.[/quote]
:nod:
What bernie needs to realize is that he can win the damn thing going independent. I'd vote for him over Trump and hilldog...not sure I'd vote for him over Gary Johnson.

Meanwhile hilldog wants bernie to drop out because she has waited her turn nicely for this opportunity. How elitist and entitled.
[quote]I went all the way to the end against then-Senator Obama. I won nine out of the last 12 contests back in ’08. I won Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia. So I know the intense feelings that arise, particularly among your supporters as you go toward the end. But we both were following the same rules, just as both Senator Sanders and I are following the same rules, and I’m 3 million votes ahead of him and I have an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, and I’m confident that just as I did with Senator Obama, where I said, you know what? It was really close. Much closer. Much closer than it is between me and Senator Sanders right now.[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... is-enough/[/url][/quote]
I would LOVE to see Sanders stage a walkout at the Convention. And announce his independent candidacy :nod:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

SDHornet wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Disagree here. Sanders is running as a Democrat because the Democrats know that if he runs as an Independent Hillary has no chance. They'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out.

What bernie needs to realize is that he can win the damn thing going independent. I'd vote for him over Trump and hilldog...not sure I'd vote for him over Gary Johnson.

Meanwhile hilldog wants bernie to drop out because she has waited her turn nicely for this opportunity. How elitist and entitled.

I went all the way to the end against then-Senator Obama. I won nine out of the last 12 contests back in ’08. I won Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia. So I know the intense feelings that arise, particularly among your supporters as you go toward the end. But we both were following the same rules, just as both Senator Sanders and I are following the same rules, and I’m 3 million votes ahead of him and I have an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, and I’m confident that just as I did with Senator Obama, where I said, you know what? It was really close. Much closer. Much closer than it is between me and Senator Sanders right now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... is-enough/

I would LOVE to see Sanders stage a walkout at the Convention. And announce his independent candidacy

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Those articles were never in your wheelhouse until I called your bullshit on it here in this thread. You then went hunting for them.

No, those particular articles were not on my mind. But the general approach Sanders has had of saying things are "rigged" was. I simply Googled it because I knew I would have no trouble finding articles reflecting it.

At one point Sanders was lamenting the Super Delegate system as rigging things. Now he knows he's going to lose the popular vote and pledged delegate race and he's appealing to the Super Delegate system to make him the nominee.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Those articles were never in your wheelhouse until I called your bullshit on it here in this thread. You then went hunting for them.

No, those particular articles were not on my mind. But the general approach Sanders has had of saying things are "rigged" was. I simply Googled it because I knew I would have no trouble finding articles reflecting it.

At one point Sanders was lamenting the Super Delegate system as rigging things. Now he knows he's going to lose the popular vote and pledged delegate race and he's appealing to the Super Delegate system to make him the nominee.

Again, rigged is your word. The Sandwrs campaign has pointed out the flaws in the system and the collusion with the establishment media and DNC. What he's doing is no less disingenuous than what the establsishment has done.

Is there anyone not taking JSO behind the woodshed in these poli threads?