Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Can The Democrat Party Survive?

Some of you may have seen Matt Taibbi's latest. I like Don Surber's intro to the highlights of Taibbi's piece:

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has tried to save liberalism from liberals, but to no avail. They keep being cashews and pistachios to President Donald John Trump's very sane genius. 
Having warned them not to pursue the Russian collusion hoax, he is now trying to stop them from calling everyone they don't like Russian assets
Taibbi wrote, "Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years. 
"Less than a week before Clinton’s outburst, the New York Times — once a symbol of stodgy, hyper-cautious reporting — ran a feature called, 'What, Exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?' The piece speculated about the 'suspicious activity' surrounding Gabbard’s campaign, using quotes from the neoconservative think-tank, the Alliance For Securing Democracy, to speculate about Gabbard’s Russian support. 
"This was the second such article the Times had written. An August piece, “Tulsi Gabbard thinks we’re doomed,“ hit nearly all the same talking points, quoting Clint Watts, an ex-spook from the same think-tank, calling Gabbard 'the Kremlin’s preferred Democrat' and a 'useful agent of influence.' The Times article echoed earlier pieces by the Daily Beast and that said many of the same things." 
Perhaps Democrats are othering Gabbard -- a Sanders socialist -- to punish her for an absence of fealty to Hillary in 2016. She is as anti-life, anti-capitalism,and anti-individual rights as any of them. 
More likely they are laying the foundation for spying on her. Obama's McCarthyism against Donald Trump (and likely earlier opponents) did not end with him.

However, Zerohedge republished a blog that is actually rather more serious than Taibbi, although covering similar territory. The direction he goes shares some commonality with Surber's jibe regarding Dem spying--the Globalist collusion of the DC political establishment and the Intelligence Community.

Renee Parsons asks the interesting but quite serious question: Will The Democratic Party Exist After 2020 Election? Here's an extended excerpt:

It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.
Today’s Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous strategy. 
Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government. 
It should not be necessary to say but in today’s hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.
As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies. 
They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment campaign.
It may be that whistleblower Ed Snowden’s revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that Trump was being ‘really dumb” in daring to question Intel’s faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election. 
Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel’s unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.
The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power, financial and influence agenda that goes far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.
Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel veterans and its cronies: 
“Trump sides with Putin over US Intelligence” – CNN
“Did Trump Commit Treason at Putin Meeting?” – Newsweek, and
“Trump Slammed Over Disgrace, Disgusting Press Conference with Putin” – Newsweek.
Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia. 
And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the American public safe. 
There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to ‘know’ was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that? 
As a result of  the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham appear hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama’s Oval Office.
Barr’s earlier comment before the Senate that “spying did occur’ and that ‘it’s a big deal’ when an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.


  1. The Dems may not have much reason for fear, if Mitch is tight with the D.S., as many knowledgeable CTH folks fear, see .

    1. In fact I've read that as well as some other items and I've been mulling a bigger picture post to try to draw several points of view together. sundance is too narrowly focused.

      If sundance were correct the bigger question, in those terms, might as well be: Can the GOP survive 2020?

  2. Mitch is not so much tight with the Deep Swamp as he is interested in preserving the institution of the Senate and especially his position… He knows he hasn’t the same power as Nancy P has as Speaker… He dances a tightrope - sometimes getting things right and then other times, not so much. I doubt that Mitch’s OR ELSE warning reaches President Trump’s ears as more than a pleading whisper…

    Sundance’s admonitions about Eeyores nothwithstanding, the congregation at his very well done blog is full of them. They remind me of the sports announcers - especially in fast-moving basketball - who show their bias but then change their bias and then change it back and so on. Their goal? Being on the winning side at the very end. Being right.

    The GOP has been in trouble for a long time. President Trump isn’t GOP. He is of his own party which happens to appeal right now to many equally disgruntled party members. Who really knows how 2020 will turn out. It’s difficult to imagine one of those midgets beating him at the real polls.

    1. I basically agree. Mitch's MO is not full frontal confrontation with the leader of his own party. He's more subtle than that. Nor is he into suicide. I'm working on my post. One thing to keep in mind here is the mind boggling amounts of money Trump has already raised. Mitch, IMO, will try to find a modus vivendi.

    2. Well, so much for subtlety. From CNN:

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other top Republican senators introduced a resolution Tuesday in opposition to President Donald Trump's withdrawal from Syria, warning that his decision has benefited Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, ISIS, Russia and Iran.

      "If not arrested, withdrawing from Syria will invite more of the chaos that breeds terrorism and creates a vacuum our adversaries will certainly fill," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

      McConnell said if the President doesn't halt the withdrawal, Russia "will gain more leverage" in the Middle East, Iran-backed forces could gain greater access to a "strategic corridor that runs all the way from Tehran to the very doorstep of Israel" and the Assad regime will be invited to "reassert its oppressive control" over northeastern Syria.

      He also urged Trump to rescind his invitation of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the White House until a "more enduring cease-fire" is struck between Turkish and Kurdish forces.

      The measure tries to tie the hands of the commander-in-chief by requiring the President to report to Congress that ISIS and al Qaeda have been defeated "before initiating any further significant withdrawal" of US troops from the region.

      More here:

    3. That's boilerplate Neocon talking points. I still think, until proven otherwise, that this is cover for senators who need neocon money.

  3. The 9/11 comparison to Trump/Putin/Helsinki is inapt--even if questioning why no one lost their job as a consequence is valid. Different circumstances call for different responses--even if intelligence community incompetence is at work in both cases.

    1. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. This is what I was reacting to:

      The three headlines from CNN/Newsweek, followed by this:

      -->And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the American public safe.
      There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to ‘know’ was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?<--

      My critique is simply 9/11 and Trump/Putin/Helsinki are not even in the same ballpark as comparable. One is an act of terrorism, the other a question of diplomacy. They are as different as committing a crime versus having a conversation.

      Covering for incompetence is never called for.

  4. "Different circumstances call for different responses"

    Accusing the president of treason for speaking to Putin was called for?

    Covering up incompetence re 9/11 was called for?

    Please explain.

  5. Mark, you've asked, "Can The Democrat Party Survive?" and "...the bigger question ... might as well be: Can the GOP survive 2020?

    Which has caused me to wonder if a major realignment of our party system isn't underway. For decades the two parties have operated as 'big tents' for a range of views that were able somehow to accommodate each other. This increasingly is no longer the case.

    This topic is worth one of your longer posts, but here's some of the elements. I've exceeded the word limit for comments, so I'll post in two parts, if that's ok.

    There are numerous chasms in the Dem party. An obvious one is between the AOC wing of avowed socialists and the rest of the party. But the rest of the party (as represented by its Presidential candidates, at least) has drifted so far left that it has largely abandoned its traditional base of working class Americans. Is there really still a home in the Democrat party for a working couple who believes in traditional American values of freedom, liberty, hard work and individualism? I often find myself wondering why hard working blacks and Hispanics remain loyal to the Dem party and imagine many of them are asking themselves the same thing.

    Isn't it likely that millions of Dems are finding themselves unimpressed by the character of their available choices: Biden, Warren and Sanders? Or by the far left policies of these candidates?

    Then there's the issue Hillary brought up by smearing Tulsi Gabbard. Hillary called Tulsi a Russian asset who implicitly doesn't belong in the Dem party. Its pretty much agreed that what Hillary meant is that if you are not violently opposed to anything that could benefit Russia you can't be a Democrat. Taken literally, I suppose this leaves a lot of people who had thought they were Democrats out.

    Tulsi, of course replied by calling Hillary (and I paraphrase a little) the queen of warmongers, the embodiment of corruption, and the personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long...

    While some of this was angry invective, there was more than a kernel of truth to it. Hillary's wing of the Dem Party is the War Party in America today (witness its 100% backing of the war in Syria resolution) as it is also the party of corrupt pay for play politics and K Street lobbyists, and the party of superdelegates directing pre-determined party nominations. The Hillary wing of the party is also now the wing of the elite: Wall Street, Hollywood, the Ivy League and the MSM. There must be more than a few rank and file voters who wonder where they fit in. And who wonder where their point of view fits in in a party taking checks from globalist tycoons and hedge fund billionaires.

    And then there is the Schiff, Nadler, Engle, Pelosi wing of the party which is determined to impeach Trump because? Well, because. Seriously, one has to wonder how many Dem voters have serious concerns about the integrity of these Democrat representatives who have been shown repeatedly to simply lie about matters of great importance. And increasingly, their lies appear to be all about gaining power and with little regard for basic truths or Constitutional principles. I know I would never vote for Schiff, Nadler, Engle or Pelosi, regardless of their home on the political spectrum. How many voters feel the same way?

    1. I just got back and will be heading out again soon, but I hope to do a very short post that will illustrate that there is a very substantial majority of Americans who embrace Trump's FP. The question then is, is it possible that that could serve as a basis for the type of realignment you reference? Is it possible that realizing this commonality could lead to recognition of other commonalities?

  6. Part II

    On the GOP side, the recent House resolution on Syria and the soundbites coming from Mitch McConnell's office suggest another chasm between the elected politicians in the party who are in thrall to their MIC donors and the many voters who are simply tired and done with the Endless War? How many ordinary Republican voters feel more in synch with Tulsi Gabbard's approach to the Endless War than to Mitch McConnell's? And the recent outing of Pierre Delecto exposes a wing of the GOP Senatorial elite (which probably includes the likes of Murkowski, Collins, Corker, Flake, Burr, the Bushes, etc.) who are far more invested in the status quo and have never joined the Trump wing of the GOP.

    It increasingly looks like Trump has managed to push foreign policy and the appropriateness of life-threatening combat out of the shadows and on to center stage. It turns out that GOPers like McConnell and Romney are all-in for the Endless War. How many GOP voters are done with it and would like to see the federal government turn its attention to (and direct is spending to) rebuilding industrial America, ending the opioid crisis, and fixing illegal immigration? How many voters don't care (rightly or wrongly) whether a Kurd kills a Turk or a Syrian or an Iraqi in a conflict which is centuries old?

    As seems often the case, Trump has put his finger on many of the issues that Americans care about, but which the national parties would just as soon bury, ignore or obfuscate.

    I'll end by mentioning the Ukraine Hoax. The Schiff wing of the Dem Party would like to impeach Trump for trying to get to the bottom of the impact of Ukrainian corruption on the 2016 election...and of Dem complicity in this corruption. At the end of the day isn't it more likely that the Dems will be shown to be the party of corruption and Trump the seeker of truth? How does a fair-minded person vote for the Dems for anything?

    So there you've got it. Both parties are seriously at odds with large chunks of their traditional voter bases. Would it be surprising if, on top of everything else, a substantial realignment were in the offing?

    1. Not surprising, and I'm about to provide you with some numbers.