Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part VIII

 

People understandably ask:  "What good can the candidate contracts do?  Can they really make a difference?"

The answer to that comes in two pieces.

First, anything is only as good as its application.  That is, a hammer is only as useful if you manage to hit the nail and driving the nail is part of building something that is important and positive, like a new house.  Or a twenty-foot high wall on the Mexican border (just kidding!).

The candidate contract has to be implemented properly, it has to be wielded effectively.  I've described in Part 7 how it can be used to demonize the traitors and promote the true supporters of representative democracy.  Once the candidate contract strategy is in play, hopefully on a national level where it achieves some critical mass and becomes "news", it literally can set a new standard for the way candidates are assessed in terms of worthiness for public office -- precisely how we determine if we are going to vote for them or not.

It can do this because -- and here is the second piece of my answer -- it accomplishes something which so far has been elusive, and intentionally so.

It gives us a bulletproof method for determining where a candidate stands on issues.

No more empty campaign rhetoric.  No more vague language.  No more double speak.

It's all in black-and-white.

Let me demonstrate this and in doing so answer another question I've often gotten . . .

"Can this work with presidential candidates?"

TPP and its evil step-sisters, TPIP and TISA, are the most heinous "trade agreements" in our history.  The majority of American citizens are just starting to wake up to the horrible consequences if these agreements.

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have been confronted as to where they stand on TPP.  Bernie Sanders has unequivocally come out against it.  He has been consistent on this for as long as TPP reared its ugly head. On the other hand, Ms. Hillary as Secretary of State clearly supported and promoted it.  But now she is waffling, introducing vague and manifestly misleading language to deflect potential supporters from reviewing her record or from drawing the obvious conclusion:  As a corporatist shill she is loyal to Wall Street, she is loyal to the big banks, she is loyal to the trans-national corporate interests behind this nefarious trade agreement.

Initially, Hillary said "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field."  More recently here is what the mistress-of-the-duplicitous said:  "I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the (Obama) administration.  Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it."

This, of course, resulted in all sorts of analysis and debate on where she really stands.
I say:  Why don't we just cut through this silly waste of time and energy and determine with absolute certainty where Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders come down on TPP, an issue which dramatically shapes the future of international commerce and geopolitics for generations to come? 

Let me offer a candidate contract:


Bernie Sanders, consistent with his voting record and public pronouncements, would sign this in a heartbeat.

 

I can only speculate, but I believe Hillary would laugh, roll her eyes, do that Hillary "thing" she does so well, and brush it aside. 

Frankly, there is no way she could sign it.  If she did, she couldn't do the job her corporate masters hired her to do.

And that's exactly how the candidate contracts work.

Now we know exactly what we need to know.

It's in black-and-white.  The choice is clear.

Now we know how to vote.

Apply this methodology issue-by-issue, candidate-by-candidate, and suddenly the smoke and mirrors are gone.  The voting public can make informed decisions about who they want representing them in Washington DC, in both Congress and the White House.



[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part VIII

Mission Control: We Have A Problem

 

On balance, I see Bernie Sanders' running for president as a positive thing. I wrote this back in August 2011, voicing my support for his candidacy long before the Bernie Sanders For President bandwagon left the barn last month.

Mr. Sanders has some troubling ideas in terms of foreign policy.

But contrasted with a dynastic rematch between the neocon shrew Hillary and the neocon opportunist Jeb, there is no contest.

Go Bernie!

Nonetheless, I feel required to point out something, which in the exhilaration of his early campaigning, no one has addressed.

What if Bernie wins?

If you think we have dysfunctional government now, just try to imagine what would be the result of such a historical "upset" in the duopoly game plan. The center and center-right Democrats __ there are only a handful of genuinely progressive Democrats __ would team with the center-right and right-right Republicans, their shared control of electoral politics threatened by the anomalous election of a truly progressive president. The only legislation which would pass would be bipartisan anti-progressive veto-proof bills.

Of course, with their long-established common ground __ an agenda of defeating anything which the corporate plutocracy disapproves of __ and even more importantly their newly discovered common objective __ totally destroying the Bernie Sanders presidency itself __ mustering 67 votes in the Senate and 300 votes in the House would be a piece of cake.

Bear in mind that on the off-chance he wins the Democratic nomination, he will only be window-dressing for the Dems, a desperate attempt at pulling in the populist vote, which they lost by abandoning the middle and working classes. Any success at the polls by these turncoats will translate into even more aggressive promotion of the vile corporatist agenda they have pursued for decades now, as the Democratic Party steadily morphed into the left wing of the Republican Party.
The simple point is this:  While a Bernie Sanders presidency would inject some hope into our dismal electoral politics and floundering democracy, his election without a supportive Congress would create gridlock and dysfunction of biblical proportions. President Sanders would be demonized, vilified, emasculated, meaning the prospects for the advancement of a progressive agenda, serving the needs of all Americans, not just the ultra-wealthy, would be set back for decades.

There is an obvious remedy to this predictable mega-gridlock.

Blocs of at minimum 34 senators and 151 representatives with an unyielding commitment to Mr. Sanders' 12-point plan for restoring the economy MUST be put in place via the 2016 election. Either we replace many of the current corporate toadies holding elected office, or the promise of a Bernie Sanders presidency is doomed to utter failure.


 

I'll get right to the point.

I have a plan for accomplishing that and __ if progressive activists can actually get it together __ indeed do much much more.

It's contained in my new book, over 900 copies of which have already been sent to independent and Green Party candidates, NPOs, and think tanks across the nation.

A quiet revolution is possible.

But it requires making a lot of noise.

"Candidate Contracts: Taking Back Our Democracy" is now available . . .

Amazon (Kindle) . . . amzn.to/1QJRiNZ
Apple (iBook) . . . apple.co/1BXnPcy
Amazon (Paperback) . . . [ TBA ]
Barnes & Noble . . . bit.ly/1GpTTLq
Smashwords . . . bit.ly/1B4DQCp
Direct from printer . . . bit.ly/1MGjDnN

Am I promoting my book?

No . . . I'm promoting my ideas.





[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Hillary’s Secret Campaign Strategy

 

We have learned from a deep source at Hillary Clinton presidential
campaign headquarters, of a highly controversial, certainly
mind-boggling, but sure-fire plan which will clinch the 2016 election
for her. When it finally becomes public, this secret strategy will
consign all the nay-saying skeptics about her viability as the first
female president in American history, to eating vast quantities of
humble pie. 

Right now, of course, since no one knows of the plan, there's a wide range of
opinion and speculation in the media on her chances. Will she run? Will
she make the same mistakes she made against Obama? Can she walk the fine
line between appealing to the traditional Democratic base and raising
the money she will need from Wall Street and corporate America? Is the
country ready for a female president? Is the country ready for Hillary? 

But her innovative new approach undercuts all of this.

The idea is as revolutionary as it is simple.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be running for president on both the Democratic 
and the Republican tickets.

Yes! I know it sounds unbelievable.

But it's true.

She will make appearances at both conventions. A special secret poll of select
campaign consultants and political scientists predicts she will easily
garner delegate majorities at both events __ probably on the first round
of balloting __ to secure the nominations.

My source further explains that to make this a viable strategy, the canny 
Ms. Clinton will have two different vice-presidential running mates,
probably Kirsten Gillibrand for the Democratic ticket, and  
Megyn Kelly for the Republican.

Just think about that! All-female tickets running for president and vice-president 
via both major political parties.

Talk about a watershed moment in American history!

Stepping back and thinking about it, Hillary's running as both Democratic and
Republican candidates goes a long ways towards explaining some interesting
recent developments.

While her sewing up the Democratic nomination has for quite some time been 
a foregone conclusion, Ms. Clinton has, to the surprise of many observers, been 
wooing and gaining the support of many wealthy conservatives as well. Her openly 
coming out as a bona fide member of their "team" as the Republican nominee just 
makes sense.

Let me add that beyond being a brilliant tactical maneuver just in terms of sewing
up her future role as president, this unprecedented move is also a tremendous
leap forward for democracy itself, which has come under a lot of attack in 
recent years.

Voters complain they've had a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out the
differences between the policies and positions of candidates during the
long campaign season. Despite the rigorous scrutiny and tortured
analysis by experts across the entire political spectrum, quite often
it's hard to figure out what anyone stands for. This uncertainty has
evidenced itself as voter apathy. Confused voters stay home on election day.

By running on both tickets, Ms. Clinton will eliminate the petty bickering 
and political posturing, and more importantly the contentious nitpicking by
the media, which has only served to undermine candidate credibility
among voters and erode their confidence in our electoral system.

Another enormous benefit of Ms. Clinton's strategy is that with the election
in the bag, she won't have her time and energy squandered by all of the
distractions and foolishness that goes into presidential election
campaigning __ like interviews and televised debates.

Instead she can devote the entire time right up to taking the oath of office,
honing items which will be the hallmarks of her presidency: bombing Iran
and Syria; nuclear wars with both China and Russia; tripling of the
size of America's military contributions to Israel so that they can
finally put the wily Palestinians in concentration camps where they
belong; wiping North Korea off the map; building at least 1,000 more
American military bases around the world to protect everyone on the
planet from ISIS, Ebola, socialism, Putin and whatever other apocalyptic
threats might come along; mounting a Special Ops invasion of Moscow __
ala the Osama bin Laden assassination __ to capture Edward Snowden; and
burning down the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to flush out Julian
Assange.

She should be able __ as they say __ to really hit the ground running in January 2017.



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Just Say No! . . . To Duopoly

 

Two of my recent postings have created a storm of controversy. I've been
subjected to extremes of hyperbolic praise and acidic vituperation.

With a few welcome exceptions, The 'H' Word and When Hope Becomes Hype
have largely been judged as vicious attacks on President Obama, as in
personal condemnation of the man. His administration is certainly
fingered, because the specific lessons to be taken away are definitely
germane and unquestionable timely. While there's value in never
repeating the mistakes of history, what's the point of looking at
Eisenhower or Coolidge when there are hard lessons to be learned right
now? And how irresponsible it would be to not single out and identify
those directly responsible for the destructive policies and evident
treachery unfolding before our eyes in real time?

Let me candid about something: Fairly recently I concluded the President never
intended to deliver on his promises. However, during his first campaign
and the first few months of his presidency, I very much believed in Mr.
Obama and took the man at his word, whereas many others, including Glen
Ford of the Black Agenda Report, said he was not at all what he appeared to be. 
This was before the 2008 election.

While I've come to this same conclusion belatedly __ and that and that alone
is the thrust of my two controversial postings __ I am not interested
so much in berating Mr. Obama, as preventing the same mistake from
happening again.

The same mistake would be Hillary Clinton. Or Jeb Bush. Or Rand Paul. Or any
of the other duopoly pretenders to the throne who are already in the
limelight in anticipation of the 2016 election.

What's the difference between butterscotch and butter rum candy ? Sometimes I 
can tell. Usually they taste pretty much the same. Frankly it's such a close
call, it's not worth any hand-wringing or long, involved debate about it.

That's the choice we are faced with in our current political system. The truth is,
Democrat and Republican are in the long view pretty much the same flavor.

They are two sides of the same 1% oligarchic corporate-owned coin.

Heads or tails?

It's still a quarter. And it won't buy you a cup of coffee.

It won't even pay the bus fair to your second job or the unemployment office.

So what in my view is the lesson we take from travesty of the last few elections?
What can we learn from the play-for-pay politics of big money,
epitomized by Obama's currying the favor of corporations at the expense
of 99% of the American public? What can we do about the stranglehold of 
Citizens United and McCutcheon? What is the alternative to the the Democrat vs. 
Republican dog-and-pony show which has made meaningful voting a fatuous 
exercise in futility? How can you and I as citizens of our democracy-in-exile 
make our voice heard above the din of cronyism and Beltway banditry? 
It's really quite simple . . .

Just say 'no' to this sham. Just say 'no' to the fraud of Tweedledee-Tweedledum voting.

Just say 'no' to the duopoly which has as much relevance to real democracy as Monopoly 
has to the real economy.

Just say 'no' to the "lesser-of-two-evils" non-choice choice.

Vote your conscience, vote your principles. Do the right thing. Not the
brought-to-you-by Monsanto or Morgan Chase or big pharma or big fossil
fuel or media monopoly thing.

Here's one really great thing that Obama has repeated over and over:

Yes, we can!

I agree!

Yes, we can . . . say 'no' to the duopoly and start having real choice.

Support Bernie Sanders.

Support Jill Stein.

Support any "non-partisan" candidate.

Support those individuals who answer to you on election day . . .

Not Wall Street.

Not too-big-to-jail banks.

Not transnational corporations.

Not play-for-pay lobbyists and SuperPACS.

Not the Koch brothers and other sociopathic oligarchs.

Certainly not the corporate owned Democratic and Republican puppet parties.

Make your vote actually count for something.

Just say 'no' to duopoly.



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Ax and Spend

The Republicans are relentless in pursuing their policy of "Ax and Spend" . . . ax all of the social programs out of the federal budget and spend the money they save on their cruel self-serving tax policies on more yachts and jewelry. Makes sense if you are a selfish traitor who think justice and fairness should be "off the table".

In a passionate and extremely articulate speech on the floor of the Senate Monday June 27, Rep. Bernie Sanders has made the case why the President must draw a line the sand and stop this insane juggernaut which threatens the very foundations of our society, democratic institutions, and most cherished values: Mr. President: Enough is Enough!

[ This article originated at the author's web site: http://jdrachel.com ]