The EuroYankee Blog

I love Bernie Sanders. I maxed out my donations to his campaign ($2500) and have now added my name to the list of complainants in the class action suit against the DNC to get my money back after he was robbed of the nomination. I was banned for life from the Daily Kos for writing articles that were deemed to be too pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary. I was a true believer, I was #BernieOrBust all the way – right up until the Convention, when the DNC made it clear that they preferred “bust.”

Now I am voting #JillNotHill and supporting Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party with my money, my time and my enthusiasm.

Here’s why:

While I will always be thankful to Bernie for having inspired me, and millions like me, to question the Establishment and to fight against the corruption that dominates our national political system, I have come to the realisation that Bernie is simply not the man to lead us into a true Revolution.

The reason is simple, actually: Bernie believes in the 2-party system; he does NOT believe in third parties nor does he believe in the possibility to have a Revolution that takes place outside of the political duopoly that currently has a stranglehold over our body politic. This is a shame, given that it was Bernie who always told us to “think big” and to “think outside the box.”

It was a sad day when I realised that what Bernie actually believed was that we should think outside the box, but we should mobilize inside the box. The “box” in this case being the Democratic Party and our current 2-party political system.

That simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Much has been made by both supporters and opponents of Bernie Sanders that he is an independent, and Bernie himself proudly asserts that he is the “longest serving independent” in Congress. That fact, however, belies the reality that Bernie has caucused with the Democrats for over 30 years. That he has raised money for the DCCC and the DSCC. That he has supported and voted for the Democratic Leadership in both the House and the Senate, and he has voted with the Democrats 98% of the time. Indeed, one criticism often levelled at Berners by Clinton supporters was the fact that Bernie and Hillary had virtually matching voting records while they served in the Senate together. Yes, they both supported the “Democratic Agenda.”

Bernie with Harry Reid

I have come to realise that Bernie is not the maverick that we might wish him to be. He is, in the end, a Company man, a Party Man. Harry Reid is notorious for running a tight ship in the Senate. He does not give you a plum Committee assignment unless he knows you will toe the Party line, and he certainly does not make you the Chair of a high profile committee like the Veterans Affairs Committee (as he did with Bernie in 2013) unless he knows you are a loyal partisan for the Democrats.

Bernie believes that the Democratic Party can be turned around. That we can reverse the decades of DLC-driven corporatism and remake the Democrats into the Party of FDR. This is simply not possible. The “pay-to-play” corruption that the Clintons and their New Democrat allies introduced in the 90’s has, over the past 30 years, completely taken over the Democratic Party. We are now on the 3rd or 4th generation of Democrats who literally grew up thinking that it was OK to take corporate money and to do the bidding of your donors as long as you stood on the righteous side when it came to civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights and other social issues. These Democrats actually believe that they are doing good work by supporting LGBTQ causes and defending abortion rights even as they support Wall Street criminality, fracking, for-profit healthcare, TPP and other noxious issues pushed by their corporate donors.

Mind you, these are not all bad people. They are simply playing the hand they have been dealt, in a game that they did not create. They are making their way within an organisation that is so systemically corrupt that they do not even perceive the corruption for what it is. Cenk Uygur once described this phenomenon with an old joke: if you ask a fish “how’s the water?” he will answer “what water?” So it is with Democrats and the ocean of corruption in which they live.

You cannot ask today’s Democrats to change both themselves and the system in which they have thrived. They like the game as it is, because they are winning at it. And even if they wanted to change, their Corporate masters would never let them do so. The DNC is rotten to the core, and their actions during the 2016 Primaries show them to be a corrupt, well-organised and almost criminal enterprise willing to engage in illegitimate if not illegal activities to achieve the results that they and their Donors want. There is no way to rehabilitate this organisation, and there is no way that the DNC will countenance a “revolution” within their ranks.

Khama Savant is my HERO.

BERNIE, I love you, and as I said at the top I will always revere you for what you did to start this Revolution. But you cannot lead the Revolution. The Democratic Party has been your adopted “home” on Capitol Hill since Bill Clinton first entered the White House in 1992. We cannot expect you to abandon the organisation that you have supported for 25 years. But neither can we hope to build our Revolution within the sclerotic ranks of the DNC. As Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant has rightly said, any progressive movements “will reach a graveyard in the Democratic Party.”

That is why we must part company. You will push for Clinton to win the election, because you genuinely believe that once she is in the White House, she will bend toward the progressive causes that she has so studiously avoided all her career. You believe that she will be forced to listen to the Progressive wing of the Party, rather than the centrists and moderate Republicans she is currently courting for votes. You believe that we do not have the “luxury” of voting for a third party.

Sorry, Bernie. I do not believe those things that you believe about Clinton, nor do I believe that voting for my candidate of choice is a “luxury.” Indeed, in a representative democracy, I believe that voting for one’s chosen candidate is a duty.

Bernie, your personal political hero is Eugene V. Debs, the American Socialist who maintained that it is better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don’t want and get that.

I plan to vote for what I want. I will vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party.

1. Firstly, I do not believe that someone will set fire to the Capitol and blame it on the Mexicans or the Muslims. In other words: I do not foresee Trump being able to seize Hitlerian style absolute power. He will face the same checks and balances that have hamstrung Obama for 8 years. If elected, Trump would be hemmed in on all sides by aggressive Democrats and scared Republicans trying to salvage their own seats and their own upcoming re-elections. He would be blocked to an extent that would make Obama look like he had carte blanche for 8 years. Continue reading →

In July 2016 the Democratic National Committee will hold its National Convention in Philadelphia, in the appropriately named “Wells Fargo Center.”

Here is what most probably will happen:

1. A political party that represents 29% of the voters will nominate a candidate to run for President.

2. That candidate will run against the nominee from another party that represents 25% of the voters.

4. The Democrats will nominate a candidate with a 46% favourable rating among voters.

5. That candidate will face an opponent who has a 35% favourable rating.

That spread, i.e., 65% unfavourable versus “only” 54% unfavourable, is what the DNC considers a “winning scenario.”

So let’s sum up:
One party, representing 1 in 3 of the nation’s voters, will nominate a candidate that more than half of all voters do not like.

The other party, representing 1 in 4 f the nation’s voters, will nominate a candidate that two-thirds of all voters do not like.

So we have two parties, neither of which represents a majority or even anywhere near half of us, choosing candidates that more than half of us do not want to vote for.

For all my friends out there who were worried about having to choose “The Lesser Of Two Evils” let me tell you the truth:

This year, we will face the Evil of Two Lessers.

The two party system is broken. We need to fix it.

And yes, since 2013 the % of voters identifying as Democrats has dropped from 31% to 29%.

Let us all hope that Bernie Sanders can help revitalise the Democratic Party and make it relevant again by attracting young people and others to the Democratic fold, so that the future DNC will be able to nominate a candidate with a “net positive” approval rating. It is not too much to hope for.

When it comes to foreign policy, there is no doubt that the Middle East poses the greatest challenge to any would-be American President. Hillary Clinton is in a unique position to defend both the US and our closest allies in the Middle East by virtue of her experience, her proven track record in foreign relations and her unparalleled personal connections and relationships with the major players in the region.

Hillary Supports Israel 110%

Hillary is by far the strongest supporter of Israel, our “special and irreplaceable ally” and the only theocratic Democracy in the world. Her steadfast support for the ruling Likud Party and her personal allegiance to Bibi Netanyahu is unquestioned, and she has for years supported Israel in their efforts defend themselves against the terrorists living in Palestine. For Hillary, there is no “grey area” – there is only the black and white reality that Israel is our ally and that their actions in Palestine are purely based on self defense and a desire to secure their own right to live in peace without fear of terrorist rockets or suicide bombers. In her speech to AIPAC, Hillary was clear, stating that the United States could not be “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; could not be neutral when it comes to settlements or land or the need to rout out the terrorists wherever they may hide. She railed strongly against the so-called “BDS” movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanction”) which she sees as nothing more than anti-Semitism and an unfair attack on Israel and the Jewish people.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, still talks about the so-called “two state solution” in which the Palestinians should have the right to live in an “economically viable” state of their own, and he is actually on the record as condemning Israeli settlements and the bombing of Gaza and various other operations that Israel has had to conduct in order to protect itself from the terrorists living in Palestine. His positions on these issues clearly put Bernie out of touch with the modern Democratic Party. Indeed, his views are a throwback to the 1970’s and the naïve peacenik policies of Jimmy Carter, who recently has even gone so far as to call the Israeli administration of Palestine an “occupation” and “a modern apartheid.”

Clearly, politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter simply do not understand the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they have evolved over the past years, and how the situation has become more grave and more dangerous for Israel since the Likud Party has taken control of the Jewish State. Hillary knows that without the firm and unrelenting leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu Israel would find itself in a very different situation today, and so her strong and unswerving personal loyalty to the Israeli Prime Minister has gained her his trust and his thanks. Having Hillary in the White House will re-establish warm, friendly and close ties with Netanyahu and the Likud Party, which have grown tenuous and weak under President Obama – and would certainly become even more contentious under a President Sanders.

Hillary has a Proven History of Working with our Arab Allies

Hillary’s close ties and unqualified support for Israel has not kept her from developing equally close ties with our greatest Arab allies. As Secretary of State she moved decisively to push the Obama Administration to overthrow the Libyan government and remove Muamar Gaddafi from power. The US support for the bombing campaign that ultimately killed that despot was critical to the success of that mission, and Hillary herself described the overwhelming victory when she said “we came, we saw, he died.”

This action was not just a humanitarian mission, however. It was also something that our Arab allies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and elsewhere desperately wanted to see happen, and Hillary’s strong leadership in this action earned her the respect and the thanks of the ruling families of those kingdoms. Hillary was also able to cobble together support for the move to overthrow Assad in Syria, something both the Israelis and the Saudis wanted to see happen. Clinton thus proved capable of working with our two closest Middle Eastern allies in an effective way that reflects well on both her ability to get things done as well as her skill in keeping such initiatives “under the radar” in order to cloak the involvement of our allies and therefore spare them any embarrassment.

Hillary Occupies a Unique Position in World Affairs

Hillary cemented her personal ties with many Arab and Muslim leaders around the world by masterfully leveraging her position in government. Every arms deal must be approved by the State Department, and Hillary made sure that no weapons shipment was made without first ensuring that America and the world would benefit from the transaction.

Alongside her duties as Secretary of State, Hillary also championed the charitable activities of the Clinton Global Initiative, deftly using her arms negotiations with over 20 countries to cajole sizeable donations from the recipients. While some have criticised her for this, it is obvious that any negotiation resulting in such a “win-win” scenario can only serve to strengthen Hillary’s credibility and hence her ability to get things done with our Arab allies. In this way Hillary is uniquely positioned to succeed in enforcing her policies in the Middle East through leverage she can exert both through official channels as well as non-official and even private sector engagement. She is truly a “triple threat” in the world of Realpolitik.

Hillary is Right on Anti-Terrorism

As a US Senator, Hillary Clinton was and remains a staunch supporter of the Patriot Act, having voted for it in 2001 and again to re-authorise it in 2006, when she proclaimed “We understood then, as we do now, that these tools are important in our fight against terrorism.” Democrats need to be strong in this regard, and the good work that is being done by the NSA and other Government agencies are needed to keep us safe. This is the Democratic position.

Bernie Sanders has adopted a radical opposition to the original Patriot Act and its reauthorisation, and in this he is in the company of such Republicans and Libertarians as Rand Paul. Again, Sanders is tone deaf to the position of both the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton in realising the danger in having such people as Edward Snowden breach our national security without facing the consequences. While Bernie Sanders seems to want to extend leniency towards Snowden, Hillary will be steadfast and forthright in demanding that the criminal Snowden “face the music” for his traitorous activities.

What Hillary will get done in Foreign Policy

Hillary will continue to be the lion-hearted crusader in Foreign Policy that she has always been. Hillary is not afraid to take on the enemies of America and our key allies like Israel, and she will not hesitate to use America’s military might to extinguish any perceived threat to us or our friends, and she will be pro-active in pursuing a policy of international engagement that fits America’s unique position as the world’s lone Superpower and the “indispensible” country when it comes to international security. Henry Kissinger, though not a Democrat, is still one of the most venerated statesmen in America, and he has rightly praised Hillary for her handling of foreign affairs while at State. This is because Hillary, like Kissinger, understands that America occupies a unique position in the world in terms of its military capability as well as its innate moral superiority.

Hillary has a proven track record of bipartisanship in getting things done on Foreign Policy. Kissinger is not the only Republican to have praised Hillary’s performance as Secretary of State: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Condoleeza Rice, Cory Gardner and even Jim Demint have all praised Hillary’s leadership while at State.

Indeed, Hillary maintains a “massive” stable of advisors including such luminaries as Robert Kagan as well as Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk, who share Hillary’s determination to assert America’s rightful position on the world stage as well as to stamp out terrorism and defend Israel at all costs. If elected President there is no doubt that Hillary will indeed “get things done” in the foreign policy arena.

I believe that the Democrats will take back the Senate in the 2016 elections. This will put a halter on anything that Trump wants to do should he become President. This will also force Trump to nominate moderates to the Supreme Court and other positions requiring Senate confirmation.

Indeed, there are really only 2 areas where a President can act unilaterally with some degree of autocracy: Trade and Foreign Policy. I find Trump’s views and positions on both these issues to be much more in line with my own (and those of most Sanders supporters) than those of Hillary Clinton.

If Clinton wins, I am confident that there will be an almost immediate escalation of our involvement in Syria, greatly exacerbating a bad situation and generations even more anti-American sentiment. I am also pretty sure that a Clinton Administration will throw our move towards detente with Iran in reverse and would not be surprised if we are bombing Iran by the end of her first term. In sum, I am sure that a Clinton Presidency will have disastrous consequences for America lasting decades into the future. Trump has criticised the Iraq war and opposes “stupid” interventionist wars that simply do not make financial sense to him. He espouses a more restrained foreign policy and has even expressed a willingness to negotiate or even collaborate with Putin and Russia. He has also said that he will honour the nuclear deal with Iran.

On Trade, I am likewise 99.9% sure that a President Clinton will not only green-light the TPP but will actively promote it, just as she has for so many years. This will be a domestic disaster of epic proportions that will have repercussions extending far beyond the term of her Presidency. Trump opposes “disastrous trade deals” just like Sanders – albeit in a more crude fashion. Trump puts it into the frame of “winning” ands “losing” but the message is the same: these trade deals have been a disaster for the American middle class, and he opposes the TPP.

Trump is scary, but more scary to me is getting a phony corporatist Democrat in the WH. If Trump is elected, he will be a one-term President, and will hopefully be defeated in 2020 provided that the Democrats put up a TRULY progressive candidate and not a Corporatist Wall Street tool like Clinton. Hillary, however, would use her first term in office to consolidate her political power and further cultivate powerful allies and forces in the American corporate community. She will be unbeatable in re-election, and so the cause of Progressivism will be set back for decades. This, combined with a disastrous trade policy and an irresponsible and aggressively adventurist neocon foreign policy make her for me the less attractive candidate.