Corporate Democrats have never worked so hard to lose the next election

Do Democrats Prefer Trump in the White House? (Truthdig)

[...]

An impeachment proceeding would prolong the “Russiagate” drama, which has provided Democrats with a convenient excuse to avoid confronting why they lost in 2016 to somebody so widely loathed. Most of the citizenry is sick of the multiyear conspiracy drama, an endless media-politics fascination that has sucked up civic oxygen while numerous issues of vastly greater importance have been ignored: economic hyperinequality, bad jobs, inadequate and over-expensive health care, rotting infrastructure, abject plutocracy and rampant gun violence, not to mention our race to environmental self-destruction.

Pelosi and the rest of the establishment Democrats are right to calculate that an impeachment spectacle would not only sputter in the Senate but perhaps even benefit Trump and his party in 2020, much as it did for Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. If nothing else, it would likely help Trump rally his horrid white-nationalist base in several key battleground states. By contrast, voting Trump out of office in 2020 could make him a target for indictment, or perhaps force him to resign in advance of the next president’s inauguration in order to let Mike Pence pardon him first.

But what are the chances of the Democrats actually winning the next election, forcing the president to choose between denying the legitimacy of the vote count (a very real threat) or vacating his office before his term is up? Barring the onset of a recession (another distinct possibility), only popular front-runner Bernie Sanders is likely to prevail against Trump. And, as in the last presidential election cycle, corporate politicos are already working to sabotage the nomination of their most viable candidate in a general election. The following eight mechanisms explain how they might succeed:

Flooding the primary campaign with such an absurdly large number of candidates that Sanders will likely be unable to garner the majority of primary delegates required for a first-ballot nomination at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

Coordination among the Democratic Convention superdelegates—the more than 350 county and state party bosses and elected officials who are granted delegate status without election—to vote as a bloc to stop Sanders on the convention’s second ballot. (These superdelegates exist precisely for the purpose of blocking challengers to the party’s corporate establishment.)

Ongoing efforts to change state party elections from caucuses to primaries, as caucuses are friendlier to progressive challengers. (Sanders won 11 of the nation’s 18 caucus states three years ago.) The disingenuous theft of many of Sanders’ sincerely held progressive policies by corporate candidates who have no intention of fighting to implement them if they attain the presidency.

Appealing to the name recognition of Joe Biden, along with the public’s misplaced nostalgia for Barack Obama’s Wall Street-captive presidency—both of which will be wielded as weapons against Sanders’ progressive populism.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s transparently reactionary and frankly sickening decision to block contracts with campaign consultants and other political vendors who agree to work for progressive challengers in the 2020 primaries. Besides seeking to protect Congress itself as a corporate preserve, this move aims to deny Sanders congressional allies and undermine his ability to govern if elected.

Smearing Sanders’ highly popular social-democratic policy agenda as “fantastic,” “unaffordable,” “unrealistic” and too dangerously “socialist”—this while Democratic elites refuse to acknowledge the fascist tendencies of the president they helped elect in 2016.

Branding the eminently electable Sanders “unelectable” on the grounds that he is an “extremist” who is “too far left” for the U.S. electorate generally and independent voters specifically. In reality, the opposite is true. Sanders appeals to independents (who are nowhere near as conservative as is commonly reported), people of color, infrequent voters and the white working-class that has largely abandoned the Democratic Party. His anti-establishment message, coupled with his long record of representing rural voters, makes him highly competitive with Trump, not only in the Rust Belts states where Hillary Clinton faltered but even in some dark red states like West Virginia. Even the likes of Karl Rove believe Sanders could defeat Trump in 2020.

Look for the Democratic establishment to do everything it can to prevent its party from defeating Trump in 2020. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. At this point, the party exists to serve its corporate clients. Its leaders fear the specter of socialism while the world’s most powerful nation threatens to slide into fascism. (Never mind that democratic eco-socialism—a political project significantly more radical than what Sanders is proposing—is precisely what America and the world need right now.) Establishment Democrats would rather lose to a white-nationalist right than even the mildly social-democratic left within their own party. It’s why the late political scientist Sheldon Wolin labeled them “the Inauthentic Opposition.”

Gore Vidal on Empire (2003)

Ooopsie! On Venezuela Trump deviates from the Playbook!

"He is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he’d like to see something positive happen," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday. "I feel the same way."

His remarks came just days after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Russia of propping up the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who is in the midst of a political showdown with opposition leader Juan Guaido. The Trump administration has pushed hard to oust Maduro in favor of Guaido, calling Guaido the legitimate leader of Venezuela.

Russia is a key Maduro ally, and the Kremlin has been sharply critical of the Trump administration's support for Guaido.

Yup. That and Pompeo claiming Putin's men had practically dragged Maduro off a plane, so ready the latter was to get his chops into exile! (NOT!)

I can only hope all this will cause a massive aneurysm in Bolton's angry brain...

When a Coup is (Not) a 'Coup'...

Stenographers for Power

The reasons for the reluctance of the media to use the word “coup” can be found in official announcements from the government. With all the credibility of an armed man in a mask repeatedly shouting “this is not technically a bank robbery,” national security advisor John Bolton told reporters on April 30, “This is clearly not a coup,” but an effort by ”the Venezuelan people” to “regain their freedom,” which the US “fully supports.” Likewise, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that what we are seeing in Venezuela “is the will of the people to peacefully change the course of their country from one of despair to one of freedom and democracy.”

Soon after Bolton’s comments, Bloomberg published a series of articles (4/30/19; 4/30/19; 4/30/19), all by different writers, on why the events did not constitute a coup attempt. This, despite Bloomberg’s reporter Andrew Rosati revealing that coup leader Leopoldo Lopez told him and the rest the international media core that he wants the US to formally govern Venezuela once Maduro falls.

Pompeo made waves in April after publicly admitting at an event at Texas A&M University that he was a serial liar, cheat and thief. As CIA director, he declared, “We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses [on it]!” Nevertheless, the media credulously repeated his astonishing claims, made in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (5/1/19), that Maduro, who has survived multiple coup attempts and assassinations, had been on the airport tarmac on his way to Cuba, “ready to leave” Venezuela for good, only for Russia to tell him to stay. This dubious, unverified and officially contestedassertion made headlines around the world (Daily Beast, 4/30/19; Newsweek, 4/30/19; Times of London, 5/1/19; Deutsche Welle, 4/30/19), with few questioning its credibility.

This is not the first time the media have lined up behind the government on a Venezuelan coup. As detailed in my book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting, the US media also endorsed the April 2002 coup against Chavez, using euphemisms such as “popular uprising” (Miami Herald, 4/18/02), “unrest” (New York Times, 5/23/02) or “Chavez’s temporary downfall” (New York Times, 4/29/02) to frame events more positively. Only after an official White House spokesperson used the word “coup” on April 15, 2002, was the word frequently used in the media, suggesting a close synergy between government officials and those supposedly employed to hold them to account.

After barely 12 hours, the most recent coup attempt appeared to have failed under the weight of its own unpopularity. According to the New York Times (4/30/19), Guaidó failed to attract meaningful support from the military, his co-conspirator Leopoldo Lopez had sought refuge first in the Chilean then in the Spanish embassy, and 25 of his paramilitaries had done the same in the Brazilian one. Guaidó did not win over the Venezuelan majority, who had previously chased his motorcade out of a working class district when he tried to enter. Ordinary Venezuelans continued their lives, or even rushed to the defense of the government. As USA Today (5/1/19) summed up:

Guaidó called it the moment for Venezuelans to reclaim their democracy once and for all. But as the hours dragged on, he stood alone on a highway overpass with the same small cadre of soldiers with whom he launched a bold effort to spark a military uprising.

It appears that the main base of support for the coup was the US government…and the media. The press’s extraordinary complicity, lining up with the State Department’s version of the world in the face of empirical evidence, highlights the worrying closeness between media and government. When it comes to foreign policy, there is often no difference between deep state and fourth estate.

Truthdig.

Jimmy Dore on the NYT's Propaganda (Venezuela)

My Way or Huwawei

So Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson was summarily sacked by the PM, accused of leaking information from the ultra secretive National Security Council (NSC). Williamson rejects all notions of wrongdoing.

Several MPs, most loudly perhaps Tom Watson - Lab, are now calling for a criminal investigation into Williamson and the leak.

Which brings me to an interesting aside.

May has faced a heated backlash over the Daily Telegraph leak claiming ministers advised by top security officials at the National Security Council meeting had agreed to allow Huawei to help build "non-core" parts of the U.K.’s next generation of mobile infrastructure, 5G. The U.S., which has banned Huawei from its government networks, has been putting pressure on its allies to follow its lead, citing concerns that the Chinese vendor’s equipment could allow Beijing to spy — allegations that Huawei has repeatedly denied.

Did you see that? "officials at the National Security Council meeting had agreed to allow Huawei to help build "non-core" parts of the U.K.’s next generation of mobile infrastructure, 5G".

So these officials recommend Huwawei, against US diktats. The question is: had the NSC's line have been 'suitably' critical of Huwawei, would the leak have caused the same commotion as we've seen now?

We are all Julian Assange!

DiEM25.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019, we will demonstrate just a few meters away from the UK and US embassies – the two countries that hold the future of WikiLeaks founder and DiEM25 Advisory Panel member Julian Assange and freedom of press in their hands. Please tell everyone you know about the protest!

You see, Germany is not – and should not be – an innocent by-stander.

As we already know from Edward Snowden’s revelations on NSA spying on Germany, the sovereignty of Germany – its journalists and the privacy of its citizens – is also under threat. The May 2 court hearing in London is more than just about Julian Assange. It’s about our right to know. It’s about you and me.

And while Chelsea Manning remains in prison, precisely because she rejected to testify against WikiLeaks, the protection of whistleblowers has never been more important – and urgent, all across Europe, including Germany. The stakes are global.

It’s highly likely that the US is preparing to file more charges against Julian. The current indictment is but an attempt to criminalise long-established source protection practices and journalists working with whistleblowers aiming to disclose classified information for the public interest.

Scores of press freedom organisations, news outlets, United Nations representatives, politicians and public figures have denounced Julian’s arrest and his possible extradition and have warned of its worrying implications.

Whatever the outcome of the court hearing, the very fact that Julian is being kept in solitary confinement at the “British Guantanamo” Belmarsh prison, is enough for us to gather at the Brandenburger Gate to protest against the inhuman conditions he is facing now and to loudly say Stop the extradition of Julian Assange!

Join us to lend our voice to Julian and to the journalists, whistleblowers and freedom of press activists around the globe who’s lives are at risk for defending our right to know. If you don’t live near Berlin, spread the word and spread the petition against Julian’s extradition.

The “We are all Julian Assange!” protest will begin at 12:00 with speeches by German theater director Angela Richter, Whistleblower Network chairman Annegret Falter, biologist and founder of EcoLeaks Esteban Servat, and myself. The speeches will be followed by a reading of a short statement by Edward Snowden brought by Angela Richter from Moscow to this special DiEM25-led public demonstration.

For Edward Snowden, our demonstration is not just about “a man who stands in jeopardy, but the future of the free press”.

And last but not least, a DiEM25 and Demokratie in Europa message to all German voters: don’t vote for any party at European Elections that is not ready to stand in the protection of whistleblowers, freedom of press, and, more specifically, to oppose Julian’s extradition to the United States.

Laibach - the Whistleblowers:

There is no future for Europe – no democracy – without the freedom of press.

Looking forward to seeing you at Brandenburger Gate (Pariser Platz) on May 2 at 12:00.

Jimmy Dore on Assange: