In this commentary we have, I think, strong evidence of brain disease from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart ("brain diseased" being a pejorative term he likes).
| Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Now Know for Certain (Through Wikileaks Releases) that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Rest of Those Goons at the DNC Were Busily Stacking the Deck Against Bernie Sanders in an Effort to Pave the Way for Hillary Clinton... I tried to warn the left about this treacherous rodent but they wouldn't listen. Maybe they'll listen now. (7/25/2016 AT 5:19pm). |
Yeah, it's true that the WikiLeaks release shows that (now former) DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was acting as a HRC surrogate in a position in which she was supposed to be acting with neutrality. But the Bernie supporters already knew this. Although I don't know I'd go as far as Willis does. Because what he's saying doesn't quite comport with the facts. As far as I know some staffers discussed (via email) tactics they could use against Bernie (calling him out for suspected atheism) but they never did.
The limiting of the number of debates was (IMO) definitely done to protect HRC. Anyway, my point is that there is agreement between Willis and me in regards to DWS stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders. I don't know why he would give a crap, however, given his intense hate for Bernie Sanders.
Where I take exception to what Willis wrote, however, is in regards to this "warning" bullshit. Unless he's talking about how he and a (former) frequent commenter on his blog "warned" the Left in regards to how ugly they both believe DWS is.
This exchange, for example (comments attached to a post by Hart titled "Democratic Congressional Bimbo Eruptions").
| Rusty Shackelford: She may very well be a nice person... but Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one homely woman. (11/14/2012 AT 8:01pm). Willis Hart: You and I are going arm and arm straight to hell, Russ. You do know that, right? (11/14/2012 AT 8:02pm). |
Willis Hart (an atheist) doesn't believe in hell. That line is his way of saying he appreciates what Rusty said about DWS being "homely". No, no warnings of treachery here. Only comments from two misogynist assholes concerning the appearance of a female Democratic politician they don't like.
If someone can point me to a WTNPH commentary in which he issues any kind of warning regarding DWS... go ahead, I CHALLENGE you to find one. Me, I can't recall a single conversation in which DWS's name came up where Rusty Shackelford did not immediately refer to her as ugly and Willis Hart did not gleefully agree.
BTW, in regards to DWS stacking the deck against Sanders, this is an issue that Bernie supporters did discuss. The fact is that I "warned" that DWS was "busily stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders in an effort to pave the way for Hillary Clinton" on my blog (and can point to the posts). Whereas the Hartster's warnings DO NOT EXIST! He never warned about squat regarding DWS. Never. Unless you believe his and Rusty's Shackelford's exchanges regarding DWS being a dumb ugly bimbo count as "warnings". Obviously, if we are to elect women to congress, they need to be a lot hotter.
"I tried to warn the left about this treacherous rodent but they wouldn't listen" is a LIE. Or perhaps a self delusion. Completely untrue in any case.
Image: WikiLeaks email release proves that, under chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, there was a distinct pro-Hillary bias. A bias that took the form of discussions of how to harm the Bernie Sanders campaign. Although no action seems to have been taken, the DNC is SUPPOSED to be neutral! (4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump).
Well Derv,
ReplyDeleteOne thing I certainly do not wish to do is go to hell arm-to-arm with the likes of Will Hart or Rusty Shackelford. I am sure that you and I can both agree on that point.
Emails have a certain expectation of privacy despite the prevailing wisdom that it is not a good idea to use email to communicate anything that you would not want to be published in your own name. Still, it is not the norm to publicly out people's email accounts. Hacking is still a crime in the U.S.
So, personally, I couldn't care less what the emails revealed. Unless it was something truly damning, it is of zero interest to any thinking person. Maybe you and I are not so far apart on this point. You seem to believe that everybody always knew that the party would go with Clinton. That's right. Just like they screwed Hillary eight years ago. It's a political party. They can do whatever they choose to do within the law.
It is amusing to read Will Hart chiming in. What a laugh!
So what is he now, another Putin-loving totalitarian like the guy he wants to be boss? Or just another demented misogynist?
Hacking is still a crime in the US, but (as you likely know) Russia is suspected of the hack. I doubt whoever did it is worried about violating US law. Even though it is a crime, I am still interested. The info, no matter how it got into the public domain, is still there. So we can discuss it/have an opinion on it. And, I think if criminal activity was revealed, law enforcement could act on it. Perhaps believing this makes me (according to what you wrote) a non-thinking person... but there you go. Progressive radio talker Thom Hartmann said he thinks this is a good thing for the Democratic Party, sunlight being good thing. It got rid of DWS, so that's a positive.
ReplyDeleteAs for HRC getting screwed by the DNC last time... you may be right, but I'm not sure how this is the case.
DWS is gone, big deal. The ripple will hardly be felt. Perhaps the only thing paid less attention to will be Will's commentary.
ReplyDeleteThere are more important items are on the agenda. Just my opinion.
Okay, so the content of the emails is of interest to you. I guess that's because you had a dog in the fight. I would like to see at least one example of unethical behavior now that it has all blown up. So far I have only heard vague commentary implicating staffers. I see our caped crusader has also launched a searchable database of Hillary's emails back in March. You can go to wikileaks and search the databases yourself. But I don't think anybody has enough time to search through all of this megadata.
ReplyDeleteBut no. Snowden and Manning were whistle-blowers. Hacking the DNC was just a simple invasion of privacy.
Actually what happened to Hillary at the 2008 convention is remarkably similar to the job that was done to Bernie. She actually had a plurality of votes. There was a meeting of the rules committee concerning some unusual occurrences in Michigan and Florida. Do you remember anything about delegates whose votes only counted for a half a vote? See the NYT analysis of the outcome of this meeting.
Republican-controlled state legislatures in both states passed bills moving up the dates of their primaries in the vain hopes of influencing the outcome of Super Tuesday. This violated the DNC rules, but the respective state parties were still forced to hold their primaries early. The problem in Florida. The problem in Michigan.
For a more emotional discussion of the comparison between Clinton and Sanders, just check my favorite living PUMA.
Yeah, I remember that now. I don't know that means that, if not for the MI and FL problems, Hillary Clinton would have won though. The "favorite living PUMA" riverdaughter points out that Obama was not on the ballot in MI, but she seems to think that Hillary's "winning" of the popular vote isn't a QUALIFIED win because of that.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that's why the DNC put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Hillary this time? She was "owed" for what happened last time? The media played their part too (not covering Bernie). So, no, "goons at the DNC... busily stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders" (as Willis puts it) didn't (by itself) cost Senator Sanders the election. She did win. Doesn't mean I have no right to complain though (as riverdaughter says I don't).
I going to move on and vote for Hillary, however. There won't be any bitterness from me... unless Hillary Clinton (as president) is a total corporate Democrat. If that's the case I WILL be lamenting the fact that we COULD have had Bernie Sanders as president. Not thrilled with Tim Kaine (who voted for fast track and supports/supported the TPP) either.
Flying Junior: I would like to see at least one example of unethical behavior now that it has all blown up. So far I have only heard vague commentary implicating staffers.
ReplyDeletePre WikiLeaks email Dump...
5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton (excerpt from the 12/20/2015 US Uncut article) 1. Scheduling primary debates to garner as few viewers as possible. ... 2. Grassroots Clinton field offices co-located at DNC offices. ... 3. Dismantling Bernie Sanders' campaign over one staffer's mistake... The most obvious example of DNC favoritism toward Hillary Clinton. ... 4. DNC finance chair caught raising money for Clinton... a direct violation of DNC rules. ... 5. The DNC lined up superdelegates for Clinton before first debate.
Post WikiLeaks email Dump...
4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump (excerpt from the date article) 1. DWS Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "Ass" and a "Liar". ... 2. Highlighting Sanders' Faith. One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism — even though he has said he is not an atheist — during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters. 3. Building a Narrative Against Sanders. "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess", DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote... The idea was nixed, though. 4. Lamentations That Sanders Is Not a Democrat. In an April 24 email DWS received with an article describing the ways Sanders felt the DNC was undermining his campaign, she wrote back, "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do".
Re #2 and #3... I guess they didn't follow through. People would be a LOT madder if they had (and for good reason). Although the stuff we already knew about was pretty bad. The emails certainly CONFIRM the pro-Hillary bias, though.
"4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump (excerpt from the date article)" should read as follows...
Delete4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump (excerpt from the 7/25/2016 ABC News article)...
I typed out my response in Notepad and intended to go back and fill in the attribution info... but forgot.