Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

smh^2

shaking your head is too noisy from the rattling. no offense.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

shaking your head is too noisy from the rattling. no offense.

AoN, I always read smh as "smack my head" which is a little stronger than "shake my head."

Anyway, I admire many things about Jesse Jackson, but to consider his candidacy in 1984 (or 1988) as something other than a protest movement is a bit too much. Yes, organized labor (the real part, not just teachers and government workers, NTTAWWT) liked him as they saw the New Deal coalition disintegrating and the technocrats and DLC types gaining control of the party.

But considering his leadership of Operation PUSH as a positive credential? Um. And as for his involvement in the Civil Rights movement, I'll grant you that (although many close to MLK have said that Jackson overstated his involvement with the SCLC prior to April 1968). And would Marion Berry have made a good president?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

AoN, I always read smh as "smack my head" which is a little stronger than "shake my head."

Anyway, I admire many things about Jesse Jackson, but to consider his candidacy in 1984 (or 1988) as something other than a protest movement is a bit too much. Yes, organized labor (the real part, not just teachers and government workers, NTTAWWT) liked him as they saw the New Deal coalition disintegrating and the technocrats and DLC types gaining control of the party.

But considering his leadership of Operation PUSH as a positive credential? Um. And as for his involvement in the Civil Rights movement, I'll grant you that (although many close to MLK have said that Jackson overstated his involvement with the SCLC prior to April 1968). And would Marion Berry have made a good president?

Of course it was a protest. Absolutely. I was involved in the campaign in Chicago and that time and there was absolutely no one who actually thought Jesse might get elected. It was all about having some real delegates at the Convention.

But it ended up going beyond that because it was the first time a black candidate gathered substantial support across racial lines in a national election, even if it was just in the primary process and really just in a handful of states, including Vermont, before the campaign's implosion. That was huge and had a big role in many minority candidates being viewed as viable in races at all levels going forward. From that point on, there was a clear data point you could point to when someone said "but will whites vote for a black candidate".

Jesse personally ended up very disappointing, not just with the hymietown language but in lots of other ways, though there is an odd way that helped, because the discussion about whether or not you could get support for black candidate X became "even Jesse Jackson could get substantial white support...". We gotta get Wonk on here for any discussion of Jesse in Chicago. The impact is big and complicated, but I think on the whole very positive.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/op...cans.html?_r=0

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

okay, you dragged me back in, you think JJ would have been a good president? His creds were???

I don't think supporting a candidate is always about whether or not they would be a good President (especially one that has zero chance of winning). Sometimes it's about giving a voice to people who have none, or bringing issues that wouldn't be addressed in the campaign to light, or moving the leading candidate further left or right than they would otherwise.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wonk

anyone in touch?

edit- NVM he is posting constantly on FB

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Jesse personally ended up very disappointing, not just with the hymietown language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNz5XnvZHhk

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Of course it was a protest. Absolutely. I was involved in the campaign in Chicago and that time and there was absolutely no one who actually thought Jesse might get elected. It was all about having some real delegates at the Convention.

But it ended up going beyond that because it was the first time a black candidate gathered substantial support across racial lines in a national election, even if it was just in the primary process and really just in a handful of states, including Vermont, before the campaign's implosion. That was huge and had a big role in many minority candidates being viewed as viable in races at all levels going forward. From that point on, there was a clear data point you could point to when someone said "but will whites vote for a black candidate".

Jesse personally ended up very disappointing, not just with the hymietown language but in lots of other ways, though there is an odd way that helped, because the discussion about whether or not you could get support for black candidate X became "even Jesse Jackson could get substantial white support...". We gotta get Wonk on here for any discussion of Jesse in Chicago. The impact is big and complicated, but I think on the whole very positive.

There is a little vignette in Boss, Mike Royko's masterful look at Richard M. Daley, in which Royko writes of a Black preacher, new to Chicago from Greenville, Mississippi I believe, who moved into Bridgeport and was ultimately burned out of the neighborhood (Daley's neighborhood and historic Irish enclave). The minister essentially declared war on Daley, the machine, and Chicago's white power structure from that day forward. The young preacher was a fellow named Jesse Jackson.

Jesse went on to do some great things for Chicago and for racial justice in general. But that first welcome to Chicago was what informed his whole political zeitgeist forever after.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Well, Bernie was active with civil rights in the 60s, so our interests are automatically aligned on every. single. issue. to the end of time. And no matter what Hillary's positions are currently, the fact that she supported Goldwater over 50 years ago means she is a secret racist, disingenuous, shifty, right-leaning faux democrat.

I will say this, though: It's been a tough row to hoe getting over her bullshit tactics during the primary in '08. I understand that she probably puts this kind of racial jiggery pokery piggledly pookery in the same bucket as all other political gamesmanship, but I don't view it that way. That shit really pissed me off.

http://theweek.com/articles/567774/h...-2008-campaign

TM

Hilary's biggest problem, and the reason I would vote for almost anyone but Trump, Cruz, or Paul Ryan over her, is that Wall Street's hand is so far up her ass she seems to choke on its fingers any time she talks financial regulation or reform.

I strongly suspect I will wind up writing in Bernie this year. I'd rather throw away my vote on a futile protest than cast it in favor of Goldman Sachs.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Hilary's biggest problem, and the reason I would vote for almost anyone but Trump, Cruz, or Paul Ryan over her, is that Wall Street's hand is so far up her ass she seems to choke on its fingers any time she talks financial regulation or reform.

I strongly suspect I will wind up writing in Bernie this year. I'd rather throw away my vote on a futile protest than cast it in favor of Goldman Sachs.

You know I love you dearly, but you do realize that when Bernie rails about how she got $15 million from Wall Street last quarter that more than half of that was from George Soros alone, not generally known as a Wall Street/Goldman Sachs kind of guy. If you do fall for the "contribution determinist" position, I think the guy up her ass is George, and, frankly, that's a fine place for him.

Of course, if Bernie thinks Hillary will just do whatever her donors want her to do, then he ought to go out and raise funds for her and downballot dems if he doesn't win this one, and make them beholden to all his holier than thouers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

if he doesn't win this one,

as in "he has another run in 2020, or 24?"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

as in "he has another run in 2020, or 24?"

look, I was being polite in not saying, when he loses this one.

I assume he may care about more than just his own election, but maybe that's wrong so there's no point in helping other dems if/ when he loses.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Hilary's biggest problem, and the reason I would vote for almost anyone but Trump, Cruz, or Paul Ryan over her, is that Wall Street's hand is so far up her ass she seems to choke on its fingers any time she talks financial regulation or reform.

I strongly suspect I will wind up writing in Bernie this year. I'd rather throw away my vote on a futile protest than cast it in favor of Goldman Sachs.

Brilliant.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

anyone in touch?

edit- NVM he is posting constantly on FB

Give it a few days, he'll catch up.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I strongly suspect I will wind up writing in Bernie this year. I'd rather throw away my vote on a futile protest than cast it in favor of Goldman Sachs.

This shit, I cannot stand. Did you learn nothing from Nader?