In the Week that Hillary Clinton, the tired voice of Democratic party establishment politics has announced her presidential candidacy and on the left some are scurrying to the same old same old rut positions, from refusing to have anything to do with the Democrats, the same old same old there no differences between either of the capitalist parties, to sitting on the sidelines and following the campaign ready to endorse Hillary and work for her for nothing in terms of any real policies, the woman who has consistently represented what Marxists and Communists have long called an anti-monopoly politics, sits in the wings and waits while progressive activists through the country seek to find a way for her to run for President. Today, on the issues, Elizabeth Warren as an anti-monopoly politician is not only qualitatively better than Hillary Clinton; she is better than Barack Obama on substantive policies was in 2008 and he was, compared to any Demoratic presidential candidate at the time since George McCGovern, very good.
Below I have posted a statement by Senator Warren which makes it clear why she is so much better than any potential Democratic candidate in 2016. In that regard, Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men, said last month that Warren should stop "demonizing" Wall Street and the Banks and some interpreted that as a threat from finance capital that they would withdraw funding from Democratic Senate candidates if she didn't. Her answer which I am posting in quotes right below her speech was wonderful--an answer that Hillary Clinton would be very unlikely to give
Norman Markowitz

"Do you think if I used a sweeter tone when I talk to the banks, that if I said, very nicely, ‘we should have broken you into pieces,’ that everything would be fine? Do you think if I smiled more at banking committee hearings that Wall Street would put me on their Christmas Card list? Give me a break.”




Washington Works Great for Those With Money and Power
By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

12 April 15



http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-T.jpghe rigged game in Washington does a lot more than just help the rich to get richer.

Tax breaks for billionaires mean there’s less money for educating our kids or rebuilding roads and bridges. Trade policies that benefit corporate CEOs make it easier to ship jobs overseas. Subsidies go to Big Oil, while small businesses pay full freight.

The list could go on and on but the point is the same: Washington works really well for those with money and power. For everyone else, not so much.

After two years in the Senate, I see more than ever how much government matters. Our Senate campaign was never just about me – it was about how we all work together to stand up, speak out, and give every kid a fighting chance to succeed.

Government matters. Kids tell me say they did everything they were supposed to do – worked hard and got a good education, but now they are worried that they will never dig out of their mountains of student loan debt.

Seniors stop me on the street. They tell me they worked really hard their whole lives, but now they are in constant fear of how they’ll make it if Congress cuts their Social Security checks.

Fast-food workers tell me they don’t have time to stop and say hello, let alone call or visit one of my offices. They’re too busy and too exhausted working two or three jobs trying to pay the rent and keep groceries on the table.

Student loans. Social Security. Minimum wage. Government matters. We the people need a government that works for the people. This isn’t about big government versus small government. This is about whether we’re going to have a government that works only for the rich and powerful, or a government that works for everyone.

That’s what I’m fighting for – and that’s what this team is fighting for – each and every day.




More... (http://politicalaffairs.net/elizabeth-warren-on-peoples-government-by-norman-markowitz/)

This is Norm - the "Marxist": Elizabeth Warren is "the woman who has consistently represented what Marxists and Communists have long called an anti-monopoly politics".

Bullshit, Norm. Lizzy is way more "liberal" than Hill - way more "progressive", but so fucking what?

Lizbeth says,"Do you think if I used a sweeter tone when I talk to the banks, that if I said, very nicely, ‘we should have broken you into pieces,’ that everything would be fine? Do you think if I smiled more at banking committee hearings that Wall Street would put me on their Christmas Card list? Give me a break.”

So, she admits that she has no chance, at all, of getting elected to almost anything - she may not get re-elected to her senate seat. So why should any leftist participate in any of these charades?

And I am not talking about what Norm describes as being a leftist. If you can decipher the following gibberish, Norm seems to be saying that "leftists" are preparing to "work for Hillary" or vote for her or something:


In the Week that Hillary Clinton, the tired voice of Democratic party establishment politics has announced her presidential candidacy and on the left some are scurrying to the same old same old rut positions, from refusing to have anything to do with the Democrats, the same old same old there no differences between either of the capitalist parties, to sitting on the sidelines and following the campaign ready to endorse Hillary and work for her for nothing in terms of any real policies,

I don't know, this is some of the most embarrassing crap for a communist publican (I meant 'publication', but I am leaving it as is. Dhal) I have ever read. Norm tops himself (bottoms himself?) with every issue. At any rate he seems to be saying that supporting Hill is bad, but "refusing to have anything to do with the Democrats, the same old same old there no differences between either of the capitalist parties" is also bad. But then "sitting on the sidelines and following the campaign ready to endorse Hillary and work for her for nothing in terms of any real policies" is bad, too.

So, Warren is not running for President. She may be too smart for that - and she would not be allowed, anyway. So, Norm says you can't sit on the sidelines and not vote because the two parties are the same. You can't vote for Hillary because she is the same as a Republican. And no Democrat is going to launch a third party campaign - which Norm would appear to speak against because he advocates voting the lesser evil. This is about the most confusing and confused mess I have ever seen. If Norm is the best the CPUSA can come up with, it should just close its doors.

Ms Warren, on the other hand is just a straight up whining liberal. "Why can't the rich let the poor have a little more?" Why can't the rich be forced to care about the 'middle class'(sic)?" How can we get a better education system without anyone having to pay for it?" (Because she knows the wealthy won't pay and the poor can't). And finally, "They won't let me run because I'm too mean to them" This is all the liberal progressives in this benighted country has got. I would feel sorry for them, if they weren't so guilty of all the sins they blame on their mirror image.

This is Norm - the "Marxist": Elizabeth Warren is "the woman who has consistently represented what Marxists and Communists have long called an anti-monopoly politics".

Bullshit, Norm. Lizzy is way more "liberal" than Hill - way more "progressive", but so fucking what?

Lizbeth says,"Do you think if I used a sweeter tone when I talk to the banks, that if I said, very nicely, ‘we should have broken you into pieces,’ that everything would be fine? Do you think if I smiled more at banking committee hearings that Wall Street would put me on their Christmas Card list? Give me a break.”

So, she admits that she has no chance, at all, of getting elected to almost anything - she may not get re-elected to her senate seat. So why should any leftist participate in any of these charades?

And I am not talking about what Norm describes as being a leftist. If you can decipher the following gibberish, Norm seems to be saying that "leftists" are preparing to "work for Hillary" or vote for her or something:



I don't know, this is some of the most embarrassing crap for a communist publican (I meant 'publication', but I am leaving it as is. Dhal) I have ever read. Norm tops himself (bottoms himself?) with every issue. At any rate he seems to be saying that supporting Hill is bad, but "refusing to have anything to do with the Democrats, the same old same old there no differences between either of the capitalist parties" is also bad. But then "sitting on the sidelines and following the campaign ready to endorse Hillary and work for her for nothing in terms of any real policies" is bad, too.

So, Warren is not running for President. She may be too smart for that - and she would not be allowed, anyway. So, Norm says you can't sit on the sidelines and not vote because the two parties are the same. You can't vote for Hillary because she is the same as a Republican. And no Democrat is going to launch a third party campaign - which Norm would appear to speak against because he advocates voting the lesser evil. This is about the most confusing and confused mess I have ever seen. If Norm is the best the CPUSA can come up with, it should just close its doors.

Ms Warren, on the other hand is just a straight up whining liberal. "Why can't the rich let the poor have a little more?" Why can't the rich be forced to care about the 'middle class'(sic)?" How can we get a better education system without anyone having to pay for it?" (Because she knows the wealthy won't pay and the poor can't). And finally, "They won't let me run because I'm too mean to them" This is all the liberal progressives in this benighted country has got. I would feel sorry for them, if they weren't so guilty of all the sins they blame on their mirror image.

Norm is a Sophist lecturing Philistines.

Well, if Liz won't give us a dog&pony show then Bernie will.


Give ‘Em Hell, Bernie

Bernie Sanders is more serious than you think
By Matt Taibbi April 29, 2015
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3Yim7dmNs
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Bernie Sanders’ entrance into the 2016 presidential race isn’t a footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2015/article/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429/194033/medium_rect/1430315097/720x405-470455930.jpg

Many years ago I pitched a magazine editor on a story about Bernie Sanders, then a congressman from Vermont, who’d agreed to something extraordinary – he agreed to let me, a reporter, stick next to him without restrictions over the course of a month in congress.
Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton’s Fake Populism Is a Hit »
“People need to know how this place works. It’s absurd,” he’d said. (Bernie often uses the word absurd, his Brooklyn roots coming through in his pronunciation – ob-zert.)
Bernie wasn’t quite so famous at the time and the editor scratched his head. “Bernie Sanders,” he said. “That’s the one who cares, right?”
“Right, that’s the guy,” I said.
I got the go-ahead and the resulting story was a wild journey through the tortuous bureaucratic maze of our national legislature. I didn’t write this at the time, but I was struck every day by what a strange and interesting figure Sanders was.
Many of the battles he brought me along to witness, he lost. And no normal politician would be comfortable with the optics of bringing a Rolling Stone reporter to a Rules Committee hearing.
But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he’s motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can’t protect themselves, I’ve never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the heating-oil aid program for the poor.
This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.
Here’s the thing: Sanders is a politician whose power base is derived almost entirely from the people of the state of Vermont, where he is personally known to a surprisingly enormous percentage of voters.
His chief opponents in the race to the White House, meanwhile, derive their power primarily from corporate and financial interests. That doesn’t make them bad people or even bad candidates necessarily, but it’s a fact that the Beltway-media cognoscenti who decide these things make access to money the primary factor in determining whether or not a presidential aspirant is “viable” or “credible.” Here’s how the Wall Street Journal put it in their story about Sanders (emphasis mine):It is unclear how much money Mr. Sanders expects to raise, or what he thinks he needs to run a credible race. Mr. Sanders raised about $7 million for his last re-election in Vermont, a small state. Sums needed to run nationally are far larger.
The Washington/national press has trained all of us to worry about these questions of financing on behalf of candidates even at such an early stage of a race as this.
In this manner we’re conditioned to believe that the candidate who has the early assent of a handful of executives on Wall Street and in Hollywood and Silicon Valley is the “serious” politician, while the one who is merely the favorite of large numbers of human beings is an irritating novelty act whose only possible goal could be to cut into the numbers of the real players.
Sanders offers an implicit challenge to the current system of national electoral politics. With rare exceptions, campaign season is a time when the backroom favorites of financial interests are marketed to the population. Weighed down by highly regressive policy intentions, these candidates need huge laboratories of focus groups and image consultants to guide them as they grope around for a few lines they can use to sell themselves to regular working people.
Sanders on the other hand has no constituency among the monied crowd. “Billionaires do not flock to my campaign,” he quipped. So what his race is about is the reverse of the usual process: he’ll be marketing the interests of regular people to the gatekeeping Washington press, in the hope that they will give his ideas a fair shot.
It’s a little-known fact, but we reporters could successfully sell Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender for the White House if we wanted to. Hell, we told Americans it was okay to vote for George Bush, a man who moves his lips when he reads.
But the lapdog mentality is deeply ingrained and most Beltway scribes prefer to wait for a signal from above before they agree to take anyone not sitting atop a mountain of cash seriously.
Thus this whole question of “seriousness” – which will dominate coverage of the Sanders campaign – should really be read as a profound indictment of our political system, which is now so openly an oligarchy that any politician who doesn’t have the blessing of the bosses is marginalized before he or she steps into the ring.
I remember the first time I was sold on Bernie Sanders as a politician. He was in his congressional office and he was ranting about the fact that many of the manufacturing and financial companies who asked him and other members of congress for tax breaks and aid were also in the business of moving American jobs overseas to places like China.
Sanders spent years trying to drum up support for a simple measure that would force any company that came to Washington asking for handouts to promise they wouldn’t turn around and ship jobs to China or India.
That didn’t seem like a lot to ask, but his fellow members treated him like he was asking for a repeal of the free enterprise system. This issue drove Sanders crazy. Again showing his Brooklyn roots, Bernie gets genuinely mad about these things. While some pols are kept up at night worrying about the future profitability of gazillionaire banks, Sanders seethes over the many obvious wrongs that get smoothed over and covered up at his place of work.
That saltiness, I’m almost sure of it, is what drove him into this race. He just can’t sit by and watch the things that go on, go on. That’s not who he is.
When I first met Bernie Sanders, I’d just spent over a decade living in formerly communist Russia. The word “socialist” therefore had highly negative connotations for me, to the point where I didn’t even like to say it out loud.
But Bernie Sanders is not Bukharin or Trotsky. His concept of “Democratic Socialism” as I’ve come to understand it over the years is that an elected government should occasionally step in and offer an objection or two toward our progress to undisguised oligarchy. Or, as in the case of not giving tax breaks to companies who move factories overseas, our government should at least not finance the disappearance of the middle class.
Maybe that does qualify as radical and unserious politics in our day and age. If that’s the case, we should at least admit how much trouble we’re in.
Congratulations, Bernie. Good luck and give ‘em hell.

Bolding added. Izzat pathetic, or what?

Well, if Liz won't give us a dog&pony show then Bernie will.



Bolding added. Izzat pathetic, or what?

It makes me sick.