JUNE 9, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


SEE THIS VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE BY THE GUARDIAN. CANADA CHARGES THE U.S. A 270% TARIFF ON DAIRY PRODUCTS. TRUMP IS SAYING HOW UNFAIR IT IS, BUT HE HAS RECENTLY PUT HIGH TARIFFS ON AT LEAST TWO OF OUR PRODUCTS. HE DOESN’T THINK TIT FOR TAT IS FAIR PLAY, APPARENTLY. MANY HAVE SAID THAT HE IS RISKING A TRADE WAR WITH HIS TARIFFS ON AMERICAN GOODS. THIS IS THE RESULT. SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER EXPRESSES STRONG AGREEMENT WITH HIM ON MILK, HOWEVER. SO, WHAT WILL HAPPEN? A TRADE TRUCE OR EVEN AN HONEST AND PEACEFUL AGREEMENT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE WAY TO GO.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/jun/09/milk-canada-us-trade-war
Canada Opinion
Why Canadian milk infuriates Donald Trump
John Barber

Trump’s latest trade war target is Canada’s protected dairy industry. But Canadians have no intention of abandoning it – because it works
Sat 9 Jun 2018 07.00 EDT

Photograph Dairy cows nuzzle a barn cat as they wait to be milked at a farm in Granby, Quebec. ‘The system works so incredibly well,’ said one expert. Photograph: Christinne Muschi/Reuters

In the midst of what appears to be a full-blown trade war between Canada and the US over steel and aluminum, and with Donald Trump taking his first steps on Canadian soil for the G7 summit, a familiar bugbear reappeared to haunt the negotiations.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Canada charges the U.S. a 270% tariff on Dairy Products! They didn’t tell you that, did they? Not fair to our farmers!

6:16 AM - Jun 8, 2018
86.9K
37.2K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Whatever understanding Canada and the US may (or may not) have come to on their high-value trade in lumber or auto parts, they remain implacably opposed on the comparatively minor matter of milk.

Trump has attacked Canada’s protected dairy industry before, calling it a “disgrace” and blaming it for widespread hardship among US farmers. Although the entire trade in dairy products between the two countries is worth less than US$600m, ideological division has sharpened the ongoing dispute. His negotiators have demanded the dismantlement of Canada’s openly dirigiste* system of supply management in agriculture – a complicated nexus of production quotas and import tariffs designed to ensure Canadian dairy, egg and poultry farmers receive fair prices for their products.

[dirigiste* -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme, “Dirigisme or dirigism (from French diriger, meaning 'to direct') is an economic system where the state exerts a strong directive influence over investment. It designates a capitalist economy in which the state plays a strong directive role, as opposed to a merely regulatory one.[1]”

RELATED: In what free-trading Americans like to call Soviet Canuckistan, the dairy industry is thriving like never before ....

But the Canadians are no less determined to retain one of the last vestiges of their otherwise-abandoned collectivist traditions. Canadian cows are sacred, and the farmers who care for them enjoy outsized influence in national politics. Expert observers have said that Justin Trudeau’s government would abandon the treaty altogether before sacrificing supply management.

“It’s just too sensitive for the Canadians,” Kevin Carmichael, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, recently told CNBC news.

Even so, the Trudeau government recently alarmed Canadian farmers by signalling a willingness to give on the issue in the face of insistent US demands. The dispute has acquired new urgency as the US dairy industry continues to suffer from a deep crisis of persistent overproduction, with farmers sinking into insolvency as farm-gate milk prices stick stubbornly below the cost of production. Last year, US farmers dumped almost 100m gallons of surplus milk. Recently, a surge in dairy-farmer suicides has caused national alarm, drawing attention to what the New York Times called “the widespread hopelessness afflicting the industry”.

Representing a state suffering especially hard from farm failures and suicides, the US Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, recently echoed his Republican president in blaming Canada for the debacle. “Canada, when it comes to dairy, acts like China when it comes to trade,” Schumer told hard-pressed farmers in upstate New York. “They’re unfair. They put up barriers. They treat us bad.”

Canadians and Americans are family. Donald Trump is testing even that
Bruce Heyman

Meanwhile, just across the St Lawrence river in what free-trading Americans like to call Soviet Canuckistan, the dairy industry is thriving like never before – and like none other in the developed world. Family farms milking an average of 80 cows each have prospered under a heavily regulated system that supports prices at sustainable levels by restricting domestic overproduction and keeping imports at bay. In 2016, Canadian farmers received an average price of C$0.79 a litre for milk, compared with C$0.49 on average for US farmers.

The result is that dairying remains a key economic support of traditional rural life throughout central Canada. As critics of the system like to point out, hoping to inspire resentment among consumers annoyed by the price of milk, Canadian dairy farmers enjoy incomes 60% above average in the country. But to supporters, the uniquely prosperous, protected Canadian dairy industry stands as a model alternative to the increasingly disruptive and unpopular dynamic of unrestricted free trade in all things.

Supply management enjoys strong government support in no small part because the policy obviates the need to subsidize farmers directly in the manner of the US and the EU – the two greatest culprits behind the current world dairy glut.

“The system works so incredibly well,” said Bruce Muirhead, associate vice-president and professor of history at the University of Waterloo. “And the big thing about supply management is that it doesn’t cost the government a cent. Consumers pay the full cost of production.”

Domestic critics have called supply management a grotesque distortion of free-market principles, complaining that the comparatively high price of Canadian milk sacrifices the interests of consumers in favour of producers and victimizes the poor. But no consumer or social policy group has taken up the cause, and all six parties currently represented in the House of Commons unanimously support supply management.

As do Canadian consumers: an Ipsos poll this year by the Dairy Farmers of Canada reported that 75% of Canadians support even greater government efforts to defend the industry in the face of current US demands.

As the trade minister, Chrystia Freeland, has pointed out, trade data flatly contradicts the claim that Canadian supply management is ravaging US dairyland – either because it unfairly restricts imports or because it dumps a subsidized surplus in US markets. In 2016, Canada imported dairy products from the US worth five times more than the small amount it exported there. “I would call that a pretty good deal,” she told the House of Commons.

Canadian farmers point out that despite the tariffs that protect them, imports make up 10% of the country’s dairy consumption. By contrast, the US restricts dairy imports to 3% of domestic consumption. “That just screams hypocrisy to me,” Muirhead said. “I don’t understand how they can get away with these positions.”

As a recent visitor to Wisconsin, “America’s Dairyland”, where low prices are forcing the closure of hundreds of dairy farms a year, Muirhead said he encountered no resentment against Canada among local farmers. “The president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union told me that what they really wanted was a supply-managed system like ours,” he said.

Dairy deregulation has spread hardship wherever it has been implemented, Muirhead added. “Every single objective indicator says that in the case of dairy you cannot have a system that operates without production controls,” he said. “If you try, you’re basically consigning your farmers to a life of penury – or worse.”

Canada successfully defended the system in its first free trade agreement with the US, and several subsequent ones. But with the full wrath of Trump now focused squarely on the country’s protected farmers, this stubborn remnant of Canadian exceptionalism has never been more fragile.



THIS NEXT ARTICLE ISN’T SURPRISING, EVEN IF IT IS ANNOYING. A PROPOSAL HAS BEEN MADE IN THE DNC TO BAN ANOTHER RUN BY AN OUTSIDER [WINK WINK] AS A PARTY MEMBER WITHOUT SOME OFFICIAL PAPERWORK DECLARING THAT THEY ARE; SAY, THE NEXT BERNIE SANDERS, MUST PUBLICLY DECLARE THAT HE IS AND WILL REMAIN A DEMOCRAT RATHER THAN AN INDEPENDENT – A LOYALTY PLEDGE, I WOULD CALL IT. IDEALLY SANDERS COULD HAVE FORMED HIS OWN PROGRESSIVE PARTY, SINCE THE DEMS ARE STILL TRYING TO STAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. IF THEY KEEP THAT UP, I BELIEVE MORE OF THE TRUE PROGRESSIVES WILL STEP AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS THEY DID IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. IF THE PARTY WANTS TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BE DEMS, THAT WAY OF NEAR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE WON’T WORK. THEY NEED RULE CHANGES AND ATTITUDE CHANGES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE POLITICAL PARTIES THAT ARE ONLY ABOUT HALF AS LARGE AS THEY BOTH ARE AT THIS TIME, OR EVEN LESS SO, AND WITH A MORE INFORMAL AND UNRESTRICTED STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES. THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO PREDETERMINED “WINNERS” OF THE NOMINATION, AS THE CLINTON WING OF THE PARTY DID IN 2016. THAT SHOULD BE BANNED AS A CRIME. IT’S ELECTORAL FRAUD TO DECLARE A “WIN” WHEN THERE HASN’T EVEN BEEN A CONTEST, DON’T YOU THINK?

THERE IS TOO MUCH “CONTROL” IN BOTH PARTIES ALREADY FOR MY TASTES. THERE IS ALSO TOO MUCH DARNED TELEPHONIC DEMANDING/SCOLDING FOR CONTRIBUTIONS. TOO MUCH MONEY IS INVOLVED RIGHT NOW FOR A CLEAN SYSTEM. WE’RE TOO RICH TO AVOID BEING DEEPLY CORRUPT – BOTH DEMS AND REPS. THAT REALLY CUTS DOWN ON MY ABILITY TO ENJOY EXERCISING MY CIVIC RESPONSIBILITIES; AND ALLOWS MORE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE PEOPLE TO MAKE IT INTO THE PRESIDENCY AS THEY BUY THEIR WAY IN, LINE UP BEFORE THE CEREMONIAL PISTOL HAS BEEN FIRED, OR PUSH OTHERS OUT OF LINE.

IF SANDERS OR ANOTHER CANDIDATE HAS ENOUGH VOTERS TO RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT OR PERHAPS HAS FORMED AN OFFICIAL SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC OR SIMPLY “PROGRESSIVE” PARTY, THEN LET HIM RUN IN THAT WAY. HOW MANY PARTIES DOES BRITAIN HAVE? THEY SEEM TO DO WELL. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE WOULD DO BETTER TO FOLLOW THEIR PATTERNS, I THINK. WE WOULDN’T HAVE THESE FURIOUS LOCKED-HORNS BATTLES AS OFTEN, OR PERPETUAL GRIDLOCK IN THE LEGISLATURE; AND WE WOULD HAVE MORE CANDIDATES AND ISSUES TO CHOOSE FROM AT ELECTION TIMES. OFTEN, I DON’T SEE WHAT I DO WANT, AND FEEL FORCED TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT I DON’T, AS IN 2016.

I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ONE RULE THAT SOME MORE LIBERAL THAN I AM WOULD OPPOSE. PREDICTABLY CONSTITUTIONALISTS WOULD FIGHT AGAINST IT; THAT ONE RULE IS A RESTRICTION IN THE ACCEPTABLE SOCIAL VIEWPOINT OF ALL PARTIES SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NAZI /FASCIST /CORPORATIST /BILLIONAIRE /RELIGIOUS PARTIES ALLOWED, OR ANY THAT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE – WHITE SUPREMACIST AND ANTI-IMMIGRANT PARTIES, ESPECIALLY. YES, LET’S CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

ALSO, THOSE WHO WANT TO GROUP TOGETHER AND WITHDRAW FROM THE UNION, PERHAPS, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO IF THEY CAN GET THE AGREEMENT OF A VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE IN THAT AREA, SUCH AS 90%. THE NEWLY FORMED “GOVERNMENT” OF THOSE WHO SECEDE SHOULD PAY THE LAND OWNERS FOR THEIR LAND, HOUSES AND BUSINESSES AT A FAIR VALUE. IF THERE ARE MINERAL RIGHTS, THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF THE PRICE. IF ALL OF THAT COSTS TOO MUCH, THEN THEY WILL HAVE TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE IN THE USA PROPER. IT WOULD PROBABLY END UP BEING A NEW NATION OF BILLIONAIRES, OR AT ANY RATE, MILLIONAIRES, JUST BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL COST INVOLVED. THERE IS ALREADY A GROUP OF WHITE NATIONALISTS WHO WANT TO DO THAT. THE LOCATION THEY WANT IS CENTERED AROUND PORTLAND, OREGON.* WEIRD, BUT TRUE! I DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ASKED THE PEOPLE OF OREGON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE MATTER OR NOT, BUT I DOUBT IT. MAYBE THEY PLAN TO BRING IN THEIR SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND BUMP STOCKS TO CLEAR ALL THE REMAINING DWELLERS OUT.

[https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/12/post_292.html, “EMBOLDENED WHITE NATIONALISTS? LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THIS LIBERAL OREGON COLLEGE TOWN,” Posted December 29, 2017 at 05:00 AM | Updated December 29, 2017 at 08:49 PM]

IF THE POLITICAL PARTIES, AT LEAST FOUR OF THEM RATHER THAN TWO, WERE ALL SMALLER, A BERNIE SANDERS COULD RUN AND HIS CONCEITED CRITICS COULD POOH-POOH HIM AS BEING “UNREALISTIC” AS MUCH AS THEY WANT TO; HOWEVER, THOSE OF US WHO DO WANT THAT “SOCIAL DEMOCRACY” CAN VOTE FOR IT, AND WHEN THE NUMBER OF POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE GROWS LARGER, LIKE NOW FOR INSTANCE, THERE’S NO REASON TO THINK THAT A PERSON OF THE INTELLECTUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF SANDERS CAN’T WIN. OF THE FOUR OR MORE PARTIES OF THE FUTURE, WHICHEVER GETS THE MOST RAW VOTES COULD BE DEEMED THE WINNER. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE NO RIDICULOUS AND INHERENTLY UNFAIR “ELECTORAL COLLEGE” AT ALL. IT’S A BIG WASTER OF TIME AND ENERGY, AND IT MAKES OUR GOVERNMENT AND ELECTORAL POLICIES MORE COMPLICATED. AT VOTING TIME, WE SHOULD, FIRST, ALWAYS MAKE ROUTINE EXAMINATIONS OF THE VOTING MACHINES TO SEE THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE IS WORKING PROPERLY, AND OF THE PROGRAMS THAT RUN THEM. THERE’S NO QUICKER AND EASIER WAY TO CHEAT THAN WITH THOSE THINGS. A CLEVER PROGRAMMER CAN PLAY A WINNER TAKE ALL GAME, WITH HIMSELF AS THE WINNER.

BEFORE COUNTING A VOTE, WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL ALL POLLS ARE CLOSED – NO COMPUTERIZED PRE-COUNT-ESTIMATES THAT WE AMERICANS ARE SO USED TO HAVING. JUST COUNT RAW VOTES AFTER ALL THE POLLS HAVE CLOSED, THEN DO IT AGAIN FROM SCRATCH, COMPARE THE TWO COUNTS FOR INACCURACIES, AND UNLESS THERE IS A NEED FOR A RUN OFF VOTE, DECLARE THE WINNERS. IF A RUN OFF IS NEEDED, ANNOUNCE THAT PUBLICLY OVER ALL AVAILABLE MEDIA, AND SET THE RUNOFF UP FOR AS NEAR A DATE IN THE FUTURE AS POSSIBLE. IN OTHER WORDS, KEEP IT SIMPLE AND DON’T HAVE A SYSTEM THAT PREVENTS EVERY CITIZEN’S VOTE FROM BEING COUNTED – ONE MAN ONE VOTE!

SO, ALL OF YOU REPUBLICANS AND OTHER NAY SAYERS, JUST LEAVE ME AND MY FRIENDS ALONE, AND KEEP TRYING TO SELL THAT PIG IN A POKE TO THE NEEDY BUT PROUD, OR TO THE MERELY “FINANCIALLY UNCOMFORTABLE,” OR TO THOSE GULLIBLE ENOUGH TO THINK THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BECOME THE NEXT SELF-MADE MILLIONAIRES. THEY WILL SOON FIGURE OUT THAT YOU ARE LYING AND WILL NEVER VOTE FOR YOU AGAIN.

THOSE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD (OR COULD) GET RICH, ARE ALL “NATURAL REPUBLICANS.” IN THAT LAST GROUP THE “FINANCIALLY UNCOMFORTABLE,” I AM THINKING OF THOSE WHO CAN’T EVEN HAVE AS MANY AS 6 OR 8 NEW DRESSES A YEAR, MUCH LESS A TRIP TO EUROPE, BUT THEY FEEL THAT TO TAKE FINANCIAL HELP IS DEGRADING. THEY WILL STAY IN THEIR PATTERN UNTIL THEY GET THAT DEGREE IN LAW OR BUSINESS AND SET OUT ON THEIR OWN. JUST ANY OLD COLLEGE DEGREE WON’T CHANGE THEIR STATUS MUCH, IF THE GOAL IS TO BECOME WEALTHY. AS BERNIE SAYS, OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM KEEPS MOST (99%) OF THE PEOPLE DEPRIVED OF THINGS WHICH SHOULDN’T BE LUXURIES. A TRIP TO EUROPE, OR WHEREVER, IS BASIC EDUCATION IN MY VIEW. IT FULFILLS THE SOUL AND BROADENS THE IMAGINATION. JUST KEEP THE TRIP TO A WEEK OR SO TO KEEP THE COSTS DOWN IF YOU NEED TO; AND AVOID OVERNIGHTING IN THE LARGE CITIES MORE THAN A COUPLE OF TIMES. THE LITTLE PLACES ARE MORE SCENIC ANYWAY.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE BY DAVID SIDERS GIVES A HOPEFUL VIEW OF HOW THE DEMS’ NEW RESTRICTION ON WHO MAY RUN IN THEIR PARTY. SANDERS, FOR INSTANCE, “... COULD LIST HIMSELF AS A DEMOCRAT AGAIN IF HE RUNS IN 2020.” OF COURSE, THIS ARTICLE DOES SAY THAT IT IS A “PROPOSAL” AND NOT AN ACCEPTED CHANGE, BUT I’M AFRAID THAT IT WILL VERY LIKELY PASS. THE VOTE BY THE FULL DNC WILL BE HELD IN AUGUST. IF IT DOES, THE PARTY MAY EXPERIENCE EVEN MORE SHEDDING OF TRUE PROGRESSIVES UNLESS THE DEMS MAKE MORE CORRECTIONS TO THEIR PATH THAN THEY HAVE SO FAR. THEY SIMPLY DON’T REPRESENT THOSE OF US WHO MAKE LESS THAN SOME $60,000 A YEAR OR EVEN MORE. THE TRUE MIDDLE CLASS, HILLARY CLINTON’S AIM, IS IN THAT RANGE. BERNIE’S SPECIFIED TARGET GROUP IS WHAT HE CALLS “THE WORKING CLASS,” AND BILL CLINTON CALLED “THE WORKING POOR.” I PREFER BERNIE’S PHRASE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS A LITTLE MORE HOPEFUL, THOUGH THE TRUE SITUATION DOESN’T CHANGE. HOW WE THINK OF OURSELVES MATTERS A GREAT DEAL, THOUGH.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998
DNC rule change angers Sanders supporters
By DAVID SIDERS 06/08/2018 11:32 PM EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, should be unaffected by the rule change if he runs again in 2020 – as long as he lists himself as a Democrat. | Andrew Harnik | AP Photo

Democratic National Committee officials on Friday moved forward with a proposal to force the party’s presidential candidates to identify as Democrats, a move that drew immediate criticism from a top official in Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

The prospective rule change, approved by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, would not necessarily impact Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who ran for president as a Democrat.

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August.

Still, Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, bristled at the DNC committee’s action.

“I really don’t get the motivation for the resolution at all,” he said. “You know, Bernie Sanders got 13 million votes in 2016. Thousands, if not millions, of those votes were young people and independents he brought into the Democratic Party. And I’m just stunned that the Democratic Party’s rules committee would want to try to make the Democratic Party an exclusive club, for which we want to exclude voters and large segments of the American electorate.”

He said, “I just find it a stunning resolution.”

Longabaugh said Sanders would unlikely be affected by the rule change anyway because he could list himself as a Democrat again if he runs in 2020.

According to the draft rule change adopted Friday, “At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat.”

The draft goes on to require that any candidate pursuing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president confirm in writing to the Democratic National Committee chairman that they are a member of the Democratic Party, will accept the Democratic nomination and will “run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The Rules and Bylaws Committee, meeting in Providence, R.I., made no final determination on superdelegates. DNC Chairman Tom Perez has proposed prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at the national convention. Rules committee members also discussed a modified version of that proposal, in which superdelegates would be allowed to vote on the first ballot if a candidate had already earned enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee plans to meet once more this month, before the full DNC votes on the measures in August.

Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, infuriated many establishment Democrats when he ran against Hillary Clinton as a Democrat in 2016, while many Sanders supporters remain embittered by a primary in which they said the DNC tipped the scales against their candidate.



“THE SOURCE DESCRIBED IT AS A STEP THAT WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PARTY LEADERS TO ACCEPT ONE OF SANDERS’S MAIN PRIORITIES — THE END OF SUPERDELEGATES.”* I DON’T SEE HOW THE ISSUE OF SUPERDELEGATES RELATES TO THIS AT ALL. I THINK THE INTENTION IS TO PUNISH SANDERS. HIS MISTAKE WAS TO RUN AGAINST THE HANDPICKED FAVORITE, AND THEN TO RUN TO WIN. IS THERE A RULE AGAINST ANY NUMBER OF CANDIDATES RUNNING AGAINST EACH OTHER IN THE PRIMARY? IF THERE IS, THERE SHOULDN’T BE. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PUSH ONE OVER THE OTHERS, UNLESS A CANDIDATE IS TOO PERSONALLY OBJECTIONABLE TO BE A VALID CHOICE AS PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY, THAT IS.

HERE IS YAHOO’S TAKE ON THE DNC SITUATION. I USUALLY DON'T THINK OF YAHOO AS BEING ONE OF THE BEST NEWS SOURCES, BUT THIS ARTICLE IS LONG AND GOES INTO DETAIL.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html
With an eye on Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee adopts new restrictions for 2020 presidential candidates
Hunter Walker, Yahoo News • June 8, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH --- Sen. Bernie Sanders on Capitol Hill on May 17. (Photo: Alex Brandon/AP)

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee adopted a new rule on Friday that would prevent outsiders like Bernie Sanders from seeking the party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential race. The move seems to be the latest salvo in the ongoing jockeying over the party’s future that emerged following the at times bitter primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Sanders in 2016.

But while the rule change left some of Sanders’s top allies thinking the party was being driven by “spite,” it likely won’t affect him directly and could pave the way for one of his favorite reforms.

DNC member Randi Weingarten, who is president of the American Federation of Teachers, posted a photo of the rules change shortly after it was added to the proposed draft call for the 2020 Democratic convention. Weingarten, who attended Friday’s DNC meeting in Providence, R.I., wrote that the party “changed the rules to ensure to run for President as a Democrat you need to be A Democrat.”

The new rule would force candidates in Democratic presidential primaries to state that they are Democrats, accept the party’s nomination if they win the 2020 primary and to “run and serve” as a member.

“At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat,” the rule says. “Each candidate pursuing the Democratic nomination shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they: A. are a member of the Democratic Party; B. will accept the Democratic nomination; and C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The rule seems like a clear response to Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate but has steadfastly maintained his status as an independent. Sanders ran to the left of Clinton and identifies himself as a “democratic socialist.”

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders interrupt each other during a Democratic presidential debate in January 2016. (Photo: Mic Smith/AP)

During the 2016 primary, Clinton and her supporters regularly criticized Sanders for his lack of an official affiliation with the party. After an unexpectedly close race, Sanders ultimately lost to Clinton. His base of support included younger voters and independents, whom many Democrats see as vital to the party if it hopes to avoid a repeat of its defeat to Trump in 2016. Many Sanders supporters angrily felt the DNC stacked the deck in Clinton’s favor, a perception that was amplified by hacked emails from party leaders that were published by Wikileaks in the lead-up to the party’s 2016 convention.

In the wake of Clinton’s loss to Trump, the party assembled a unity commission with members appointed by both Clinton and Sanders. The Sanders wing focused on recommendations designed to open up the party’s nominating process and make it more inclusive to what Sanders termed “the working people and young people of our country.” One of the commission’s proposals that was particularly important to Sanders was the elimination of the unelected Democratic superdelegates who are able to vote for a nominee regardless of who won the race in their home state. Sanders and many of his supporters viewed these superdelegates as a way for the Democratic Party establishment to control the nominating process irrespective of the will of the party’s voters.

With Sanders’s independent status and push for inclusivity, the new rule change would seem to be a slap in the face and a potential roadblock should the Vermont senator decide to mount another presidential run in 2020. However, Sanders allies do not believe he would be affected by the measure thanks to a unique rule in his home state.

Sanders, who is currently running for reelection, typically runs in the state’s Democratic primary but declines the party’s nomination after winning. The move allows him to fend off Democratic challengers in the state while still running as an independent. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and proclaiming that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.” That membership could inoculate him against the DNC’s rules change.

Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally for Hillary Clinton in Raleigh, N.C., on Nov. 3, 2016. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)

Even if Sanders himself would be unaffected by the shift, one of his top allies expressed dismay at the new rule. Mark Longabaugh, who was a senior adviser to Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign, told Yahoo News he was baffled by the party’s decision.

“I don’t have any worries that Bernie Sanders could meet the criteria to run as a Democrat in 2020, but it always puzzles me that there are some Democrats who want to do this and promote this. I scratch my head and ask why they would want to make the party more narrow and more exclusive,” Longabaugh said.

Longabaugh suggested the move could only have been motivated by lingering animus from the primary race between Clinton and Sanders.

“We just came off a devastating presidential loss in 2016. It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic Party. I just for the life of me don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite,” said Longabaugh.

Jeff Weaver, who was Sanders’s campaign manager, similarly expressed confidence that Sanders wouldn’t be affected by the rules change. However, Weaver also suggested it was to exclude people from the party’s presidential nominating process.

“Do they really want Bernie and millions outside the party?” Weaver asked in a text message.

One source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News the rules change was not aimed at Sanders and wouldn’t necessarily affect him. In fact, the source described it as a step that was designed to make it easier for party leaders to accept one of Sanders’s main priorities — the end of superdelegates.

Committee members are continuing to discuss the proposal to eliminate superdelegates. They will meet again to make a final vote on the proposal in the coming weeks before all proposed changes head to the DNC for a final vote in August.

“With the full DNC heading toward the path of essentially eliminating superdelegates on the first ballot, people felt this would help garner support for the superdelegate proposal,” the source said.

Last December, DNC Chairman Tom Perez told Yahoo News he was open to proposals to drastically reduce the number of superdelegates.

Maria Cardona, a veteran strategist who has worked for Clinton, was one of the backers of the rules change.

“The entire committee backed this. It was unanimous,” Cardona told Yahoo News in a text message, adding, “It was done to ensure that the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is actually a Democrat.”


eric10 hours ago
George Washington warned about the formation of political parties.
ReplyReplies (7)74

Gary
Gary16 hours ago
Rest assured, it is about the party, not the country.
ReplyReplies (139)1,71591

Ron
Ron17 hours ago
So the 2016 strategy is now written down.




WHO ARE THE SUPERDELEGATES AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SUPERDELEGATES, GO TO:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/democratic-party-superdelegates-history-rules-changes.



ON THE SPECIAL COUNSEL:

US ATTORNEY GENERAL THORNBURGH’S COMMENTS ON SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER HERE DEFEND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER COMPLETELY. THERE ARE SEVERAL REALLY GREAT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND PROSECUTORS INVOLVED IN THIS BOISTEROUSLY GROWING FAMILY OF DONALD TRUMP CASES. A GREAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY OR PROSECUTOR IS VERY MUCH LIKE ONE OF THE OLD ROMAN GLADIATORS. THAT’S WHY PEOPLE WHO ADVANCE THEMSELVES BY DOING IFFY BUSINESS DEALINGS AND UNSCRUPULOUS POWER PLAYS HATE THEM. LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF MUELLER AND AVENATTI. THERE IS NO LACK OF STRENGTH AND INTELLIGENCE THERE IN EITHER CASE. I REALLY DO LOVE PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY TELL IN DEPTH THE NATURE OF A PERSON. SOMETIMES IT’S HIDDEN BEHIND A WELL POSED BODY AND FACE, BUT IT’S THERE.

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/06/09/reagans-attorney-general-just-defied-trump-and-called-out-republican-party-in-unprecedented-op-ed-2/
Reagan’s Attorney General just defied Trump and called out Republican party in unprecedented op-ed
BY VINNIE LONGOBARDO
PUBLISHED ON JUNE 9, 2018

Dick Thornburgh is a lifelong Republican who served as U.S. attorney general from 1988 to 1991 under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Immensely disturbed by the turn in sentiments by some segments of his party against the Department of Justice and the FBI, Thornburgh was motivated to write an op-ed in The Washington Post today to vociferously urge his fellow Republicans to defend Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation against interference by an administration that has abandoned the party’s traditional deference to the rule of law.

Thornburgh begins his op-ed by stating his credentials and declaring that he knows from personal experience how effectively the Justice Department enforces the law in a fair and equal manner. He then addresses the issue which has weighed most heavily on his mind of late.

“Many recent comments about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his investigation have been regrettable and undeserved. I was surprised to see President Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, a respected former U.S. attorney, suggest this week that Mueller is “trying very, very hard to frame” the president, echoing comments made by the president himself that the investigation is “a Witch Hunt.” Those comments are the antithesis of who Mueller is and how he operates,” the former Attorney General declares.

Mueller was a colleague of Thornburgh’s in the law enforcement profession and a friend whose judgment and morality he accepts unquestioningly as he endorses Mueller as the perfect person to head the inquiry into Russia’s “assault on our democracy.”

“He possesses the skills and discipline necessary to perform his role, and his past leadership as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division and as director of the FBI leave no doubt as to his ability to evenhandedly conduct significant investigations. He is serious but not sensational and loyal to the rule of law.”

“Mueller must put all applicable evidence before an impartial grand jury that will decide whether to bring charges. We must let him do his job,” Thornburgh exhorts.

The former Attorney General then goes on to excoriate Trump’s propaganda campaign against the so-called “deep state” as a destabilizing and diminishing conspiracy to undermine public confidence in the justice system.

“It is disconcerting to witness the unfair attacks on the Justice Department now occurring; they erode public confidence and corrode the integrity of a core principle of our country. Our country must not let hyperpartisanship diminish the rule of law. That is not who we are, and it isn’t what we should ever become. I have great confidence in the special-counsel process. Indeed, my party has always stood with law enforcement, recognizing that its job is both difficult and essential. Law-enforcement officials ranging from state and local police to FBI officers in the field to prosecutors and judges must be able to do their work without fear of political retribution,” he writes.

Thornburgh concludes with a rallying cry to Congress, and to his fellow Republicans in particular, stressing the essentiality of defending the Special Counsel and his probe.

“I urge all members of Congress to become more vocal in their defense of the rule of law. Elected officials must stress unambiguously their support of the role of the special counsel and guard his right to pursue this investigation in a fair and impartial manner. Through whatever means members of Congress deem appropriate, they must defend the rule of law and the integrity of the special counsel’s mission.”

“As John Adams said, our country is “a government of laws, and not of men.” This founding principle of our democracy must be protected. We will be remembered by what we say and what we do in this challenging time in America’s history. We must all speak out and work to protect the special counsel’s investigation from interference. As Republicans, we owe that much to our party. As citizens, we all owe even more to our country.”

In today’s modern, Trumpified version of the Republican party Thornburgh’s perspective may be seen as antiquated as a 78-playing Victrola, but unless his call is heeded our democracy may wind up as brittle and susceptible to shattering as an old shellac record.

Follow Vinnie Longobardo on Twitter.

Add your name to millions demanding Congress take action on the President’s crimes. IMPEACH TRUMP & PENCE!

Facebook's new algorithm changes have decimated the reach and the ad revenue of independent news sources like ours. Please become a patron of our news website and help us pay our writers by making a small contribution:
View our Patreon page >