Consequences of ‘Democrats’ Not Being Democrats

The question has already been asked: Why should Democrats bother to vote anymore? It’s a well-founded question: Why should anyone waste their time on anyone who doesn’t represent their interest?

The midterm election of 2014 had the worst voter turnout in 72 years – since 1942, just as WWII was getting underway. Other than 1926 when commoners were facing conditions that resulted in the Great Depression, you would have to go back to the late 1700’s to find a worse turnout than 2014 (See popup chart). All but 8 states had a drop in voter turnout. But here’s the kicker.

Although Oregon was down by 1.5 percent over 2010, 69.5 percent of their voters went to the pols last year, and guess what? Democrats – won – big — despite the fact the Koch brothers dumped huge loads of cash in the state. The lesson here is very elementary: No matter how much money is spent trying to buy an election, Republicans can never win if there is a large voter turnout. And what lesson should Democratic elected officials and wannabes take from that? Govern so that your constitutes will want to turn out to vote.

But that is not what elected Democrats have been doing, and it’s evident in just the first three weeks of the new Congress. They don’t intend to govern for their constitutes any more than do Republicans.

  • Wisconsin Democrats In Disarray (Chairman of state Democratic Party in cahoots with billionaire who also claims to be Democrat but is financing multiple efforts that Republicans have been pushing in that state.)

As MotherJones points out, President Obama has had to veto only 2 bills during his first six years. But that’s about to change, thank to those Democrats reflected above who are willing to put Republican ideology over the top.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who desperately wants to kill privatize Social Security – and will never give up until he does – said he won’t touch Social Security without Democratic support. That’s how much confidence he has in pulling some Democrats over to his side, otherwise he never would have said such a thing. All he needs is just one to claim “bipartisan support”.

There is at least one Democrat who believes there those in his Party who will support McConnell. Otherwise Senator Sherrod Brown wouldn’t have made such a public statement warning Democrats not to give an inch on privatizing Social Security.

Then there’s this: Democrats are “willing” to ‘prove’ they’re supporting their constitutes by ‘fighting’ for them only when they know what they’re proposing will never ever pass.

Obamacare is a very popular program that is helping more than 11 million voters, most of which vote Democrat. Instead of campaigning on the successes of Obamacare in 2014 and that Republicans want to take it away from them, they distanced themselves from Obamacare – which was an agenda set by the GOP. How dumb is that. Well, it gets dumber: Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer is still complaining about voting for Obamacare.

Evidently some Democrats believed their constitutes are just as racist and ignorant as Republican voters.

The coalition known as “Blue Dog Democrats” numbered 54 in the 111th Congress. Mostly through being voted out of office by disappointed constitutes, that number has shrunk to only 9 in the current Congress. But not to worry: A group known as the “New Democrats” is quietly taking their place.

In 2010 the Old Man warned about those New Democrats. 69 of them mingled with Wall Street lobbyist (or sent their staffers) at least 850 times during fundraising events and informal get-togethers that year. That clearly put the New Democrats in Wall Street’s pockets, knowing full well that any legislation Wall Street wanted passed would cost commoners – their constitutes.

The Blue Dog Democrat is dead; long live the new blue dogs!

There are some Democrats in Congress who actually work for their constitutes, and they get rewarded at the polls. And, although an Independent, Bernie Sanders has proven constitutes will reward anyone who supports them – even without spending millions on their campaign. Finally, when a President starts publicly advocating legislation that benefits commoners, he suddenly becomes more popular – “imagine that”.

But who’s the front runner for the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2016? Hillary Clinton — a very conservative “Democrat”:

“With the Republican machine on the attack against Hillary Clinton long before the 2016 election, there’s something that should concern both the GOP and the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton, former senator and secretary of state, is more conservative than most Democrats, and ironically, most Republicans would ever admit. She might be so conservative that even if Clinton beats her GOP rival for the presidency, a moderate Republican would still sit in the White House.” [Bold added]

So again, why should anyone waste their time voting for a Democrat? The answer is they shouldn’t. And when Democratic candidates discover that their voters aren’t as stupid as Republican voters who elect Republicans in spite of knowing they’re not going to be represented, maybe Democrats will wake — the — hell — up!!


CNBC Thinks They’ve Found Reason For Poor Ratings. Hint: ‘It’s Not Their Fault!’

cnbc ratingsCNBC’s ratings are on a downward spiral, with no safety net below. Sitting at a 21-year low, they’ve made the decision to “fix” their problem — — — by firing their ratings agency; Nielsen.

Yep – that’ll fix their problem for sure. Then all they’ll have to worry about is how to sanitize their embedded reputation of being a Wall Street / GOP public relations network.

If you care to search what the Old Man has been saying about CNBC over the past several years, you’ll find that even an old codger can see right through their forest. Even a member of the “craziest Republicans in Congress” recognized that nearly 5 years ago. Then there are professionals out there who have spotted the same thing:

It’s hard to exactly determine why CNBC’s viewership is bouncing around near all time lows along with its revenue, but as the recent Nielsen Ratings demonstrate there could be a problem in what some consider the land of Wall Street gloss and cheerleading.” [Bold added]

Jerry Bower is currently a contributor to Forbes. But before that he was a hired contributor to CNBC. They wanted Bower exclusively in order to keep him from also working at Fox News’ business channel, and the only way they could do that was to hire him. He was hesitant at first, but when Larry Kudlow called and “asked me personally to come on board and help him to fight the good fight among the liberals in the world of CNBC”, he took the job. But when things started to go south for the economy in 2007, Bower realized that Kudlow (and others) were propping up Wall Street with aggressive “optimism” rather than reporting what was actually happening. He also realized that Kudlow and others at CNBC was more interested in playing politics than they were in forthright reporting of the business market.

Bower kind of says it all in this one statement: “[The investor class] don’t want the members of the ruling class who are assaulting their portfolios to be coddled rhetorically by someone who is supposed to be on their side.” [Bold added]


Lies About Keystone Employment Numbers Just Won’t Die

keystone-xl-mapHere we go again — more lies about how many jobs the Keystone XL pipeline will create, all coming from the conservative side of the political spectrum. And millions of “I’ve-chosen-to-be-ignorant” citizens – willingly accepting to be uninformed – have bought into these lies only because it fits what they want to hear: anti-Obama rhetoric.

Republican Senator John Barrasso told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd that the pipeline will produce 42,000 jobs. Naturally, in keeping with his biased reporting, Todd allowed the well-documented lie to go unchallenged. Barrasso said “[Obama’s] own State Department said it’s 42,000 new jobs.” But that’s not entirely true.

Instead, it said the project would “support” 42,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, 99 percent of which would be temporary, not lasting more than the two years it would take to construct. Once the project is completed, the State Department estimates that the pipeline would only create 35 full-time jobs, and 15 temporary contractors. [Bold added]

As time has marched along, TransCanada Pipeline (TCP), the company building the pipeline, has been all over the map about Keystone employment numbers. They’ve quoted a high of 20,000 and a low of 9,000. But their filing with the U.S. State Department officially disputes all their inflated job numbers as well as others who’ve quoted inflated numbers. According to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the U.S. State Department, the pipeline “will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years” and “permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50.” [Bold added]

Of course, the GOP public relations network – Fox Faux – has an ongoing record of highly inflating the number of jobs Keystone will create.

For a little debunking of those job numbers, CNN put out this just two months ago. About TransCanada’s claim that the project would produce 13,000 jobs, and using TCP’s own estimates of how many man-hours it would take to build the pipeline, CNN calculated it would take 3,400 workers one year to complete the job. Using TCP’s estimated jobs of 13,000, the job would be done in three months.

Further on debunking, two months ago TCP CEO Russ Girling continued to say there would be 42,000 jobs “ongoing, enduring”. PolitiFact fact-checked that claim and found it to be completely false. And when Van Jones of CNN said the project would produce only 35 permanent jobs, PolitiFact gave that a completely true rating.

Forbes gave us a report in 2013 on all those varying estimates offered up about how many jobs Keystone would create. Most interesting in their report was they pointed out that the same rhetoric about Keystone jobs was also used prior to getting the Trans-Alaska Pipeline approved. The “estimated” jobs for Trans-Alaska ranged from a high of 26,000 to a low of half that many.