Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz
My latest piece in Counter Propa addresses the only way to defeat Trump in 2020 and Republicans in 2018. Contrary to conventional wisdom among Democrats (whatever that’s worth) President Trump isn’t the primary adversary of progressives. Before Trump, voters must defeat a corrupt establishment beholden to Wall Street greed and selective amnesia on contentious issues.
Did Elizabeth Warren condemn the treatment of Water Protectors at Standing Rock? Check Hilary Clinton’s Twitter page. Is there anything about the federal ambush at Standing Rock? As Tim Black points out, President Obama passed the Dakota Access Pipeline issue to Trump, even though he promised to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.
In 2016, David Brock’s Correct the Record spent $1 million berating Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein voters, as well as conservatives. To the Democratic establishment, “Bernie Bros” were just as dangerous as Trump voters, since complete loyalty demanded everyone fall in line behind Hillary Clinton. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ explains the Democratic Party’s view of unity in a piece titled Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC:
Hillary Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner…
“That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about,” he said. “It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”
Although David Brock eventually apologized to Bernie Sanders, the damage was done; lifelong Democrats voted for Jill Stein, stayed home, or reluctantly sided with Clinton. Also, Brock only apologized to Bernie because Clinton lost, and Democrats need progressive voters to win in 2018 and 2020.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent $1.2 billion and still lost to Trump. Donors aren’t going to give more money with another progressive mutiny on the horizon.
The Democratic establishment’s hitman now wants to build a “Breitbart of the Left” and the Slate and Daily Beasts of the world don’t seem to mind. Establishment Democrats feel they need David Brock because they think Republicans need a dose of their own medicine. The problem, however, is that alienating its progressive base cost Democrats the election. Cheating Bernie Sanders, along with greater research into Clinton’s past, destroyed any chances of a unified party.
This isn’t the 90’s anymore and people are willing to risk a Republican presidency if the alternative is a candidate like Clinton. With the 2008 financial collapse a big issue during the election, Bill and Hillary Clinton earned $153 million in paid Wall Street speeches since 2001. With ISIS emerging as yet another consequence of a failed Iraq war (that Clinton vote for), Robert Kagan and other neoconservatives raised money for Clinton and Henry Kissinger helped advise Clinton as Secretary of State. For many people, the prospect of Republican-light or the epitome of neoliberalism wasn’t worth falling in line.
In addition, two FBI criminal investigations where Clinton was deemed “careless” with classified intelligence destroyed faith in the rule of law.
When FBI Director James Comey didn’t believe Clinton was savvy enough to intentionally use a private server (storing Top Secret intelligence that Bryan Pagliano was paid to set up), Democrats loved the FBI director.
When Comey announced his second criminal investigation (Comey’s letter referencing the Weiner probe) before Election Day, Harry Reid and others accused him of working alongside Russia.
So much for respecting the intelligence community.
In addition to Democrats accusing Comey of working on behalf of Russia, John Podesta recently blamed Clinton’s loss on “forces within the FBI.”
To establishment Democrats, Hillary’s criminal investigations and Clinton Foundation weapons deals scandals were nothing serious. All politicians endure scandals and controversy, they said. When Clinton lied, the narrative was simply that all politicians lie, and any focus upon Clinton was rooted in sexism or an unfair witch hunt.
Any conflict of interest uncovered by the Associated Press was immediately erased by a wonky Vox article, so there was nothing to fear. “Focus on Trump, not Clinton” was the motto of Democrats frightened of a Republican presidency. Now we have Trump’s conflicts of interest and controversies, yet the press seems to have taken a different tone.
Guess who paved the way for Trump?
I explain the answer to this question in the following H. A. Goodman YouTube segment.
Clinton and the Democratic establishment built the groundwork for Trump to win the White House. The Clinton Foundation was accused of having 500 conflicts of interest; now Trump has his business empire in the White House. Clinton had FBI probes; now Trump has his own FBI probes. If never-ending controversy was acceptable with Clinton, then it’s alright with Trump, say most Trump voters.
“Voters want a real choice, not a Democrat with close ties to Wall Street who’s more polished or diplomatic than President Trump.Therefore, the only way to save the Democratic Party is to defeat establishment Democrats.”
In addition, what’s with all the fact checking? Nobody seemed to care when Clinton was dodging Bosnian sniper fire.
If lying was “simply what all politicians do” when Clinton lied, then why the obsessive fact-checking with Trump?
It’s almost as if a lying politician with numerous conflicts of interest is suddenly a bad thing. When Bernie voters were skeptical of Bill and Hillary’s scandals, worried that such controversy might give the White House to Trump, the establishment’s condescending rebuttal was “Oh, grow up!”
Ultimately, the power structure within the Democratic Party looked the other way with Clinton, when it should have been looking in the mirror. Today, an Orwellian blame game is played by loyal Democrats too mournful to accept Clinton’s loss. To them, it’s Russia’s fault, and instead of blaming a corrupt Democratic establishment, liberals have recreated the McCarthy era. This post-Trump election analysis can be summarized by the following Democratic narrative:
The Claim:
Hillary Clinton was on her way to winning the election, even after once calling black youth superpredators, enduring two FBI criminal investigations, voting for Iraq, and cheating Bernie Sanders.
But then, just as Clinton was about to defeat Trump, Russia hacked the election.
Were it not for Russia, voters would not have known Bernie Sanders was cheated and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, and four other DNC officials would never have resigned from their respective posts.
Clinton would then have become America’s first female president.
The Evidence:
Because Clinton somehow would have stopped the invasions of Ukraine and Georgia by Russia, Vladimir Putin preferred Trump.
In addition, since the CIA and other spy agencies have “high confidence” (they’re not certain, but by golly their confident) that Russian hackers gave WikiLeaks the DNC and Podesta emails, the disclosure of corruption within the Democratic Party served Putin’s interests.
The corruption within the DNC and Clinton campaign, however, isn’t important. Only the fact it hurt Clinton’s chances is important.
Once again, the corruption within the Democratic Party that “Russian hackers” publicized is meaningless. Only the fact Clinton lost is relevant.
The Logical Conclusion:
Trump’s presidency is now illegitimate because Putin wanted him and the Kremlin helped influence a vulnerable electorate that would have voted for Clinton, yet chose Trump because of all the Democratic corruption Russian hackers uncovered.
It’s the fault of Russian hackers!
Trump is dangerous!
Long live David Brock!
The Democratic narrative:
Now we have President Trump, when we could have had President Hillary Clinton, if only Russians hadn’t informed us of the widespread corruption within the Democratic Party.
If this makes perfect sense to you, then you gladly voted for Hillary Clinton and were devastated by Trump’s victory. You’re probably reading this thinking Trump’s executive orders warrant complete obedience to the Democratic Party. Resisting President Trump is your primary goal and reforming the Democratic Party isn’t important at this moment.
However, even though Russia forced Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania to vote for Trump, the prospect of Hillary Clinton running again horrifies many observers. Trump’s presidency hasn’t overshadowed the fear of another “I’m With Her” tour. Even the establishment isn’t ready for Hillary in 2020.
The Washington Post published a piece titled Hillary Clinton should absolutely not run for president in 2020. And Democrats should stop her if she tries. US News & World Report published an article titled Hillary, Please Don’t Run. POLITICO stated that “62 percent of Democrats and independents don’t want Clinton to run again.”
While establishment Democrats have reluctantly learned their lesson with Clinton, they’ll likely pick a similar candidate in 2020. If they do, Trump will win reelection in the same manner he defeated Clinton; by exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of the Democratic establishment.
The only way to defeat Trump is with Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner, or someone like Samul Ronan and Tim Canova.
Democrats need the antithesis of Trump to defeat him and I’ve been saying this since 2015. Sadly, nobody listened two years ago when I wrote a Hill piece titled Why Sanders defeats Trump, but Trump defeats Clinton.
The reasons Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard defeat Trump in 2020 are the same reasons Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in 2016.
Anyone establishment Democrats think is too extreme or liberal, and anyone who boldly communicates progressive values, is not only a threat to Trump, but also a threat to the Democratic Party.
Establishment Democrats fear Tulsi Gabbard. This is why they criticized her visit to Syria and would rather remove Assad and implement yet another failed regime change.
The DNC wouldn’t allow Nina Turner to speak at the convention. Why? Because Nina Turner focuses upon bold policy objectives and issues affecting the poor and working class; inadvertently exposing the Democratic Party’s failed track record within these communities throughout the nation.
There’s a reason the DNC cheated Bernie, and that reason represents Trump’s kryptonite.
Bold progressive ideals will prevent Trump from going eight years, but the Democratic Party doesn’t stand from bold progressive ideals. It stands for Cory Booker voting against affordable medicine and blaming Russia for Trump’s victory. If Democrats spent as much time championing the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015 as they do making excuses, the party would offer voters an alternative to Trump.
Voters want a real choice, not a Democrat with close ties to Wall Street who’s more polished or diplomatic than President Trump.
Therefore, the only way to save the Democratic Party is to defeat establishment Democrats. The best way to defeat establishment Democrats is to ensure a bold and honest progressive is the Democratic nominee. If the next nominee is tied to Wall Street or the military-industrial complex, or can’t raise money from everyday individuals, then say hello to eight years of Trump.
If you think media will destroy Trump, just look at the 2016 election. Polls and surveys are meaningless when it comes to predicting Trump’s demise, and even the latest media frenzy won’t prevent our current president from another victory in 2020. For progressives, Trump isn’t the enemy. Every executive order has its expiration date and Trump isn’t president for life. To ensure Trump doesn’t win in 2020, voters must ensure Democratic candidates are a threat to both Trump and establishment Democrats. Thus, the Democratic establishment must be defeated, if there’s any hope of defeating Trump.
H. A. Goodman is the creator of Counter Propa and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication. Follow Counter Propa on Twitter and Facebook
