by William Skink
Here are some good reads from around the MT blogosphere.
Let’s start with Pete Talbot’s piece about the environmental cataclysm future generations will face, titled We’ll be Vilified if There’s Anybody Left. I’m glad Pete wrote this and not one of those extremists who do get constantly vilified by Democrats for pointing out terrible policies and deceitful rhetoric from team Dem.
Speaking of Democrats, there are some interesting posts to check out. At A Chicken Is Not A Pillage Rob asks the question Why Do Montana Democrats Lose?
At Cowgirl the question posed by the title of the guest post is this: Hillary Clinton; a Step Back for Progressives? Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time taking anything this anonymous writer has to say after reading this:
Mrs. Clinton has worked hard for some progressive causes during her life, that much is true. From her early days in Arkansas where she worked hard on reforming a broken education system to her famous efforts at healthcare reform in the early 90’s that every progressive should applaud. As well as her incredible four-year marathon as Secretary of State in the Obama administration where she traveled the globe endlessly, strengthening relationships and doing the legwork for many of President Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments.
This just highlights how absolutely clueless many Americans are when it comes to foreign policy. Hillary Clinton advocated for throwing Libya into a hell of violence and chaos it won’t recover from anytime soon, while traveling around shilling for corporations. The only thing incredible is the depiction that her tenure as SoS featured anything for progressives to be happy about.
For Bernie fans, Greg Strandberg, at Big Sky Words, recounts his attendance at a Bernie Sanders rally at the library in Missoula. Bernie supporters have a lot of work ahead to take this rather sad showing of grassroots disorganization into primary season. In a state like Montana, one wonders if it’s even worth trying.
At Flathead Memo, James Conner continues writing critically about Montana’s warped version of Medicaid expansion with a post titled MT’s awfulu Medicaid expansion may never be fixed. Conner ends his post with this piece of advice for progressives:
Montana’s Democrats are proud of what they’re doing to Montana’s poor. But I’m not proud of those Democrats. And I do not trust Democrats on health care. No progressive should.
Hillary’s “reform” of the early 90’s was an attempt to complete the enclosure of the health care system by the major health insurance companies. It failed due to infighting. Certain insurance companies left out of the loop undremined her. Her mission was finally accomplished by Obama, something no intelligent progressive should be proud of.
Perhaps cluelessness is so endemic among Democrats because truth is, they’ve got nothing else, nowhere else to go. Some of us can look at a hopeless situation and still find optimism and hope. Just not in that silly party.
Where is the vision? Some criticized the Democratic Party after the last election for failing to present a clear alternative to Republican nonsense and the status quo. I thought those criticisms were spot on. I am unaware of any concerted effort to craft such a broad, bold new vision for Montana’s future, or for our nation. Running around attending conferences and workshop held by loyal, but endlessly needy, special-interests is no substitute for what is needed.
I was going to expand on my first comment about Hillary until Rob and I got into a brawl.
Here’s what she thinks are her accomplishments as SOS.
Without looking it up on any liberal media news site, please list for me two Hillary Clinton accomplishments. You’re right, my bad. Please name one accomplishment.
Come on, you got this. Just one.
No? Okay, well, I’m stumped too….
Let’s unpack this:
Russia: After her ill-advised efforts to appease the dictator Vladimir Putin by handing him a cheap plastic bauble (the infamous “reset” button), Russia has responded with an unprecedented wave of expansionism:
• As it became clear that Republicans would lose the White House in 2008, Russia invaded Georgia.
• It invaded Crimea in 2014.
• This month, it restarted the proxy war with Ukraine.
• It is preparing for war in the Arctic, executing plans “to put ‘Bastion’ anti-ship missile systems at their Arctic bases in 2015, to go along with airfield improvements, aircraft deployments, and installation of mobile anti-air missile systems and early warning radars.”
• It has resumed overt aggression against U.S. warships, begun executing joint military drills with Red China in the Mediterranean, stood fast as Iran’s staunchest ally in its race to acquire nuclear weapons, and — most importantly — it paid the Clinton Crime Family off in exchange for one-fifth of all U.S. uranium, one of America’s most precious military assets.
Oh, and that’s just Hillary’s finest accomplishment.
Her second one’s even funnier.
She watched the Bin Laden raid on TV.
That’s all she’s got.
And this is the Democrat Party’s de facto Presidential candidate?
This isn’t a political party. It’s an SNL skit.
Amazing brief trip not through history, but right wing media and the mind of the Swede, I suppose. Every single item you list there is wrong, backward, or lacking in depth of analysis.
Hillary’s biggest accomplishment? She produced a very bright daughter for whom there is much promise.
I think Chelsea running the Cinton Foundation has basically sucked the soul right out of her.
She’s young. I think my young Republican/right wing self did not have a sensible non-programmed thought until age 38.
Swede, a delegation of French MP’s were in Crimea, and discovered that most Crimeans are happy to be back in Russia. It’s hard to comprehend in our propaganda bubble here, but Russia is not considered and evil monster in that part of the world, It did not “invade” Crimea in 2014. There were existing troops and bases, there for decades, but no mobilizations.
Oh yeah, Osama Raid 2011, where’s your evidence that he was killed? I didn’t see any.
You’re beginning to get the hang of this. Just one thing though, both parties are competing to get more free airtime on SNL — and FOX and MSNBC and Clear Channel etc.
Bottom line, it doesn’t matter who’s doing the acting, telling the jokes, sucking up to the oligarchs. Since Carter and/or Reagan, at least, it’s all acting all the time. Sit back and enjoy the show.
Keep that up around these parts, Swede, and you’re likely going to miss that little brawl we were having.
Your comment to my post was not ignored, and I’ve considered it strongly. It just seems that you were off point somewhat. Montana Democratic voters do tend to be more independent and less patient with ineffective leadership. The point is that they are also not the ones making the choice of who carries the party’s water, and that’s anti-democratic. Over and over the program Democrats keep repeating that people will reject the bat-crap crazy, the wingnuts, the GOP losers who strangely don;t lose. Victory by default. I’m not buying that, you’re not buying that, Democratic voters aren’t buying it. Though it wouldn’t have made a very good post, I likely could have written the content of it much more briefly. Why do Montana Democrats lose? Because they don’t think they can.
“Montana Democratic voters do tend to be more independent and less patient with ineffective leadership.”
That’s a sweeping generalization, and a huge logical leap in addition to being a logical fallacy. A little evidence to support it would be useful, but since Montana Democrats are merely the others side of the coin that features Montana Republicans,
I doubt you’ll find anything convincing. Each set of voters are easily manipulated, merely requiring different scripts. Republicans will react to guns, states rights, taxes and-immigration, while Democrats would tend to like pro-abortion, women and the environment.
Keep in mind that none of these sentiments affect public policy an iota, as they are just words and symbols used for effect. Leadership goes on about its business, serving their paymasters, between elections is if the electorate did not exist. Politics 101.
Speaking of sweeping generalizations and fallacy, you are right on cue.
Had you used a qualifier, “some,” or “most”, you’d have a debatable point. You’d still be wrong, but you’ve be in the realm of reason.
As a group, voters are easily manipulable. The essence of propaganda is segmentation into groups, as most people follow group leaders rather than think on their own. Many individuals are smart enough to read and think, but are still submissive to groups, who have characteristics all their own aside from eh individuals who make up the groups.
I assure you, being “independent and less patient with ineffective leadership” is not one of those characteristics.
“Tend to be more” was written, blind guy. And that was Swede’s characterization at my website that I was agreeing to. Go stuff yourself.
Yeah, you’re so careful with words, you thinn-skinned little milquetoast. Why don’t you pull the covers over your head and hope mommy comes in and makes the bad man go away?
I think that’s why banning happens – candy asses like you can’t take the heat.
Blah blah. I am careful with words, and ideas. They are precious. You are an idiot. Go stuff yourself.
Since you’ve had so few ideas and don’t know how to use your words, I can understand your attitude.
It’s simple as to why the Dems have become a permanent minority in the legislature. It’s because they think that liberal ideas are mainstream in Montana (they are not) and they keep putting up candidates that are too far left. That’s it.