EXPERIENCES ON THE LEFT

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Posts Tagged ‘usa’

Super Delegates Nominate Hillary Clinton

Posted by devilsapprentice on June 4, 2008

Super Delegates Nominate Hillary Clinton

 

The title some what fictitious but the reality of possibilities is not very far from the truth.

 

With all the misplaced enthusiasm of adolescent perceptions in a political reality stating the world is what it is supposed to be (but is not so don’t hold your breath)  the world is held captive in the turmoil generated by a corporate media that seems to hold little value in truth.

 

To judge the world by the headlines of the corporate media and most others that maintain those views which hold us prisoner to falsehood:

 

Thinking that “Barack Obama has locked up the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 Presidential  election” in what is misplaced because in truth that is the farthest thing from the truth unless you support the business as usual crowd for maintaining the status quo.

 

“Barack Obama has locked up the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 Presidential  election “

 

Is that really so? Is that way the Democratic Party will do it? Or is that what some would have us think in what is the jockeying for positioning related to the final voting.

 

One Super delegate offered his vote for sale for supposed altruistic reasons I am sure he is not the only one.

 

What all the wonderful over paid, over educated, over played, over valued, and worthless spin doctors and pundits (mainly of the mainstream corporate media) fail to state is that due to the brilliance of the National Democratic Party and its rules:

 

Super delegates on which Barack Obama is based can vote for whom ever they feel like in views that can change as often as those delegates can change their mind in preference up until the moment they vote at the National Democratic Party Convention for as long as it takes to reach a successful conclusion.

 

Imagine the possible headlines:

 

“Super delegates nominate FDR to run again with Bonzo as his running mate, as FDR is brought back to life due to advanced DNA cloning”

 

I do not agree with the super delegate system but as a realistic observer I am cognizant of it as a reality of real circumstances not imagined ones.

 

In theory the super delegates do not have to vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

 

So why have so many mainstream media sources chosen to illuminate us with such falsehoods, to simplify the political landscape so we can receive their simplified views in what is once again dumb and dumber?

 

Surely they will rationalize truthfully that most likely delegates will do this and that but not once will they challenge the underpinnings of on which all that political trash and waste is based!

 

Why is it that the most complicated country in the world embroiled in every corner of the world with the most subversive of intrigues is summarized into the most simplistic of explanations that most of the time is simply untrue and false, unethical and immoral?

 

Let us ask what Jesus would do!

Let us ask what Buddha would say!

Let us ask what ET would say and do!

 

But most of all let us ask why has America declined to such a low point of ignorant discussion as is maintain in the mainstream media.

 

The fact of the matter is that without super delegates neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has enough support to be nominated as the rules currently stand. As Barack Obama has 1,765½ delegates (52%) and Hillary Clinton 1,639½ (48%) with approx 690 super delegates deciding the outcome as it now stands though that means the Democratic Party is not expressing the will of the people but the established circles of power..

 

But who says that being democratic or republican means one is supposed to be fair and egalitarian?

 

But do I hear anyone except myself discussing or calling for the elimination of the super delegate system?

 

NOOOOOO!

 

The fact of the matter remains that if the super delegates decide in convention to change their votes to support Hillary Clinton she will become the Democratic Party’s nominee albeit one without a full mandate from the people just like Barack Obama will not have a mandate of the people if he was nominated on which grounds I oppose them as weak wasteful candidates currently destined for defeat.

Advertisements

Posted in labor, SDS, socialists, spusa | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Election Brawl of 1924

Posted by devilsapprentice on May 21, 2008

Relive the Thrilling Days of Yesteryear, at the Democrats’ Deadlocked Convention

By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 4, 2008; C01

 

Those TV yappers are in a tizzy about the upcoming Democratic convention. They keep jibber-jabbering about how neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough delegates to win the presidential nomination and they’ll need to woo the high-powered superdelegates. They keep yakking about a deadlocked convention! Or, better yet, a brokered convention !

These young whippersnappers don’t know doodley about a deadlocked convention. Most of them weren’t even born the last time a convention fight went beyond the first ballot, which was in 1952.

Back in my day, Democrats had real conventions with real nomination fights that went on for dozens of ballots. It took 46 ballots to nominate Woodrow Wilson in 1912, and 44 ballots to nominate James Cox in 1920. Jeez, it took four ballots to nominate Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 — and he was FDR, for crying out loud!

In those days, people weren’t in such a damn hurry. They liked to vote for their state’s “favorite son” candidate for a few ballots just to show some local pride. In 1932, FDR’s campaign manager asked Sam Rayburn, who was the campaign manager for John Nance Garner of Texas, if he could get the Texas delegation to vote for FDR after the first ballot.

“Hell, no,” Rayburn said, “we’ve got a lot of people up here who’ve never been to a convention before, and they’ve got to vote for Garner a few times.”

But you didn’t come all the way out here to the old folks’ home to hear me beat my gums about the good old days. You want to hear about the greatest deadlocked convention of them all, don’t you? That would be 1924, when the battle went on for 103 ballots and even governors were getting into fistfights on the convention floor.

Give me a minute to put my teeth in and I’ll tell you all about it.

 

* * *

It was the Roaring Twenties, the days of hot jazz and bathtub gin, and the Democrats met in Madison Square Garden, which was packed to the rafters with New York characters, described in The Washington Post as “Tammany shouters, Yiddish chanters, vaudeville performers, Sagwa Indians, hula dancers, street cleaners, firemen, policemen, movie actors and actresses, bootleggers . . .” Plus 1,098 delegates and 15 presidential candidates.

To win, a candidate needed the votes of two-thirds of the delegates and, as the convention opened on June 24, nobody was even close. But the obvious front-runners were Al Smith, the governor of New York, and William McAdoo, a California lawyer who had been Woodrow Wilson’s Treasury secretary and was Wilson’s son-in-law.

Smith and McAdoo represented the two sides of America’s cultural divide — what today’s TV yappers would call the red states and blue states. Smith’s backers tended to be Northern, urban, Catholic and “wet,” meaning anti-Prohibition. McAdoo’s supporters tended to be Southern or Western, rural, Protestant and dry.

Just to make things more interesting, a lot of McAdoo’s rooters were members of the Ku Klux Klan, which was then at the height of its power. The Klan hated Catholics and Smith was a Catholic. (Needless to say, there were exactly zero black delegates.)

It wasn’t going to be easy uniting these factions, but the party bosses tried. They managed to finesse the Prohibition issue with a compromise that called for the enforcement of all laws but avoided mentioning the hated law against hooch. They tried to finesse the Klan issue in the same way, writing a platform that denounced violent secret societies but neglected to actually mention the Klan.

That didn’t work. The anti-Klan folks balked, demanding a resolution that named the Klan. This sparked an anti-Klan demonstration on the floor that led to fistfights as pro- and anti-Klan delegates fought for possession of various state banners. Believe it or not, the governors of Kentucky and Colorado got into fistfights trying to keep their state banners out of the hands of anti-Klan delegates.

Governors throwing punches — now, that’s the kind of convention high jinks you just don’t see anymore!

Ultimately, the anti-Klan resolution that didn’t mention the Klan beat the anti-Klan resolution that did mention the Klan by exactly one vote.

And then this seething, angry crowd settled down to try to pick a presidential candidate. First came 15 windy nominating speeches, followed by 15 windy seconding speeches. This torrent of oratory produced only two words that anybody still remembers: FDR calling Smith the “happy warrior.”

When FDR ended his speech, the crowd went nuts. Smith’s Tammany machine had packed the galleries with thousands of hacks armed with drums, tubas, trumpets and a bunch of ear-piercing electric fire sirens that were so loud that people scooted out of the hall with their fingers in their ears.

“It sounded,” The Post reported, “like 10,000 voodoo doctors in a tropical jungle beating 10,000 tom-toms made of resonant washtubs.”

The hacks in the galleries weren’t so friendly to McAdoo. Anytime a speaker uttered his name, the hacks chanted, “Oil! Oil!” — a snide reference to the fact that McAdoo had received two mysterious payments from an oil baron implicated in the Teapot Dome scandal. It was as if Obama delegates greeted any mention of Hillary by hollering, “Whitewater! Whitewater!”

Anyway, after all this folderol, they finally called the roll for the first ballot and, needless to say, nobody got the 732 votes needed to win. McAdoo led with 431, followed by Smith with 241, and 13 other guys, mostly favorite sons with delusions of grandeur, each with fewer than 60 votes.

What happens when you get no winner? Those TV yappers probably don’t know but the answer’s simple: You vote again. That first day, which was June 30, they took 15 roll-call votes and still nobody was anywhere near victory. The next day, they came back and took 15 more roll-call votes and still nobody won.

This was the first convention broadcast on radio, and all over America people listened to the endless roll calls, each of them beginning with an Alabama delegate drawling, “Al-a-ba- ma casts twen-ty fo-ah votes fo-ah Os-cah Dub-ya Unnn-der-wood Soon, everybody in America was mimicking that drawl, saying, ” Os-cah Dub-ya Unnn-der-wood!”!”

The voting was weird, even for Democrats: On the 20th ballot, the Missouri delegation switched all 36 votes from McAdoo to John W. Davis, the favorite son from West Virginia, which got everybody all excited, but on the 39th ballot, they all switched back to McAdoo.

On Wednesday, the third day of voting, William Jennings Bryan asked the chairman for permission to explain his vote for McAdoo. Bryan was the grand old man of the Democratic Party, which had nominated him for president three times. He was the “Great Commoner” who’d delivered the legendary “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 convention. But when he started orating for McAdoo, he was drowned out by angry boos from the gallery and chants of “Oil! Oil!”

“His voice, which had competed in the past with foghorns and tornadoes, sounded like the hum of a gnat,” The Post reported. “For the first time, Bill Bryan’s larynx had met its master.”

Listening on the radio, Americans were shocked to hear the rabble of evil New York shouting down a good Christian gentleman like Bryan.

On and on the voting went — 50 ballots, 60 ballots, 70 ballots. The convention was supposed to be over but it still hadn’t nominated a candidate, so it went into extra innings, like a tied baseball game. Some delegates gave up and left, others wired home for more money. The McAdoo people complained that rural delegates couldn’t afford New York prices and urged the party to pay their hotel bills, which caused the Smith people to accuse the McAdoo people of trying to bribe the delegates by paying their hotel bills.

“This convention,” wrote H.L. Mencken, the most famous reporter of the age, is “almost as vain and idiotic as a golf tournament or a disarmament conference.”

But still it continued, day after day — 80 ballots, 90 ballots, 100 ballots. Finally, both Smith and McAdoo gave up and released their delegates and on July 9, after 16 days and 103 ballots, the Democrats nominated John W. Davis of West Virginia for president.

The band played “Glory, Glory Hallelujah” and the delegates limped home, weary and bleary, their self-loathing exceeded only by their loathing of the other Democrats.

In the November election, Davis was creamed by Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge, a laid-back dude who didn’t let the duties of his office interfere with his afternoon nap.

* * *

What? Speak up, young fella, I don’t hear too good. Those Tammany fire sirens ruined my ears.

Fun? You wanna know if the 1924 convention was fun? Well, it was fun for the first 20 or 30 ballots, but after 50 or 60 it got a tad tedious, and by the 80th or 90th even the driest of the dry delegates longed to take a swan dive into a bottle of bootleg bourbon.

People said the 1924 convention was so ugly it would kill the Democratic Party. It didn’t, but it did kill the romance of the deadlocked convention. After 1924, Democrats hated deadlocks even more than they hated rival Democrats.

At the 1932 convention, the party leaders started to panic after three ballots and McAdoo got up and urged the convention to avoid “another disastrous contest like that of 1924.” FDR’s people offered the vice presidency to anybody who controlled enough votes to break the deadlock. John Nance Garner took the deal, delivered the Texas delegation and ended up vice president, a job he later reportedly described as “not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

The last time a convention went more than one ballot was 1952, when the Democrats took three ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson, who was trounced by Dwight Eisenhower. These days, both parties confine their brawling to the primaries and by the time the convention rolls around they’re cooing and kissing like newlyweds. Now, conventions are just long infomercials for the candidates. They’re so dull they make you pine for a deadlock.

Maybe that’s why the TV yappers are jabbering about a deadlocked Democratic convention. If Clinton wins Texas and Ohio today, they say, then neither she nor Obama may have enough delegates to win, so the nomination will be decided by the 796 superdelegates, the people we used to call the party bosses.

Well, I think they’re full of baloney, but I hope they’re right. A little deadlock livens things up, and the prospect of floor fights, fistfights and backroom wheeling and dealing quickens the blood.

Two ballots, five ballots, 10 ballots — that would give an old geezer a reason to go on living. But, please, not 103 ballots. Take it from me, young fella, that’s a little too much of a good thing.

Posted in labor, SDS, socialists, spusa, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SECTARIANISM or PROGRESS, and the use of Language

Posted by devilsapprentice on February 19, 2008

SECTARIANISM, PROGRESS, and the use of Language

Today the SPUSA exists like the First Socialist International with a membership of the many various political and philosophic views that existed then and now which led to the founding of First, Second, Third, Fourth Internationals all marching into the future; or,

Marching as if a legion of Doom into the future, to repeat errors of its past in some bizarre fictional trekkie adventure with an infinite number of factions and internationals in it future serializations.

Today the SPUSA faces many of the same issues that I myself as a gambler would have to bet against for it is difficult teaching the old dogs new tricks.
For it is to be learned weither those in the SPUSA can gain with hindsight insight the experiences to look beyond the present and past or it will face an unknown future.

The SPUSA is not at present a very big group it is an expeditionary force on the frontiers of dialogue, discussion, and sectarianism.

In discussion with the SPUSA leadership and members one will note with honesty and ability that its views are varied, that those views are expressed overtly or covertly find expression in varied forms; and for all practicality a minimal long term basis of work does not exist:

As individuals are left to their own creativity, remedies, just as one faction or another, sought to gain influence, in imposing its own vision on that party and future there is an inherent contradiction: of self-interest versus groups interest.
The arguments provoked, and encouraged on the most personal basic levels, are needless in what does not incorporate a perspective representing all socialist views, in what is allegedly internationalism but is not, nor perhaps should be but in all honesty should be reflected as such but is not.

It incorporates even those who in great insight and wisdom would allow “stands firmly and openly on the right of anyone to use [language freely] *** racist, sexist, homophobic, insulting, threatening, and otherwise abusive behavior [in] oppos[ing] any moderation whatsoever”; and those who would regulate and legislate such discussion which also I find in error.

That extreme support of free speech is very diverse but which interesting I find myself supporting though on a political level it seems to support what everyone does not, in a dialogue for a very diverse group that encourages dialogue:
But only if that dialogue can be framed with a constructive basis which it has not been always as often the views proffered are sectarian. In terms of issues not of wording but context which most often is drawn from those parties and contingents around it and which are pre-existing which I do not support.

The SPUSA exists today like the first SDS, or the first Socialist International before the split with the Second Socialist International, before its split with the Third Socialist International, before its split with the Fourth Socialist International, before its split with the Fifth Socialist International, etc ad lib, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Today what exists on the left in the world most of all is distortion, rhetoric, deceit, factionalism it does not represent the ideals of an international socialist movement in all essence to the contrary supports the reactionary mindset that surrounds them and allegedly opposes.

So the issue is forward or backward, refusing to learn from one’s errors and mistakes and languish forever in the same cesspool forever, arguing the same issues, acting in the same childish fashion or progressing forward?

As an Independent and affiliated socialist for the last forty years if anyone thinks they can impose their views on me lets just say they are more than a bit mad as they are viewed as daffy, especially in the expectations related to a socialist group that was not formed in the Leninist model and which is supposed to be at once libertarian socialist and democratic.

A party which is not protected by leadership, membership decisions, rules, policies official and unofficial, but by the actual context supporting those virtues or not which is not what can often be legislated.

The leadership can say whatever it wants but will the membership as a whole truly answer, follow and implement such decisions?

Very often not as the letter of the law is followed but not the spirit in that many acts of legislation by nature polarize alienate and are hypocritical failures pretending to support what they can not achieve!

The membership voice can be with great difficulty heard, but will the leadership truly hear the membership, or will it pay lip service to the membership’s sentiments by stating it is the function of leadership to lead and not always cater to the members immature sentiments?

Rules may be enacted but are those rules the real rules or are there policies secreted in someone’s desk drawers, and do those policies have written and unwritten components in being implemented?

Surely the discover of secrets reports, secret archives, secret conversations and the like worldwide answers that question.

I say most often yes life is risky and that one must accept risks in this day and age, but that that has limitations which are framed with a context of personal, communal, local, regional, national, and international significance.

At present I have not found the SPUSA leadership or membership up to my standards of dialogue as it is severely lacking. Perhaps I can overlook such deficiencies but in the same lights who overlooks mine where my names is attached to every GOD DAMN commentary that refers to me.

I am sick and tired of seeing my name in print but linguistically it shows how incapable humanity is to exist without the use of words or labels and that the god or socialism which exists prior to it adherents is superior to that of what comes afterwards in their speaking.

The western industrialized world’s habits of language is something which I find abhorrent the labels, the details, the mannerisms, it is all reminiscent of a corporate report detailing cost analysis of sneakers made in a dozen countries, or materials from a dozen or so sources, that refers to the most intimate clinical remarks, detailing that shirt collars took on the average 2.5 seconds to sew:
That suggests production can be increased if workers above certain ages were terminated, and profits could be increased in benefits were cut, that lunch was curtailed music was pumped in or turned off.

BUT I am not a machine sorry no turn you own god damn self on and off don’t involve me because you do so selective choosing what you hear and listen to and what you don’t merely for you to find reason to harp on some issue that you find of particular interest.

Why? Maybe you don’t really know.

With the advent of language, computerization and software what socialists of most sorts have become known for is their sectarianisms that becomes manifest in various ways but with one result disaster.

That is why I support also no rules on discussion beyond a limitation of time and space allotted through participation and that such materials should not be of an organizational character labeled as such but representing the individuals abilities to discuss in dialogue the topics issues and matters they raise, which should be discussed fully by specific mention without names except where it is posted.
Some can ask comrade so and so is acting badly it needs to be addressed, how can that be done without mentioning they name?

I ask, are we supposed to discuss issues or write police reports automatically scanned and transcribed naming names as we ourselves add in speaking such names.

Ancient Christianity has some good lessons to be learned on functioning when the environment is hostile they didn’t use overt signs and label but contextual references and it was only when they became institutionalized hundreds of years later that they were subverted by the Emperor of Rome.

As I can sign this and some may view it as signed but for which again I argue is counter productive and most probably be ignored for who of those amongst you could truly answer in satisfaction of what is required?

I say none.

Posted in labor, SDS, socialists, spusa, the vanguard party, vanguard partys | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »