Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the six-term congresswoman from South Florida and chair of the Democratic National Committee, has been embroiled in numerous significant controversies lately. As the Washington Post put it just today: “DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s list of enemies just keeps growing.”
She is widely perceived to have breached her duty of neutrality as DNC chair by taking multiple steps to advance the Clinton campaign, including severely limiting the number of Democratic debates and scheduling them so as to ensure low viewership (she was co-chair of Clinton’s 2008 campaign). Even her own DNC vice chairs have publicly excoriated her after she punished them for dissenting from her Hillary-protecting debate limitations. She recently told Ana Marie Cox in a New York Times interview that she favors ongoing criminalization of marijuana (as she receives large financial support from the alcohol industry). She denied opposing medical marijuana even though she was one of a handful of Democratic legislators to vote against a bill to allow states to legalize it, and in her interview with Cox, she boasted that her “criminal-justice record is perhaps not as progressive as some of my fellow progressives.” She also excoriated “young women” — who largely back Bernie Sanders rather than Clinton — for “complacency” over reproductive rights.
In general, Wasserman Schultz is the living, breathing embodiment of everything rotted and corrupt about the Democratic Party: a corporatist who overwhelmingly relies on corporate money to keep her job, a hawk who supports the most bellicose aspects of U.S. foreign policy, a key member of the “centrist” and “moderate” pro-growth New Democrat coalition, a co-sponsor of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was “heavily backed by D.C. favorites including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the music and motion picture industries” and which, if enacted, would have allowed extreme government and corporate control over the internet.
In 2012, at the height of the controversy over the “kill list” that the New York Times revealed Obama had compiled for execution by drone, she said in an interview she had never heard of it and mocked the interviewer for suggesting such a thing existed. In 2013, she demanded that Edward Snowden “be extradited, arrested, and prosecuted” because he supposedly “jeopardized millions of Americans” and then called him a “coward.” “The progressive wing of the party base is volubly getting fed up with her,” declared the American Prospect last week.
Tim Canova
Photo: Tim Canova
He has worked with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson against the drug war and private prisons; worked with the Sanders campaigns of the past; and was a former aide to the late Sen. Paul Tsongas. He is an outspoken advocate of the Ron Paul/Alan Grayson-sponsored Audit the Fed bill, and a vehement opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. And he has vowed to run a campaign based on small-donor support, calling Wasserman Schultz “the quintessential corporate machine politician.”
As David Dayen reported last week in the New Republic, the widespread dislike for Wasserman Schultz around the country has already triggered substantial support and donations for Canova. To compete, he will need much more. You can visit his website here. But beyond that, I spoke with him late last week to explore his views, his motives for running, and what he believes are the greatest contrasts between him and the incumbent he is challenging:
* * * * *
GREENWALD: My guest today is Tim Canova, who recently announced a primary challenge in Florida’s 23rd congressional district to the Democratic incumbent, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, in addition to representing that district, is the chair of the Democratic National Committee. It is the congresswoman’s first primary challenge ever.
Tim is a former aide to the late Sen. Paul Tsongas and currently a professor at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law. Tim, thanks so much for taking the time to talk with me. I want to begin by asking you:
It’s one of the most difficult things in American politics to challenge an entrenched incumbent, and in this case, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is sort of the embodiment of an entrenched incumbent. It’s her sixth term that she’s currently serving. She hasn’t really been challenged very successfully in the past, and she’s also the chair of the DNC and has that whole apparatus behind her. What are the motivators that led you to take on this challenge?
CANOVA: If we had spoken a year ago, this wouldn’t have been on my radar. Last summer, I was very active with a bunch of grassroots organizations here in South Florida, lobbying against the fast track vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we were lobbying her office, trying to make contact with her or her top aides, and we got nowhere. And it was frustrating. She was one of the only Democrats in the House in the country to vote for fast track and she was the only Democrat in Florida’s delegation to vote for fast track. She had voted for the Korean Free Trade Agreement. She’s been taking lots of corporate money.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, she took $300,000 in just a two-year period, 2012 to 2014, from groups that support the TPP, and only about $23,000 from groups opposed to it. The Citizens Trade Campaign that I’ve been working with, it consists of a lot of organized labor, a lot of union people, and a lot of progressive Democrats. And these are constituencies that she’s been taking for granted, precisely because she’s run unopposed all of these years. She’s been able to take working folks for granted.
And the TPP was really a lightning rod issue. I think it should be. We saw how just a week or two ago, TransCanada, the big Canadian energy giant, announced it was going to sue the U.S. government for $15 billion for not going forward with the Keystone XL pipeline. And that’s under NAFTA’s investment protection provisions. The TPP has very similar provisions. So now we’re going to open up these types of challenges to another half-dozen to dozen countries that are not in NAFTA who will be able to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law. And when I say “challenge it,” you probably have read up on this enough to know that these companies are not going to be able to overturn the laws, but they will be able to get the taxpayer to have to pay for their compliance with the laws. So it really shifts the cost of compliance from corporations to taxpayers.
It’s a way to enshrine in international law what these corporations could not get through in constitutional jurisprudence, which is the regulatory takings approach, the idea that whenever the government regulates in a way that impedes the value of an investment, it should be considered a taking of property requiring just compensation. They couldn’t get that line of analysis through the Supreme Court, they go around it and they enshrine this in multilateral trade and investment agreements, bilateral investment treaties. And it’s become a litmus test at this point, and deservedly so. It’s environmental laws, it’s health and safety, it’s labeling laws. It really puts an awful lot of the kinds of protections that we’ve come to rely on and need up for sale, in a way.
GREENWALD: The TPP is obviously controversial in certain policy and intellectual circles. My guess is that a small percentage of Americans have even heard of that agreement, let alone have strong opinions about it, although they probably are a lot more informed and opinionated about trade issues generally because of the effect it’s had on jobs and the NAFTA controversy.
Do you have a strategy for communicating why a seemingly esoteric conflict like the TPP is something that moved you and ought to move voters to reject their incumbent representative?
CANOVA: Well, my friends in labor who are very supportive of this candidacy, and are really like-minded in that somebody should step up and challenge her — they make the argument that it’s going to lead directly to a lot of job losses, and they’ve got the statistics about just how many job losses came about from the Korean Free Trade Agreement. I’ve been trying to link these discussions about TPP to what every Floridian should see as an existential threat, and that is climate change. In 20 or 30 years down the road, big parts of South Florida could be underwater.
It’s not just the tourist industry, it’s people’s homes and businesses that could be in danger. And if we’re going to start confronting climate change, either through regulating carbon emissions or finding funds for infrastructure investments to mitigate the effects of climate change, TPP just gets in the way right down the line. Now I hear you, and I agree with you, that most people don’t understand those connections and many people have never heard of the TPP. I’m hoping this campaign starts elevating the discussion and informing people and helping to educate voters. I think it’s already beginning to happen a little bit.
But I’ve also got to say the TPP is not the only issue we’re running on. Wasserman Schultz has been taking — and you know this, The Intercept published a piece about the kind of money she’s been taking from big alcohol PACs. She’s for private prisons.
GREENWALD: While she’s been a hardcore drug war warrior and in favor of the penal state for putting people in cages for consuming drugs.
CANOVA: Exactly. And, you know, that’s not popular in this district. In 2014 there was a statewide referendum on medical marijuana. Fifty-eight-and-a-half percent of the voters in this state voted for it, for medical marijuana. It needed 60 percent to pass, so it came close. She was against it. Her votes in Congress have been against medical marijuana. I say, allow states to decide these issues on medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. We should not be locking people up, for what? Using the same drugs that apparently the last three American presidents, and, by some surveys, a majority of the American people have tried.
GREENWALD: One of the things that I do think people understand relating to the TPP and some of the other critiques you’ve voiced is the idea that there are a lot of people who go to Washington, take lots of money from corporate interests, and end up serving those interests at the expense of the ordinary voter, often contrary to the rhetoric they like to spout. That’s probably part of the reason for Donald Trump’s success, who has sold himself as a self-funder and therefore immune to those influences, and it’s definitely a big part of Bernie Sanders’ success as well, critiquing this kind of systemic, legalized corruption.
Where does Debbie Wasserman Schultz fall on the spectrum of political officials with respect to how much corporate money she relies on, and then how much corporate interest she serves?
CANOVA: OK. First, let me say, your first question was what animated me to jump in, and I started with the TPP. But this question really gets to the thematic heart of the campaign. Across the board, whether it’s the TPP or the drug war, she’s taking a lot of corporate money, and she’s been taking it for years. She talks the talk about campaign finance reform — she will say she’s for campaign finance reform — but she’s not walking the walk.
She voted recently the way most of Congress did on this latest omnibus spending bill. There were a couple of terrible provisions that allowed dark money to remain in our politics. One provision that she voted for in this omnibus package was to prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission from writing rules for transparency — to require corporations to disclose to their shareholders the extent of their campaign contributions; their political spending. Another ties the hands of the Internal Revenue Service from creating rules to curb special interest donors from forming these sham social welfare organizations that hide political spending.
She’s been raising corporate money for herself; she’s been giving it away to other candidates. She is the quintessential corporate machine politician. She really is, across the board. And then it influences her votes. And it’s not just TPP and the drug war, it’s Wall Street issues, and this is really what I’ve been teaching and writing about for many years. Just in the past few months — the past year or two — she has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to write rules to regulate payday lending, to prevent racial discrimination in car loans.
In December 2014, she voted to eliminate the part of Dodd-Frank that had prevented big banks from using deposits to speculate in financial derivatives. So she doesn’t have any real vision for public finance other than lining the pockets of her donors.
GREENWALD: So, one of the issues that has arisen over the past few years, most prominently with regard to the Federal Reserve, is this movement to subject the Fed to comprehensive, probing audits. And what I’ve always found interesting about that debate is that it had lots of support from people on the left like Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson, who were prime movers of that in the House, and then also from elements on the right. People like Ron Paul, this sort of libertarian faction who sees the dangers of crony capitalism.
Where do you stand specifically on the question of auditing the Fed, and more generally, do you see this potential for — on economic issues and on issues regarding Wall Street and the Fed — for there to be some kind of a union between ordinary people on the left and the right who are both being victimized in the same way by these kind of systemic corruptions?
CANOVA: Absolutely. In 2010, I worked with Alan Grayson’s staff, and with Bernie Sanders’ staff, and with Ron Paul’s staff, on the transparency and provisions that went into Dodd-Frank. The transparency of the Fed — the two GAO audits. That I’m sure you know about. The GAO had one audit that dealt with the governance of the Fed and their conflicts of interest, and the second one dealt with the Fed’s emergency lending facilities, which lo and behold, rewarded those big banks that dominated and continue to dominate the Fed’s governance.
So I am very much in favor of auditing the Fed on a regular basis and reforming the Fed so that its governing boards more reflect the diverse interests of society, and not just bankers.
This is a tradition that goes back to John Commons, the great institutional economist of the 1930s and 1940s, [and] Leon Keyserling, the head of Harry Truman’s council of economic advisers. This used to be, some decades ago, part of the discussion as far as reforming the governance structure of the Fed. It needs to be part of the conversation again. And, you’re hitting it on the head when you say this is a discussion — this is an agenda — that spans the spectrum from right to left.
I saw it when I was involved in Occupy Wall Street, at the Occupy Los Angeles encampment. There were plenty of tents and banners, you name it, saying “End the Fed.” I taught at the People’s Collective University at Occupy LA, and I taught a workshop on the Federal Reserve, and I was making the case: “Let’s not end the Fed, let’s mend the Fed. Let’s reform the Fed.” And it’s a discussion that people on the right and people on the left can get engaged in very quickly. Unfortunately, in Washington, it’s the mainstream establishment center of both parties that resist this kind of reform.
GREENWALD: Speaking of the mainstream establishment center in both parties resisting reform, obviously a lot of the topics I write about and that The Intercept covers center on surveillance policy and foreign policy, where there is an enormous amount of agreement between Republican and Democratic establishment wings.
Can you just sort of give me your general perspective on where Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in those areas, and how you differ from the standard Democratic orthodoxy and the Republican orthodoxy on those questions as well?
CANOVA: The Patriot Act is probably the original starting point in this discussion, and I was not a proponent of the Patriot Act at the time, and Wasserman Schultz is. So I’m very skeptical of concentrated power in this national security state. Dismantling that power and exposing it to the light of day is a job and a half, as you know personally, and how to do that? Congress is a place where you can start doing it.
I certainly hope if I’m elected and if I serve in Congress, that I would be a critic of this concentration of state power that’s being used for surveillance. And not just surveillance, I’ve got to say, it really goes to a lot of the United States’ approaches in its foreign policy abroad. I think the drone war has been a disaster. It’s a way that the president and the administration can talk tough and look tough, but in my estimation, it is creating far more enemies than it is killing. It’s not serving our long-term interests.
We should be looking for a general disarmament in this part of the world, instead of the United States leading this race among major powers in arms sales to these regimes. The conflicts that exist between Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites are centuries old — decades old, centuries old — and arming these countries to the teeth is not a solution. At all. For foreign policy. At least not in a way that’s going to serve the interests of humanity and try to bring peace to that part of the world. It used to be, 100 years ago, the world would have disarmament conferences. How effective they were, the history books can write about. But it’s not even discussed at this point.
GREENWALD: Yeah, even Reagan and Gorbachev and Nixon and Brezhnev had incredibly successful disarmament conferences as well, and ultimately, treaties, and you’re right — it’s essentially off the agenda.
CANOVA: That’s right. And with Reagan and Nixon, the arms treaties [we] are talking about are thermonuclear weapons. In our day and age, yes, we have to have disarmament of thermonuclear weapons, but we also have to have disarmament of all other kinds of weapons that we see being used in these proxy wars throughout the Middle East.
The proxy wars have been a disaster. There’s something to be said for the critique that I’ve heard Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump actually make, that we should have left “well enough” alone in Syria. And this policy of trying to continue with regime change — you know, Bush was criticized for regime change; it’s continued under the Obama administration, and all it has done is created vacuums for more radical groups like ISIS to gain greater influence, greater strength.
It’s led to all kinds of — not just destabilization, but massive death, dislocations of people. It’s a horror show. It’s got to stop, and disarmament and talking through peacefully to resolve disputes has got to be put on the agenda, and I don’t see it on the agenda from most of these candidates, and certainly Wasserman Schultz doesn’t talk like that.
GREENWALD: Absolutely, she does not. Let me just ask you a couple of last questions here. People are just now for the first time hearing about your primary challenge, and becoming familiar with you, and who you are, and what your positions are, so could you just talk a little bit about your history of political activism and your professional background as well?
CANOVA: Sure. I am a lawyer by training. I studied at Georgetown University, and then was a Swedish Institute visiting scholar at the University of Stockholm. I practiced law in Manhattan for a large firm for a few years, and then went into teaching, and really my entire legal career was animated by the study of, you can say, making our institutions more democratically accountable. The thesis I wrote as a Swedish Institute visiting scholar was a comparison of Swedish and American labor law and corporate law, and comparing how in Sweden and in other European countries, labor had a seat at the table. Fifty percent of the board members were labor. And in the United States, labor doesn’t have a seat at the table. They get run over. So that is the orientation — more democracy — that has animated me throughout my career.
I served on Capitol Hill as a legislative aide to the late U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the early 1980s. A lot of this is on my campaign website, on the About Tim page — that I was an opponent of financial deregulation very early. I was writing in the early 1980s that the Garn-St. Germain Act, deregulation of depository interest rates and lending standards, would be a disaster, that it was a repeat of what had happened in the 1920s. It opened the door to predatory lending and sub-prime mortgages. I was calling that decades before that actually came to a crisis stage, you could say. In the 1990s, both as a lawyer and as a law professor, I was warning against getting rid of Glass-Steagall — Brooklyn Law Review article in the mid 1990s, 1995. I warned against financial derivatives. So I’ve been a constant critic of Wall Street deregulation. I’m for Main Street; I always have been. I believe in the New Deal. I believe in bottom-up economics.
My activism has manifested itself in many ways, in many forms: certainly the anti-corporate globalization movement during the time of Seattle, against the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement. When I was a professor at the University of New Mexico, I threw myself into a grassroots campaign to get rid of felony disenfranchisement, and it was one of the great grassroots movements I’ve ever been involved in. It’s a small state and we were able to see change come real fast. It was right after the 2000 deadlock in Florida. There was a deadlock in New Mexico also, and we woke up to find that there weren’t enough electoral votes to count in New Mexico compared to Florida, but New Mexico was one of, I think, nine states at the time where someone who was convicted of a felony was barred for the rest of his or her life from voting. And we had an opportunity because we had, even though he was a Republican governor, he was a libertarian governor, Gary Johnson, who was trying to end the war on drugs.
We got a grassroots movement that lit a fire underneath him. We got Democrats in the state house, in the legislature, to pass legislation within two months, and Gary Johnson signed it. And that’s all it took, was two months of good organization and a lot of grassroots lobbying and New Mexico was no longer a felony disenfranchisement state.
And then there’s the Occupy movement, so I’ve been engaged really my whole life. I know some people have said, “Well, you haven’t run for political office.” No, but I’ve been engaged in grassroots lobbying and activism, and the focus of my mind, my heart, my soul, has really been on public policy issues and trying to create a better world.
GREENWALD: The last question. The critique that you’re making of how Debbie Wasserman Schultz funds her political career and her reliance on big corporate money is one that resounds to a lot of ears. The problem, however, is the reason politicians go in and feed at that trough, is that it’s a really potent weapon. It helps them buy ads, it helps them build campaign staff and get re-elected.
What is your strategy for being able to be competitive with someone so well-funded by large corporate interests, and how can people who want to see her subjected to a real competitive challenge, and even lose, how can they get involved in your campaign and support it and help?
CANOVA: Well, I’m not taking any corporate money, and I think that that is resonating with folks. In the first three days after I launched the campaign, we got over 1,000 individual contributions. It’s now been a week and I’ve lost track; it’s somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 individual contributions. You don’t see that at most campaigns. I know in some ways we’re fortunate compared to other first-time insurgent challengers, because Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the poster child of a lot of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party. We’re attracting donors from all over the country.
We’re igniting the grassroots here in Florida. So we are raising money. We need to raise a lot more to compete with her, and I would just urge folks to go to timcanovaforcongress.com, to give what they can. It doesn’t have to be a lot, but it adds up with people power. It has been adding up, so that’s our strategy, and we’re fortunate that we’ve gotten so much good attention so quickly.
GREENWALD: Well, I really want to thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I think it’s been super enlightening, and I wish you the best of luck.
CANOVA: Well, Glenn, thank you. I really appreciate you having me, and I want to thank you for your lifetime of work. You’re an inspiration to me and to a lot of other people, and it’s an honor to be interviewed by you.
GREENWALD: Thank you so much.
Tim & Bernie both deserve our campaign donations. DWS is the most deserving “Democrat” that needs booted!
Agreed! I’ve Been giving to Bernie for months. Just made my first donation to Tim Canova. We need to fight hard to get the money out of politics. Our kids’ futures depend on us.
Debbie continue to do the work you were selected to do. Represent the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton with all resources not the Independent who became a Democrat.
Dude, in case you haven’t noticed, Hillary has to convince the voters to vote for her first. And that Independent (Bernie) has this long time Democrat’s support.
If you like this guy Tim Canova, donate to his campaign.
https://timcanova.com/
I did some research on him (Including Reddit Q&A) and I am not convinced that I like him enough to part with my cash.
Ah, too bad. There aren’t enough of him out there!
I donated earlier after reading another article and researching his history.
So, women who think for themselves and don’t blindly follow Hillary just because Hillary is alleged to be a woman are labeled ‘complacent’ by Hillary? What’s next, pins and/or stickers labeling non-hillary-followers in order to easily identify them? Maybe, round them all up and put them in a stockade?
Yay, Hillary, champion of freedom!
Great to see The Intercept covering anti-corruption political struggles rather than just limiting itself to a refrain of “complaint journalism.”
There is a rich vein of stories for investigation that needs to be unearthed, to expose meaningful strategies to end usurpation of public trusts for private gain. We need The Intercept to avoid falling into the learned helplessness of other left journalism and instead shine its light to the real depths of change.
Readers can be meaningfully engaged in learning about these struggles rather than just another media market of “we are not surprised, show us the latest outrage” spectators.
Either you’re new to The Intercept reader list, or I don’t know what reason you’d have for that statement. The Intercept is full of articles that can be read in the current and archive of articles which reach way beyond “learned helplessness.” I suggest that you view it.
I AGREE!!!!!
I have no way of trusting anyone who sees running
for a membership in a corrupt corporate party
as being a pragmatic endeavor.
You know, Glen, that all of these pundits sound the same as Obama when he was running for his first term…Promise them everything, even what you know you cannot deliver! They all say what sounds great, but it does not reflect the view of citizens being denied their ability to decide their democratic futures.Representative democracy does not work for the citizens because the rich can always buy the representative out! We need to vote on the issues ourselves!
Debbie Does DC is so incredibly incredible! On national TV, she utters tale after tale, and even the most addled viewer can tell she means none of it. The corporate TV hosts play along, because the money is good in the Beltway (and why can’t those losers outside DC understand just how good they have it?). The DC DEM leadership have lifetime positions. Field General Debs was in charge of the 2014 national strategy, and she decided there would be no strategy, no DEM Party positions on issues. The voters were predictably unimpressed. But she keeps her job. Harry “Filibuster-lover” Reid is an obstructionist as much as any REPUB, but liberal tribalism makes him an automatic good guy for life. Pelosi, too.
Schultz looks like a dead carp that’s been out of the water for 2 weeks.
Be patient, she’s almost kosher!
I had not heard of Tim Canova until this article. Being from Florida, but living in Colorado since the 80’s, I had to go to Tim’s site and read up on him. He sounds good, very good, to me. I also like Alan Grayson, FL-D, from the invade Syria days as his great work in helping stop that imbecile attempt at another Iraq (neither are yet over and many people in those countries continue to suffer greatly; another discussion, though). Look, for those who are going give trust one more time (don’t let us down Bernie), Senator Sanders is going to need all the help we can send him. I have contributed to Bernie’s and Tim’s campaigns as of today and intend to again contribute to Rep Grayson’s. Follow your hearts, folks, and do what you think is best.
This is so cool, the mystery to learn who bought a newspaper:
Where does Adelson’s money come from?
Adelson owns several big casinos around the globe and in LV.
He’s in deep trouble at home for underworld connections in Asia.
From casinos, like Trump.
Trump doesn’t have the underworld connections Adelson has.
Indeed, Trump has different underworld connections.
Are you sure of that?
Really fascinating how a “money party” became such a factor in making the wishes of the non-millionaire majority of Americans, irrelevant.
I’m glad Michael Moore is making another film:
I guess I like Moore because his view of a world where Americans have the right to an education and access to medical care, and don’t visit violence upon other nations remains undaunted by his disappointment in the Clintons and Obama.
It looks like “extraordinary rendition” has fans in the Chinese government:
Maybe the country that holds kidnapped people in Guantanamo and elsewhere, America, their president, Obama should denounce this?, or maybe a country that CIA rendition/torture flights were routed through, Britain, their PM, Cameron should register some disgust???
But we shouldn’t be too hasty to criticize China. One has to assume that these critics “endangered the troops”, “put assets at risk”, “have blood on their hands” “should have been brave enough to voluntarily face justice” etc, you know, the usual things Obama and friends say about Assange and Snowden.
I have moments when I want to flee this country. The Kochs and their Libertarian/John Birch Society world view (New World Order) have come into sharp focus for me.
What is more alarming is the rampant anti intellectualism you hinted at. People in this country can no longer reason or apply logic.
Our claim of being “exceptional”
Is irrational nationalism. For all his faults, Obama is at least sane. His support of the TPP and the drone strikes have definitely caused me to leave his fan club. Is he really the greatest president ever? No.
I have enjoyed immensely your thoughts and observations. I’m going back to read more on the links. Thank You.
I’ve got a 3-legged, one eyed pit bull that’s deaf in one ear…his name is “Lucky”, that could take Whatshername in the primaries by 30 points.
It is of course a great goal to delete DW-S from congress and have her get on with her true calling as a lobbyist or industry consultant. Failing that, she’d also be a great fit at CAP. Look forward, not backward, Debbie.
I don’t know her district, but intuitively it doesn’t seem TPP has caused sufficient anger to be a headline issue for an anti-incumbent campaign. Similar problem with how she is financed. Is that fact enough to motivate voters, when essentially the entire membership of the Leg. branch is guilty of the same thing?
It’s interesting that Canova was active in Occupy. There’s a kind of afterglow from the movement that refuses to go away. There is still a small but fairly active Occupy Santa Fe here, most recently calling for the Guv. to be impeached. Keep the fires burning…
He better watch his back and keep a look out for masquerading Mossad agents creeping around his neighborhood…
No sh*t!
She’s in deep with that type, and would not hesitate to use her nefarious connections with Israel to maintain and further her career.
Canova should challenge her to six debates in his first ad…
(Tapping into the disgust will get a national response by Bernie supporters.)
… and insist that the first one be focused the failed drug war.
(The other issues discussed in this interview are equally important but ignorance about them is widespread, so medical marijuana, etc. will motivate more voters and donors, and DWS’s positions make her particularly weak on the subject.)
Many thanks GG!
I hope you can provide an outlet for more such challengers to neolibcon Dems… and their Repub collaborators.
If Bernie can pull off a win, he’ll need many more like Canova in Congress.
He seems to be one of the very few decent human beings left among Democratic politicians and candidates; I wish him luck. Now if only someone like Tim Canova could challenge Darth Madigan here in Illinois, I’d be overjoyed.
Well any friend of Gary and Bernie is a friend of mine and I agree with everything except the drones. Personally, I wouldn’t kill in a such a cowardly way for the obvious reasons of retaliation .
However, I can understand how this was packaged and sold to Obama, he felt obligated to chose between drones or boots on the ground. There was a kill list and they had to die one way of another so the drones were expected to be more accurate and save lives. It’s easy to criticize those decisions from the comfort of your own home because no one knows how they will choose when the time comes but please don’t say that it’s created more enemies, they will never like us no matter what we do.
Goung in like a swift hawk to get these suspects that killed Osama is the clear choice even though many more Americans will die.
Clearly the only true way to win this war is to get out of it and take that war money and invest into making alternative energy accessible to ALL that way we never have to step foot in the Middle East with war in our hearts ever again.
But you know what would make America Great again? People volunteering like we did for the WWII. Just like with Bernies campaign finance if everyone gives a little bit of time we can build the solar panels, help single mothers so their children can grow up to be the activists, spiritual and inspiring future leaders this country needs.
“please don’t say that it’s created more enemies, they will never like us no matter what we do. ”
There’s a world of difference between resentful animosity and being willing to pick up an AK. You know anti-western feeling is a fairly recent development worldwide, right? They used to love us, now some really hate us. Maybe, partially, it’s because we murder their family members with invisible flying robots that shoot ‘hellfire’ missiles.
Bipolar?
All the ME people that hate US didn’t hate US 60 years ago,and no attacks on Americans by Muslims,outside of Sirhan Sirhan ,were committed against US citizens.
And the fact that SS was a Palestinian,and a harbinger? of the future,should alert one to the fact that all this crap is about Zion,and our idiotic support of their totally Unconstitutional American norms is the height of hypocrisy.And yes,the MIC like money,and they are contributors,but our policies are all Israeli centric,and this mole traitor,Wasserman,is just the tip of their outrageous arrogance in their naked fealty to Israel, which an increasingly aware electorate will hopefully rectify.
Yankee come home,yes,correct,but to hold victims of our extra curricular activities at fault for their human reactions is dumb.
Yeah, well it’s real easy for you to sit back in your comfy chair and declare that the abominable drone plan, which has killed thousands (!) of innocent people, is okay (“they had to die one way or the other” — what is your major malfunction?). Tell that to the widows and orphans whose loved ones, all innocent of any crime, got blown to hash. Believe me, the President wasn’t sold anything–he has the same shallow reasoning for whacking strangers that you do.
But didn’t Jimmy Carter years ago have a priority to make us energy independent? But that would leave us without significant interests in the ME. We’d have no excuses to be involved there or concerns for our “most important ally”. Big Oil, Saudis, and the Israel lobby found ways to destroy his credibility, and voila we had Iran hostages that would be released the day after he lost.
@Gator
Hey Gator. Let me cheer you up buddy. America is soon going to have a Jewish POTUS. So… fk the haters. Just laugh it off. Haha.
Cheers :)
Bernie Sanders wants to be a nice guy,but his Zionism gets in his way.
Why would an atheist cheer the religious aspect of a candidate anyway?
And wouldn’t the election of Sanders,whom domestically I wholeheartedly agree with,signal,as with the election of Obomba,twice,(the Muslim Socialist;totally untrue unfortunately)signal that the American electorate are mostly non haters?
Too bad Sanders is also bipolar,his foreign stances are pretty lame.
No, actually it doesn’t get in his way. Bernie Sanders is a normal person, with the capability of changing his mind. You should try it.
I am bipolar and am going to use that come back when people talk shit to me about being bipolar. THANK YOU!!!!
Like it. Love it. Love it. Like it.
Congratulations on your candidacy, Tim, and best of luck to you.
Thanks for the introduction I like what you said and what I read about him. I have started to contribute.
Wassermann-Shultz is a chair fit only for sitting on. And I have yet to read this article…
All I know is that she has been witching hard since campaign season, screwing Bernie every chance she grts just so she can have her Hillary.
At literal value, that in itself is sick enough…
Good luck to you in your campaign Tim Canova-you’ll make a great congressman.
The TPP-you are right on about it and what the effects will be down the road .All these previous trade deals have been leading up to these TPP and TTIP “the mothers themselves”
Most people still havenot heard of it and have no clue and this is going to come up very soon to the Congress to vote.
Big issue to me is the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority).If the current Congress does not have enough support(as it may not)it will wait until after the 2016 election to bring it up.One reason maybe the hope a republican wins the presidency(unlikely-but…);the other is Hillary Clinton,who has been a fence walker on this issue (like most and DWS).The TPA is good for 3 years and the next President.Corporate America would love this scenario,not only will the Republican Congress approve the deal(purchased by )but Hillary Clinton will be called on for all their campaign donations to her and Bill.They will demand her support which She will conveniently give.She is very good and apt at what she does and is very capable. I give Her that.
How does one get this TPP no vote out to the public;it has been stymied by the news media both written online and Cable.What can the Intercept do?We need more outlets.Glenn you have been on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman and Citizen Public,but this topic needs more media coverage!!!
Is Florida going to do a Virginia Cantor encore? Depends on logistics. Love the name of that law school. Why mention Manhattan? Astute opposition about the opposite bedfellows playing ball outside the W-S et al. 40 yardlines. Labor went too far in the late 60s, gave us Rehnquist and the death of the controllers union, and then all but the rest, who toe the line. But let’s be clear: if you are an employee, a bad union is better than no union. Logistics. Debbie’s a crook is an invigorating play, but ultimately a disheartening one. Her views accord with the majority of elected representatives nationally. Presumably these representatives reflect the views of the majority of owners of Diebold. Whatever that Prof did in Virginia, IMPROVE IT. That would be some life mission!
She is the very model of a modern young Republican.
Democratic Debate: Alan Greenspan’s Spouse Should Not Have Co-Hosted
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 18, 2016
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/01/democratic-debate-alan-greenspans-spouse-should-not-have-co-hosted/
Had Wasserman been the Gov of Michigan right now…she’d double down by drinking a glass of brown, shit filled Flint water and say “what’s the problem.. it tastes delicious”. Of course, she’s used to eating corporate shit.
She doesn’t eat it. She rams it down the throats of others.
You must be talking about Mona …
Why does this man put these pictures and write a book about something that is so private politically everyone that has been in office with the president has wrote a book and the Secretary of State ambassadors and everything I mean they have never done this before I’ll be so glad when this man is out of office and go home with his family
Sorry, could you repeat that?
For many of the more egregious abuses of power over the past decade, seems to me the Department of Justice would be another place to start doing it.
*provided Congress can refrain from passing more ‘retroactive immunity’ laws like those contained in the FISA amendments act of 08.
But if she looses, will Pelosi replace her with someone just like her? There is a good chance she will. Remember, she also picked Steve Israel to head the DCCC, saying “He has the right kind of reptilian instincts for the job”. Reptilian meaning:” Crooked corporate sleaze bag” just like DWS. Oh well, I hope she looses anyway. Keeping my fingers crossed.
It was Obama who decided he wanted Debbie Wasserman Schultz to head the DNC.
~
I see you….
And by the way, this Gator character is full of shit…
Gator is a so self-centered it is ridiculous.
And notice several comments that called out gator are now gone.
And -Mona- is here at the same time. hmmm …
eyeball pate’
fucking joke
I heard somewhere,Israel is not going to run again.Blowback?
Hope traitor K Rice gets hers.”There’s brown rice,white rice and Traitor Rice!”
Just dreaming,I guess,about the latter,but who knows?
When will the sleepers awaken?
They are trying to pass a bill in the NY leg that will let pols have outside jobs with unlimited or relatively unlimited salaries.Up til now one could only make $11,000 or so.Freedom aint tidy!
The age of corruption and bullsh*t is upon US.
I wish you all the success for your campaign and hope you win. Though I am not American, I believe in the values you stand for and American policies sure affect my life in here.
“Where has her family money come from ? More usurers ?”
I have conflicted feelings regarding the anti-semitism that abounds here. On the one hand, I’ve always liked the idea of GG’s comment section as a free-wheeling forum where people can mostly say whatever the f–k they want. On the other hand, I’m starting to feel discouraged from visiting this place, and I’ve been a regular visitor since 2006. Sigh.
Artemis is a craphound. Note the bullshit understanding of “free speech” as “no one should be able to criticize my speech.” This is not what free speech in America has meant now or ever.
It’s also impossible to tell how many actual anti-semites are on this site because of the free-for-all sock-puppetry.
I’d say fewer anti-semites are here than there would appear to be. Also fewer commenters in general. Basically right now the Intercept is one of the websites where the content up top is vastly superior to the commentary – if you read the Guardian or New York Times you will find a wiser bunch in the comments sections than the pro pundits. Not here.
Don’t let the nazis chase you off. That’s part of the goal. On the upside, they don’t swarm like the islam haters. On the downside, they really are nazis.
Oh ignorance : thou art bliss !
To question the source of Zionist funding is to be a Nazi ?
How simple life is in your little world…
I am neither Nazi nor Islamophobe (and I can articulate and use punctuation correctly – unlike you). So before you continue with your dumb-assed accusations you might like to work on your language comprehension (not to mention your fuzzed-up ideologies).
Vacuity : thou hast no limitation !
If the boot fits…
Gator, I may have missed some things — I’ve greatly reduced participation due to crapflooding from both insane people and from sane trolls. I couldn’t take it any longer. Glenn’s comment section used to be a hive of smart, well-informed people — and was never an echo chamber. That got lost somewhere.
But perhaps something was done because these pests don’t seem to be here now. At any rate, I haven’t seen anti-antisemitism “abounding” in comments. As you know, I’m frequently on that like white on rice, and can’t recall much in a while.
Let’s try to build the place back up?
“Glenn’s comment section used to be a hive of smart, well-informed people ”
And then you began engaging CraigSummers with earnest while acting like swinging dick to the tin-hat crowd.
Perhaps you could be on that like Jasmine on rice, honey.
Craig’s been with us since the Guardian days. Many of us have been engaging him since then. And yes, I don’t care for it one bit when severely unhinged people dominate the comments here. I do oppose their crazy beliefs. I make no apology for that.
Isn’t CS “severely unhinged” like the tin-foilers?
Why keep piling on? It only compounds the problem.
Scroll on.
@Mona -“I haven’t seen anti-antisemitism ‘abounding’ in comments.”
Nor have I. Perhaps if there were more anti-antisemitism, the antisemitism would be easier to stomach.
Perhaps if there were more anti-antisemitism,
Welp, I posted something challenging the comment you were referencing (re: usury), but my comment appears to have been chopped alongside the one that was offensive, so…..not sure how one can figure out the balance when the scale keeps being, um, adjusted. :-s
I’ve never encountered the word; here’s what wiki says;
So I am assuming this is considered a slur by Jews? (Gator90 seems upset)
read the rest of wiki. As Christens are all in with banking, in what way does this single out Jews? (and what got deleted? where did Gator’s quote come from?)
Don’t take it personally my friend. Of course there’s going to be some anti-semitism when there’s anonymity. Look at youtube. There’s going to be anti-Muslim stuff too. Anti-this, anti-that. Just be like Glenn. I don’t think it’s possible to personally offend Glenn. He’s only offended when other people are harassed. That’s his power. Super self confidence. You couldn’t pin Glenn to a religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, nationality… nothing. He doesn’t give a shit about being any one of those things. So it’s not possible to get to him. Be like Glenn. Like Glenn be.
Cheers :)
It’s always a balancing act because (1) comment sections, as you point out, are intended to be free-wheeling and as unregulated as possible to allow free and spirited discussion among adults, which means one will necessarily encounter ideas and even people one intensely dislikes (just like in real life!) but (2) some contributions are so disruptive and toxic that they serve no purpose other than to degrade the quality of the discussion and ruin the experience for everyone else.
There’s also the challenge of equal application: anti-Muslim commentary is so widespread in mainstream dialogue whereas other forms of bigotry – anti-semitism included – are more taboo. Does that mean one allows the former to flow more freely than the latter?
Since I began writing on the internet in 2006, I’ve always tried hard to err on the side of over-inclusion: meaning censoring less than I should rather than more. I think that guides the philosophy of comment section moderation here at the Intercept, too (which I do little of). So I don’t think things are much different now as compared to whatever The Glory Years are supposed to be of my comment section.
That said, the comments you reference were so far over the line that deleting them was an easy, obvious choice, and the users banned. As is true for every site, moderation isn’t instantaneous unless you pre-moderate every comment (only new users are pre-moderated), so there are intervals between comments like those being left and deleted.
GLENN – “anti-Muslim commentary is so widespread in mainstream dialogue whereas other forms of bigotry – anti-semitism included – are more taboo”
True enough. In your comment section, however, expressions of anti-Muslim bigotry are typically met with ringing condemnations, stinging retorts, and/or patient efforts to educate the ignorant. Expressions of anti-Jewish bigotry, in contrast, are typically met with the sound of crickets. Sometimes it’s hard not to notice this.
It was different in the Glory Years, or as I prefer to call them, the Golden Age of Greenwald, or GAG. Back then, people who hated Israel with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns would nevertheless tell the anti-semites to get stuffed. (Mona, in fairness, sometimes still does that, but she pretty much stands alone.)
@Glenn Greenwald, Mona and the rest of ya-I still learn from the commentors who get me angry including “the Craig.” I would be extremely disappointed to hear this site is filtering comments besides the obvious. What do you guys expect from the commentors? Do you want to argue the merits of a thesis? I come to this site for the work of the staff because of my respect for Glenn, Laura and Snowden. I believe if there is going to be work that exposes the evilness that is very effectively hidden within our government iits going to be from TI. There is so much I dont think TI can cover it all? For example, here in California I had to prove to my daughters Dr why, the vaccination the Dr’s management ordered for every patient and now the law of the state for every child, i refused it for her. I had to tell the Dr that IF my daughter became ill with the measels she will survive and she will be immune for life unlike the vaccination which is every 2 years. The Dr hinted she would have to report my refusal as an indicator of neglect? How does a person rebut the authority of a Dr?
I’ve been involved in meetings with paid consultants of various markets and I see very similar opinions within the comments on this site and TI is getting them for free.
Is charging 30% to desperate loan seekers usury or what?
Is fomenting a system of slave labor living paycheck to paycheck,most of America beyond lawyers,doctors and educators,civilized?
Go work in retail,and see modern slavery in action.
I got one call from the DNC this year looking for a $50 donation, I think. The pert voice on the other end of the line became a lot more subdued when I said:
No, Mam. You may not count on me for a donation of any amount until Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is no longer the DNC Chair. Please put a note in the file that this household will be unresponsive until DWS’ tenure is history.
And, when the DCCC called I told them I only supported individual candidates through ActBlue.
I really hate it when my own money is used against my interests.
Good luck, Mr. Canova. Pulling for you from out here in the Rocky Mountain west. Just donated to your campaign thanks to this interview.
She has an extremely off-putting demeanor and real mouth about her. See the recent NYT one-page interview with her. Anger, entitlement, rudeness, ego out of control. She needs to be replaced as DNC chair.
Canova’s candidacy is very encouraging. Even if he doesn’t win — and this is also true for Sanders — more and more anti-oligarchy candidates running is changing the political conversation. It’s well past time to get that Overton window moving back in the other direction.
Canova does have chance, but it’s a win in important respects even if he loses.
YES! Let’s got Tim! #DownWithDWS
Wasserman-Schultz talks about the debate schedules and provides ridiculous excuses for it. Looks like the Hillary supporters have downvoted some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaoUHCVMUAk
He lost me at ‘climate change.’
I at least think he spoke well for admitting what the issue truly was and has always been: coastal real estate value. I disagree with him but appreciate his honesty and understand his position.
@ Glenn
One of the Intercept’s writers should write a piece re: the following Op-Ed the NYT chose to publish and nominally penned by Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir is the foreign minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. My guess is it was actually written by one of the PR groups hired by the KSA. The thing is a case study in irony, lack of self-awareness and propaganda rivaling anything put out by the operatives of the state of Israel (or the US for that matter). Seriously the New York Times should be fucking embarrassed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/opinion/saudi-arabia-can-iran-change.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Succinct piece… There is an alternative to Wasserman-schultz and with the expeidancy of the internet to expose these options and truths movements gain momentum and traction and prove quite effective( look at how Larry Summers, for example, and his potential FED reserve post was derailed …).
Thanks for posting this interview…and for all that you continue to do to elevate the publics awareness of injustice…among other things.
Good interview, and the guy seems to have good anti-authoritarian instincts. I hate though how liberal democrats lambast free trade as some sort of corporate welfare project, while ignoring the numerous ways that protectionism serves particular corporate interests.
I agree with you in principle on the fact that protectionism favors some corporations over others. 10 years ago, I’d have agreed with you completely. But now I’m of the opinion, that while free trade lowers cost of goods, it hurts labor, and it does not take into consideration any responsibility a corporation has as a member of the community it operates in, makes a profit in. It’s a mixed bag is what I’m saying.
Free Trade is a ruse to emasculate democracy. The evolution of democracy has been of great concern to the ruling classes, (read oligarchies), in the free world since the turn of the twentieth century. A democracy, and it’s fruits, belongs to everyone. No one is more equal than another. Fascism was courted to varying degrees by this element, including some members of the British aristocracy, in the 20’s and 30’s as the possible remedy to hold the entitlement inherent to all of the citizens of a democracy at bay. As we know, that experiment didn’t end well.
But it appears that they’ve found the holy grail in Free Trade. Democracies will only be allowed to regulate whatever does not negatively impact or threaten profits of foreign corporations. We won’t be able to regulate measures regarding garbage in the streets if that somehow affects profits. There are currently over 600 ‘disputes’ in secret process for lost profits…..And not a contrary word out of our MSM!
Right under our noses. Unbelievable!
What’s your alternative? Non-free trade (or whatever it’s called) just continues the status quo of companies lobbying the government for more and more trade restrictions that help their bottom line at the consumer’s expense.
And who champions alleged free trade?The Zionists certainly do,as does our manufacturing base,as GE was just sold to Haiar,in China,for 4.5 bil,and more Americans lose their probable union jobs,that paid a living wage,in the search for more dollars.Fairfield NJ gets theirs.
Keep voting for the traitors,fools.
Excellent Interview. This dude needs a spotlight on him.
It may piss Wasserman-Schultz off, but Alan Grayson should help campaign for Canova.
Hopefully she gets a well-deserved promotion. To the Knesset.
I think she’s gunning for Bibi’s job – International Israeli Ass-hat.
Many asses to fill hat,grasshopper.
Bad typo? GG # 2, second sentence: “have even heard of that agreement” –> haven’t?
I especially like “articulated”, myself…but please don’t fix it.
Sorry GG, it seems you’re quite right. I simply couldn’t get my head around the syntax.
This the very definition of the revolution that Bernie Sanders is calling for. This is exactly what needs to happen across the country.
This is the very definition of the revolution that Sanders is calling for. This is exactly what has to happen across the country.
Too bad. He has no chance.
Totally absurd.
You have a political neophyte against not only an incumbent, and we all know the reelection rate of incumbents,but an incumbent who has unlimited financial resources and the backing of the Clinton machine.Even if she lost the primary she could run as an independent in the general election and probably win.
And she’s a Zionist Jew, which in her case works to her advantage…
Well then no point in worrying, right Drew? Voters like you should stay home and not vote. :)
I for one gave money.
Even if she lost the primary she could run as an independent in the general election and probably win.
No. Most states don’t permit politicians to Lieberman each other:
There is no doubt, for the very reasons you delineated – excluding the sore loser possibility – that Canova will face an uphill battle. But this is nothing new. It has happened and such candidates have been successful. Eric Cantor is a recent example of a loss to exactly this sort of challenge.
The bottom line though is, if you never try then you never succeed. And pushing back on people like Wasserman Schultz and her corrupt DNC fiefdom should be a priority for people who want change in the status quo system. She needs to see there is a group out there willing to try to punish her for her actions/stances.
Thanks for that info.
I cringe just hearing/reading that douchebags name usually, but your usage is not just apt, it justifiably tarnishes his name.
It’s almost a shame (not even close actually) that most states restrict such sleazeball actions so the term won’t ever get much usage.
Some corporatists still like to blame Nader, but Gore emptied a whole clip into his foot with that decision.
Do you mean the Likud VP nominee?Yes,it certainly hurt
Gore,but the MSM won’t touch that.
Yup, but I can’t bring myself to type or even think his name, he disgusts me so.
To label Sanders as a neophyte is manifestly and empirically absurd. He’s been in politics his entire life. He’s been steadily re-elected to his chosen office 95% of the time – even running as an independent. He was the amendment king in the House and he negotiated the most important bill of the 107th Congress on VA care. He’s come damn close to matching Clinton dollar for dollar, and outraised almost the entire GOP slate of presidential candidates, without either a super pac or big corporate/wealth oligarchy support.
He’s looking more and more like a damn political god and clearly far, far from a neophyte.
Whoops, had my Bernie shades on there. Still, not sure I’d call Canova a neophyte either. Sounds like he’s done pretty well working from the outside and he certainly has a strong command of the facts and the delusions that make up the reality of politics.
That’s what everyone said when Ned Lamont challenged Joe Lieberman for the Democratic primary in 2006. Lamont won.
The primary is a low-voter-turnout affair in a year when there is massive dissatisfaction on both sides with the party establishment.
If he becomes a national cause and is well-funded, he can definitely unseat her. I’m not saying he will – it will be hard – but don’t be so defeatist. Far, far stranger things have happened.
The leader of the Labour Party in the UK is Jeremy Corbyn.
Whether he wins will be determined by the level of support he gets from people disgusted with the DNC and corporatists like DWS.
Good thing you weren’t whispering in the Framer’s ears. Notwithstanding spitting in your face, they would have slapped you silly just for being a fucking coward.
Yeah, and the 1980 U.S. hockey team should have just forfeited gold to the Russian team because they had no chance. And the extremely underdog ’69 Mets might as well have just not bothered to show up to play the World Series against the Baltimore Orioles because the Orioles were preordained to win the series. “Too bad” everyone involved showed up and left the world with major upsets in each of those events, and so consequently and cruelly shaking up the world view of doomsayers such as you, huh?
Telling Fortune
The prognosticator is never trying to predict the future, but trying to change it.
When it comes to political predictions…
The more expertise a person has the less they should be trusted, and the less expertise they have the less they should be trusted.
It is only a game for bullshitters.
I hope he wins but honestly he does not have a chance.
Neither did Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama at winning the presidency.
I hope you are right.
This is a local congressional election,not a national election.
Different ballgame.
If he so abhors the policies of the Democratic Party, why doesn’t he run as an Independent?
The Democrats are now what the Republicans were in the sixties, and the Republicans are now what the Nazis were in the thirties…
Canova probably believes that the Democratic Party can be changed from within, like so many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters do. As a member of the Green Party I think it’s an uphill battle at best, but I still wish him luck; the effort’s worth trying. In the likely event it ultimately fails, we Greens will be there for disaffected progressives and left-libertarians to join and support.
Because a) insurgencies work, the Tea Peeple successfully overthrew the the GOP and b) the system is designed to preclude the emergence of any party that might threaten the entrenched power of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Good news, great work. The neocons in the democratic party must be purged!!