in

How Elizabeth Warren Still Might Get the DNC’s Presidential Nod

Eric Zuesse

Democratic Party billionaires continue to provide indications that they won’t accept Bernie Sanders to be their Party’s Presidential nominee, and unless Sanders can amass over 50% of the delegate-votes in the Convention’s first-round balloting (which is in doubt), those billionaires (via their agents at the Convention, the DNC’s 700+ superdelegates) will decide whom the nominee will be, and it won’t be Sanders. Whom will it be, then?

If it won’t turn out to be Elizabeth Warren (who is the second choice of most of Sanders’s voters), then a walk-out or possible riot at the Convention will be likely; and, even if Warren becomes the nominee, her accepting the nomination under those circumstances would greatly depress Democratic Party turnout in the final, November 3rd, general election; and then the Republicans will probably have a lock-hold on not only the White House but both houses of the Congress, and so President Trump will have no limit upon his power. Republican billionaires might be delighted with that, but Democratic billionaires might not be (even though they all know that his rule is extremely favorable to any American billionaire’s interests). The public, of course, would suffer enormously — and not because it would be a dictatorship by Republican billionaires, but because it would be a dictatorship (by the billionaires) which would be even more total than under Bush, or under Obama, or under Trump, during Trump’s first term — it would be a totalitarian dictatorship, and decidedly far-right. Certainly, if there is to be a dictatorship in this country that is to be even more total than the presently existing one, then it will be racist-fascist, ideologically nazi, and certainly not socialistic at all, not at all a leftist dictatorship, which is communism, but it would instead be a capitalistic, extreme rightist, dictatorship, which is fascism — in Trump’s case, it would also be racist, and therefore the nazi (or racist) variety of fascism, which would be hating especially Shiite Moslems, the variety that dominate especially in Iran, and which are strong also in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Israel would be delighted at such a Trump regime, and so would the Sauds (fanatical Sunnis, and that’s the variety of Moslems which loathe Shiites).

Any form of fascism is dictatorial capitalism, just as any form of (at least Marxist) communism is dictatorial socialism; and, with a totally unrestrained Trump, we would certainly have totalitarian dictatorial capitalism, and even less socialism than we currently have (because there will be drastic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all the rest of the Democratic Party’s existing socialistic programs, each of which had been democratically passed into law). However, even the Democratic Party’s ‘news’-media, such as MSNBC, since they’re controlled by Democratic Party billionaires, fear-monger vastly more against any form of socialism than against totalitarian dictatorial capitalism — Bernie Sanders so terrifies the owners of our ‘news’-media, because no billionaire wants there to be socialism, but only capitalism. And here is an example of their agents’ fear-mongering against Sanders’s “socialism”:

It’s an excerpt from MSNBC, on February 7th:

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/11th-hour-with-brian-williams/2020-02-07

“Ukraine call TRANSCRIPT: 2/7/20”, 7 February 2020”

[VIDEO here]

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think that the Democratic Party has to figure out its ideology. … A lot of us will be sorting it out if the Democratic Party runs a socialist candidate. That’s a change from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been to the left of the Republican Party on the issue of mixed capitalism, more social programs. They pushed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, enormously popular programs. I think, ACA Obamacare has also — I wish they’d follow through with it, make it work. I think most Americans would be happy to have a public option and have Medicare follow through with [that].

But I don’t want to get into – you know, I’m on every night – and I’d let the Democrats figure this out. I have my own views of the word socialist, and I’ll be glad to tell them, share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s. I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War, I have an attitude towards Castro. I believe that if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War, there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed and certain other people would be there cheering, OK?

So I have a problem with people taking the other side. I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years. I don’t know what he means by socialism. One week it’s “Denmaak” [Denmark] — what do you mean by “Denmaak”? Okay that’s harmless, basically a capitalist country with a lot of good social welfare programs. Denmark is harmless.

CHRIS HAYES: Pretty clearly [Sanders means] in the Denmark category [not the Soviet Union or even Cuba].

MATTHEWS: Is he?

HAYES: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Are you sure? How do you know? Did he tell you that?

HAYES: Well, I mean, that’s what he says and that’s what his agenda calls for, right?

MATTHEWS: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Well let’s see, let’s see, let’s figure that out.

JOY REID: But we haven’t seen a campaign yet where video of him praising the other versus –

HAYES: Right, and –

REID: Castro has been used. It will be used.

HAYES: That’s the question of how –

REID: You must see how that in place.

HAYES: – what the effect that has – I mean –

MATTHEWS: Well, what does he think of Castro? That’s a great question. What did you think of Fidelismo?

Though only Matthews expressed the extremist view there, none of the other NBC moderators there ripped into it. Clearly, their employer doesn’t want anything which criticizes capitalism nor which asserts that fascism is dictatorial capitalism and describes today’s U.S. body-politic. MSNBC is a neoconservative, or pro-U.S.-imperialism, mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Are there any Democratic Party mouthpieces that are not?

More recently:

https://apnews.com/4788e8a658d7934e38a389746a7c58c5

“One thing unites establishment Democrats: Fear of Sanders”

17 February 2020, LAS VEGAS (AP) — A growing number of Democratic lawmakers, union officials, state leaders and party strategists agree that Bernie Sanders is a risky nominee to put up against President Donald Trump. There’s less agreement about whether — and how — to stop him.

Critics of the Vermont senator, who has long identified as a democratic socialist, are further than they’ve ever been from unifying behind a moderate alternative. None of the viable centrists in the race is eager to exit the campaign to clear a path for a candidate to become a clear counter to Sanders. And Sanders is looking to Saturday’s Nevada caucuses to post another win that would further his status as an early front-runner.

With fear and frustration rising in the party’s establishment wing, a high-stakes math problem is emerging. It could be impossible to blunt Sanders as long as a trio of moderate candidates — former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — stay in the race. And with former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the swath of states that vote on Super Tuesday, March 3, the effort to stop Sanders will become even more challenging when the campaign goes national next month.

“You see this tremendous angst in the party — ‘What are we going to do?’” said Terry McAuliffe, a former Virginia governor who was also chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “We need to unify as fast as we can.”

Then there’s this, exposing some of the billionaires’ other ‘news’ media:

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/21/apparent-us-intel-meddling-in-us-election-with-report-russia-is-aiding-sanders/

“Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With ‘Report’ Russia is Aiding Sanders”

February 21, 2020 • By Joe Lauria

Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run “Russia helping Sanders” stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.

With Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.

If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S. citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up the claims.

Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post, “according to people familiar with the matter.” Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies’ assertion.

“It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken,” the Post reported. That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.

Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified “information” just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.

Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the Democratic pack. Politico reported Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s entry into the race is explicitly to stop Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.

A day after The New York Times reported, also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days. …

The fear-mongering against Russia (which after communism has actually been vastly less imperialistic and vastly less pushing “regime-change” in foreign countries than the U.S. Government has been) is supposed to encourage the type of thinking that Chris Matthews has expressed especially well. And, of course, that is supposed to lead to a totalitarian second term for Donald Trump. Matthews thinks that “Democratic moderates” should ditch the Party’s Presidential nominee in 2020 if it’s Sanders, so as to “wait four years and put in a Democrat that they like.” So, at least his employers at MSNBC prefer four more years of Trump — even if it would mean depressed turnout for congressional Democrats on November 3rd and a Republican lock-hold on the Government in Trump’s second term. It’s clearly billionaires’ control of the Government that they prefer, even above control of the Government by their own Party. It’s strictly a class matter, in their view.

Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy is the only thing now that even conceivably might stand in the way of America’s billionaires failing to be able to offer the American public a choice between two final Presidential nominees who both accept billionaires’ ultimate control over U.S. Government policies. All that they’ve got remaining to them is that highly compromised candidate. As fivethirtyeight dot com said of Warren on 13 February 2020, “she’s to the right of Sanders and to the left of Biden, Bloomberg and Buttigieg. But at the moment, being everyone’s second choice isn’t worth much; it’s just another way of saying that you’re few people’s first choice.” In other words: a ‘compromise’ candidate such as that, would compromise voter-turnout on the Democratic side, so as to make Trump’s victory on November 3rd almost assured. One thing that Trump elicits on the Republican side is passionate support; he’s the Republican version of Sanders on the Democratic side, in regards to getting his voters to turn up for him at the polls on election-day.

All of this is therefore psychological preparation of the American public for their passive acceptance of nazism controlling the U.S. Government — not the German form, the U.S. form of it, and just as imperialistic (or “neoconservative”) as the German form of it had been. (Of course, Germany’s form of it wasn’t called “neoconservative” — only the U.S. form is.)

An enormous change has occurred in American politics since 1952. What American politician today is willing to say something like this?:

——

https://web.archive.org/web/20190404174655/https://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php/index.php

“Public Papers, Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953, October 10, 1952”

[rail-car campaigning for Adlai Stevenson in N.Y. State to become Truman’s successor, against Dwight Eisenhower]

Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is, “Down with Progress–down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means.

——

That certainly isn’t today’s DNC, but, in 1952, it was the mainstream, establishment, side of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the man who had fooled Truman into starting the Cold War on 26 July 1945, General Dwight Eisenhower, turned out to have been actually a Republican, and became that Party’s Presidential nominee in 1952, and Truman thus discovered too late that Ike had fooled him — the damage had already been done — and therefore Truman’s efforts to defeat Ike in 1952 failed. Ike turned out to be exactly the type of U.S. President that Truman predicted on 10 October 1952 that he would be: an agent of America’s super-rich. Truman was a tragedy, but Eisenhower was far worse. We live in the world that Truman had started in error (on Ike’s advice), and Eisenhower cemented into stone as a gift to his super-rich friends. Then, along came Reagan, and the FDR legacy became merely distant past history. The battle which Sanders faces is to restore America to the agenda that FDR had begun. Frankly, no one else is even trying to do that. But, because he is, the billionaires in both Parties will be supporting Trump in 2020 if Sanders becomes the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer. This would be unprecedented — a U.S. Presidential contest pitting the billionaires against the rest of the American public: a pure dollars-versus-voters contest. Predicting accurately the outcome would probably not be possible, though certainly some guesses would turn out to be more accurate than others. And, if Warren becomes the Party’s standard-bearer, then a totalitarian Trump second term seems almost inevitable, no matter how many campaign-debates she might win against Trump.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

-6 points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Assange legal team takes MASSIVE RISK with ‘Russia pardon’ defense (Video)

The Hidden Tyranny In Trump’s America