This article is extremely disingenuous and is, I’m afraid, little more than a deep dive into all the bullsh*t reasons that Corporate Democrats are using to “punch left”, stifle dissent and stop the forces for change — change that is desperately needed if the Democratic Party is to even survive as a viable national party rather than a regional party limited to bicoastal enclaves centred around Wall Street, Silicon Valley, DC and Hollywood.
I will admit that I read most of this with a jaundiced eye because of what appeared fairly early on in the piece. I am referring to the phoney defense of Kamala Harris and “her liberal track record, her proven ability to work across the aisle, and her rating as the second most progressive member of Congress.”
First, let’s look at the working “across the aisle.” There is little evidence for this. I remind you that as a “freshman Senator,” Harris has only been in Congress for 7 months. It is true that in that time she worked with Rand Paul to introduce one measure to reform bail systems in the States, but that is hardly a “proven ability” to do anything.
Secondly — and even more egregiously — the author has posted a graphic purporting to show Harris as the “second most progressive member of Congress.”
This is total and complete bull sh*t.
As I mention above, Harris has been in Congress for all of 7 months, and for that entire period the Senate has been under the control of the GOP. In short, Harris has never voted on a single bill that was brought to the floor by Democrats, because Mitch McConnell decides what gets voted on. While I will give Harris her due for voting against the various attempts to repeal the ACA and pass other right-wing abominations, voting against a hyper-conservative wish list does not make you a progressive of any kind.
In relying on this blatantly misleading and bogus defense, Remy Anne is either being deliberately disingenuous or VERY lazy. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but the rest of the article only reinforces the fact that she is relying on intellectually suspect of not downright dishonest arguments to make her case.
I will not spend too much time on Kamala Harris, but suffice it to say that her staff had documented over 1000 of cases of fraud; Mnuchin’s OneWest had been widely attacked and condemned as a “foreclosure machine” that cut corners and flouted regulations. Her staff had recommended pursuing prosecution, convinced that they could uncover 1000’s of additional instances of fraud if they proceeded. Harris said no.
Harris apologists are throwing up smokescreens with all sorts convoluted reasons why Harris decided not to prosecute, but these are only of late, and seem forced and shaky. What we do know is that George Soros was a partner in OneWest, and he had been not just a donor to Kamala Harris’s campaign for AG, but had been a huge contributor to Harris’s various criminal law initiatives in California, pouring in money to those pet programs that Kamala was seeking to use to promote herself within the CA political scene.
Because she did not prosecute, Steve Mnuchin was free to go on to join the Trump Administration, for which he showed his gratitude by making Kamala Harris the only Democrat to whom he made campaign donations in 2016. If Harris had really tried to prosecute, but was stymied by an insurmountable legal obstacle, would Mnuchin have rewarded her so? I think not.
Many point out that Harris opposed Mnuchin’s confirmation, but that means nothing. She never needed Mnuchin. He was, after all, never going to help her further her career in the Democratic Party. No, her sparing of Onewest from the hangman’s noose was all because of George Soros, that font of money and influence, and a major kingmaker in establishment Democratic circles.
Thanks to the lack of prosecution, Soros was able to sell OneWest for $3.4 BILLION the following year. Little wonder, then, that Soros has been pushing Harris in his closed door meetings with Democratic officials and donors. Indeed, Harris has become the darling of the Democratic Donor Class, according to publications like The Guardian and RollCall, who covered a massive fundraising confab in the Hamptons last month which featured Kamala Harris like some debutante at her coming out party.
Ooops. I did spend a lot of time on Kamala Harris, so I will make this quick:
If a group of energised, angry and unyielding Democrats could in any way emulate the Tea Party with their unbridled enthusiasm and refusal to cave, then the Democrats might actually reverse the death spiral they have been in since the Tea Party started destroying them by “purifying” the GOP.
And the “Tea Party Effect” was not limited to Washington DC! In the States, the Democrats have been wiped out since the Tea Party sank its talons into the GOP body politic.
So let’s be real: the Democrats need a Tea Party. You can call us “Alt Left” — it doesn’t really matter. We’re just the ones that are insisting that Democrats go back to doing what they were supposed to do, and representing whom they are supposed to. In short, we will suffer no more corporate Democrats — despite what the defenders of corruption such as Remy Anne may say.