Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to pragmatist's blog Subscribe


Special Features


21: I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about your BS characterization and apparent assertion that he's a cheater. I have thoughts on the results (was that this thread?) but they don't go so far as out-and-out voter suppression, more bias and machination by the DNC (read: DWS). The primary-caucus system is f'd up, but when you enter the game, yes, you should know and understand the rules (which I think he does)--but that doesn't mean you can't work to change them (though you should change them for the future, not for immediate purposes). And he didn't fail at all. He was at, what, 4% when he started. Going from that to damned close is hardly failing.

"Very disappointed in the current state of politics. "

Me too.

"Disappointed in Bernie for not raising money to support the party."

I don't understand why one must do this. He is doing so now for downticket candidates, btw.

"He thinks this is some kind of after-school special. There are realities on the ground that he is ignoring."

And there you go again. No, he doesn't. He thinks--nay, believes--that it needs to change, and he doesn't want to play the parts of the game he doesn't like. That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't get it. I'm against grades, and standardized grading, and I often cheat the system to enable and encourage actual learning; that doesn't mean I don't understand the realities of education; quite the opposite, I'd say.

Anyway, I think we've probably staked our claims now. I'm not sure there's any purpose to continuing the argument.

32: I said I don't think that there was a ton of... In other words, right there, I was saying that I don't fully buy those accusations. (Though there does appear to be some possible evidence of less than pure behaviors...) I do believe that there was bias by the DNC, and I do think having a DNC chair who is tied closely to one candidate is inherently problematic and should not happen. You either misread or chose to focus on a very specific implication--or worse, inference. I was trying to create a balanced post.

And the bit about perception is this: Neither Hillary nor the DNC (nor critics of Bernie and his supporters) should just dismiss the perceptions many now hold about the behaviors of the party powers, not if they want to "unify the party." At this point, even Bernie can't make that happen. He can't just order his supporters to line up and vote for Hillary, even if he wants to. Smart people recognize that perceptions have to be addressed as seriously (perhaps moreso) as facts. And the DNC is going to have do some work either now or post-convention to bring people (back) in. And yes, Bernie will too if he wants the Democratic party to take the WH. But just as he has said all along about his "revolution," he can't do this all alone.

I said nothing about tears, and I don't think he blew his chances from the git-go--not at all. In fact, he did amazingly well, much much better than pretty much anyone (including himself, I'd be willing to bet) thought he would. That's a bit of a stretch, or at least not argued clearly here.

In politics, perception matters as much as facts. That's a reality we must contend with, and accept until we can change it (which will never happen). So no matter the numbers, there is a perception that Bernie got shafted--which to a degree, I believe he did, though not with the fervor many other think it, nor with the belief that there was a ton of literal vote manipulation or suppression. I think it's more subtle than that--the party elites pushing for establishment and adjusting their party strategies to align with that goal. In a way, this is an "Oh, well" moment; in other ways, it should push citizenry to agitate for change. For instance, maybe primaries should be open to independents. Maybe that's one way in which we could move away from duopoly. Of course, the parties don't want to move away from duopoly... But maybe the people do. Wouldn't it be great if citizens took action beyond voting? I mean, this is what Bernie is saying and yet critics get lost in accusing him of being a "savior," of accusing him of magical unicorn-fart purveying, whatever. His message has been pretty damned consistent though: the system is messed up, and we the people need to take action to fix it. Yes, of course, he also wants power. One does not run for president if one does not have the confidence/arrogance to think one should fill that role. But that does not take away from the broader message. I can only hope that his supporters (in addition to the pretty small number I know personally) understand this and ACT on it well after the primary season has ended.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable