|Warren critical of corrupt behavior??|
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Brazile discredits the ‘democratic’ pretensions of her party
The following article appeared in the American Thinker on November 2nd
By Lowell Ponte
Few were surprised by Donna Brazile's admission that Hillary Clinton had taken control of the Democratic Party and rigged its processes beginning more than a year before the party nominated Clinton as 2016 standard-bearer and defeated her more popular, self-described socialist rival from Vermont, Senator Bernie Sanders.
"It sure looked unethical," wrote 30-year political veteran Brazile in an excerpt in Politico from her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-Ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House.
"If the fight had been fair," Brazile continued, "one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."
Compromised? Brazile describes Clinton's secret takeover as a "cancer." Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told CNN's Jake Tapper that the DNC had been "rigged" in Clinton's favor.
Brazile, who also worked at CNN, admitted giving Ms. Clinton questions she would be asked during an upcoming CNN debate...but now is shocked, shocked to find corruption in her party.
The situation in 2016 was far worse than this, however, because left-of-center partisans aimed to rig not only the Democratic, but also the Republican primary in a two-horned diabolical scheme to make Hillary Clinton president.
By March 15, 2016, The New York Times reported, Donald Trump had been given "$2 billion worth of free media."
The reason for this huge de facto campaign contribution is obvious. The liberal mainstream media wanted a Republican defeat and a Democratic victory. An easy way to achieve this, liberals thought, was to lure Republicans into nominating the weakest possible candidate for Ms. Clinton to defeat.
By the Ides of March, 2016, The New York Times reported that Trump, a billionaire and eccentric reality TV show star, had spent only $10 million on his campaign but had been given $1.898 billion in "earned" free airtime.
This sucked the oxygen out of the room for more than a dozen politically experienced Republican opponents. Trump was given almost nine times more free airtime than his nearest GOP rival, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who got $214 million in coverage without cost but who spent $82 million, more than eight times more than Trump, in a doomed media effort.
Be careful what you ask for, the old saying goes, because you might get it. Trump had learned something from being a major Democratic Party donor until 2009, when he became a Republican. Although a neophyte, he had in abundance the charisma, energy, and working-class message Hillary Clinton lacked. He won, even though the liberal media that helped him during the Republican primaries instantly turned against him and heavily tilted in Clinton's favor after his nomination.
This was an attempt to rig both sides of the 2016 election, coming not from Russia, but from partisan Democrats inside the party machinery and inside its leftist auxiliary, the "mainstream" press. Leaked John Podesta emails revealed secret collusion between Clinton's campaign and some influential members of the press.
Is this how democracy is supposed to work, with left-of-center puppet-masters pulling the strings of both opposing parties? No. And this brings us to a final point: is the "Democratic" Party really democratic?
We have government commissions that would step in to prohibit a business from using deliberately deceptive language. Politicians long ago exempted themselves from such rules, thereby giving themselves a license to lie to voters.But an honest society would not let a political party call itself "Democratic" if it relentlessly violates the most basic tenets of democracy. How can we tolerate a "Democratic Party" that blocks any and all efforts to prevent voter fraud from negating the votes of citizens? Or that wants to deny workers a secret ballot in elections to decide whether they will be unionized? Or that schemes to rig who the candidates will be on both sides of an election, thereby destroying democracy itself?
An honest society would require the so-called "Democratic Party" to change its name to reflect truth in labeling. This organization could rename itself the Rigged Party, the Elite Party, the Rob-the-Producers Party, the Giveaway Party, the Un-Democratic Party, or the Big Government Party. These names would be honest descriptions of what it stands for. What do you think this gang of anti-democratic, addicted-to-power junkies should be re-named?
Ed. Author Lowell Ponte sums it all up beautifully when he writes: "Brazile...admitted giving Ms. Clinton questions she would be asked during an upcoming CNN debate...but now is shocked, shocked to find corruption in her party."
Remember, that Democrats will lie even on those rare occasions in which the truth would serve them better.