The RNC Plans To Turn Bernie Backers Against Hillary Clinton’s VP Pick

[Eugene]

Source: Huffington Post

The RNC Plans To Turn Bernie Backers Against Hillary Clinton’s VP Pick

In a strategy memo provided to The Huffington Post, the committee
outlines how it will attack the top candidates.

06/26/2016 08:00 pm ET

Sam Stein
Senior Politics Editor, The Huffington Post

The Republican National Committee is planning to cleave liberal voters away from Hillary Clinton as part of a campaign to counteract her forthcoming pick of a vice presidential running mate.

In a detailed memo outlining its strategy to combat Clinton’s VP choice, the committee says it will frame the selection as both a cynical play to certain constituencies and as an emotional letdown for voters who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic primary.

The goals, the memo says, are to “drive wedges between these top contenders and either Clinton and/or traditional Democrat constituencies, such as labor, environmentalists, and gun control advocates, and other traditional left-wing constituencies;” and “(w)here applicable, frame the choice as an insult to the large, deep base of Bernie Sanders supporters who are struggling with the notion of supporting Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Democrat nominee.”

Titled “Project Pander,” the RNC’s strategy memo also reveals which candidates the committee views as most likely to be selected. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), HUD Secretary Julian Castro and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) occupy the top tier; Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Labor Secretary Thomas Perez and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) are in the second.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-vp-choice_us_577027f7e4b0f1683239e34a

[NorthCarolina]

1. If she picks another neoliberal they won't even need to bother trying. -nt-

[JoePhilly]

5. Transparent.

[tallahasseedem]

11. It surpassed sad a long time ago...

I really wish this board could be a place for those supporting the Democratic Party and their presumptive nominee who absolutely won the primary fair and square.

[grossproffit]

12. Many of us feel the same way. eom

[MohRokTah]

8. "neoliberal"

[Hortensis]

9. Neoliberal refers to exploitive laissez-faire right wing economics.

Imo, this is way, way out of line, not just wildly inaccurate.

[hollysmom]

14. looking it up

one definition called it a pejorative in the 1930's, also called the third or fourth way.
others say the favored economics in Washington today
other articles described it as the Reagan Policy continued by the Clintons with out the attachment to family values and heavy religion.

Bill Clinton accepted it in his administration, are you sure it is a bad word? When did it become a bad word or are you stating it is not true that there is any Neoliberalism in the democratic party? I am not sure what you mean by what you said.
Now. the definition is less regulation on business and that certainly has happened in both parties. So I am burious why this is a bad word

[Hortensis]

18. Today's neoliberalism is the antithesis of liberalism.

It's a huge threat to democracy, and it's important to understand what's going on.

Neoliberalism has taken good hold in the GOP, largely displacing traditional conservatism, but keep looking right to see who're driving this movement, especially to elements of the ultraconservative super-rich, because they are the ones who moved neoliberalism (and other effectively similar philosophies from our point of view) from arcane fringe extremism to mainstream university teaching and the halls of Congress.

Neoliberalism embodies everything people are so rightly coming to fear from right-wing economics. The word itself is being used by right-wing propagandists and by some here on DU to confuse people and falsely suggest that its exploitive, predatory, antidemocratic ideology is the Democratic Party's. A battle tactic.

This excerpt is from Dissent Magazine.

Shenk: Discussions about neoliberalism often treat it as an economic doctrine, which also means that they concentrate on its economic ramifications. You shift the focus to politics, where, you argue, neoliberalism has “inaugurate democracy’s conceptual unmooring and substantive disembowelment.” Why does neoliberalism pose such a threat to democracy?

Brown: The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets.

Each of these is an important and objectionable effect of neoliberal economic policy. But neoliberalism also does profound damage to democratic practices, cultures, institutions, and imaginaries. Here’s where thinking about neoliberalism as a governing rationality is important: this rationality switches the meaning of democratic values from a political to an economic register. Liberty is disconnected from either political participation or existential freedom, and is reduced to market freedom unimpeded by regulation or any other form of government restriction. Equality as a matter of legal standing and of participation in shared rule is replaced with the idea of an equal right to compete in a world where there are always winners and losers.

The promise of democracy depends upon concrete institutions and practices, but also on an understanding of democracy as the specifically political reach by the people to hold and direct powers that otherwise dominate us. Once the economization of democracy’s terms and elements is enacted in law, culture, and society, popular sovereignty becomes flatly incoherent. In markets, the good is generated by individual activity, not by shared political deliberation and rule. And, where there are only individual capitals and marketplaces, the demos, the people, do not exist.

The article twists a little deep as it unwinds its evolution for scholars. But today's Democratic Party stands for everything neoliberalism is trying to destroy. And, yes, it also is influenced by neoliberalism and the money enabling its takeover, which have infiltrated all areas of government to some degree--but unlike the GOP it has not fallen to them.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” - Abraham Lincoln

(Btw, as he so clearly evidences, Lincoln's brand-new Republican Party and its leaders bore absolutely no resemblance to today's. The battle against neoliberalism is waged almost solely from the left and is lead by its largest organized group, the Democratic Party.)

[hollysmom]

19. so you are going with the pejorative even though that was in the 30's, and I find positive referenc

but there are other definitions
Merriam Webster

a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods

to me this fits Hillary to a t and there by would not be a bad thing as defined by this site

From dictionary.com

an outgrowth of the U.S. liberal movement, beginning in the late 1960s, that modified somewhat its traditional endorsement of all trade unions and opposition to big business and military buildup.

also seems somewhat positive and acceptable here.

the free dictionary

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc
2. (Economics) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc
...

a moderate form of liberalism that modifies its traditional government policies, as on labor unions and taxes.
[1955–60]
...
a movement that modifies classical liberalism in light of 20th-century conditions.

also not negative.

now I think Daily Kos is accepted here are a valid source - correct me please if I am wrong - It defines it as

Neoliberalism is a free market economic philosophy that favors the deregulation of markets and industries, the diminution of taxes and tariffs, and the privatization of government functions, passing them over to private business.

No where does it talk about the GOP - I know several democrats that believe privatizations - i.e. Corey Booker wanted to turn the entire school system of Newark to Charter schools as did most people - Newark schools system is a mess of patronage and neglect. Now more GOP may promote this, but many democrats believe it is true - I do not believe it is a pejorative, but a descriptive word of philosophy

Dissent on the other hand seems to be very left - hard to believe but maybe more left than me ! I am not sure if that can be a definitive source in this case. You did not include the link and there are a ton of articles on neo-liberalism, but the ones I read in Dissent identified several democrats as being neoliberal -s no, one article has it limited to the GOP all others identify it as also democrats. so nope - should be an acceptable term here since so many democrats are neo-liberal.
I think that majority of sources agrees here - it is a term that applies to both parties.

[Hortensis]

20. '30s? It's right now. The media have backed off --

slightly -- referring to citizens of the United States as solely labor and consumers, which they did for a while until they got slapped down by analysts who understood what was happening. Do you remember W ending his announcement that he was going to war with Iraq with advice to not worry ourselves about it and instead go shopping?

Ignore this attempt to redefine who the working classes of America are and what our purpose is at your peril because where this is really headed -- with the help of people fooled into thinking they have to stop the liberals -- is fascism. Labor to be worked for profit, consumers to be milked of their pay for profit.

And, yes, I consider that a pejorative.

[bobthedrummer]

27. aka the NEW DEMOCRATS-The Center for Media and Democracy/Source Watch has some factual entries

about them

Senate New Democrat Coalition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Senate_New_Democrat_Coalition

New Democrat Network
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Democrat_Network

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks...

[DemFromPittsburgh]

28. I thought a neoliberal was a liberal Keanu Reeves.

[leftofcool]

13. Please support the Democratic nominee. Thank you in advance.

[demwing]

25. ^truth^

Bernie's supporters are driven by specific issues, not personalities. As long as Clinton is perceived as being wrong on those issues, her VP pick will have little impact.

[riversedge]

2. STUPID!

[Gothmog]

3. The GOP is getting desparate

[Hiraeth]

4. They can't plan their way out of a wet paper bag.

[synergie]

21. They've been pretty successful with their attempts at ratfucking thus far, probably

why they are doubling down on that strategy, they think it's working.

[Hiraeth]

23. .

[synergie]

24. What is it that do you do not understand?

Is it the term?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

Or do you simply not know what the right wing gas been up to for the past year?

Don't just shrug, ask questions, learn things. I'll start you out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0


http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/

The right wing has put its time, attention and money into manipulating the Democratic primaries, that has been blindingly obvious to anyone laying attention, even voters were forthright about supporting Trump and voting strategically for who they perceive to be the weak candidate.

Understanding the world around you as it is, is important, I wish you well on your journey as you learn what went on during the primary, now that the partisian, divisive fog of war is behind the majority of us. A clear eyed examination of just what went on and why should prove educational.

[Hiraeth]

30. They can't plan their way out of a wet paper bag.

Are you worried?

[synergie]

32. Nope, but they don't have to, they know that all they need to do is lie and repeat those

lies and truly stupid people will be affected. Unluckily for them, the majority on the left are not dumb enough to fall for their propaganda as the results of the primary make quite clear.

Nothing to worry about on my end. Even Republicans aren't buying the load of BS they're trying to sell. Its those who were already #ratfucked and don't quite understand that their anger and their hatred is not fact or reality based, those people who are still seething and plotting violent rallies and clinging to their delusions who should be worried. The next few months and the years after will not be pleasant from them, especially since they will be finding themselves turning into that which they had purported to loathe til now.

Recall how we mocked freeperville etc. and then recall how much our primary page read like the Free Republic with the links to RW sources etc. Those who fall for RW tricks and who perceive themselves to be progressives, will need to deal with the cognitive dissonance between their stated beliefs and the nature and content of their arguments against actual progressives and Dems. It won't be easy for them, and they have reason to worry, these things are damaging to those who hold such false beliefs that contradict themselves so much.

[FSogol]

6. They've already started, n/t

[SidDithers]

7. +1...nt

Sid

[ibegurpard]

10. Hillary's choice of a VP

Will not make a difference to those who were backing Bernie. The VP is largely a ceremonial position. The primary race was not a personality contest.

[pnwmom]

16. You don't speak for anyone who was formerly backing Bernie except yourself. n/t

[synergie]

22. A pretty good chunk of those backing Bernie are happy to back Hillary.

The primary race is over, and progressives, liberals and even Repubs are well aware of the danger of Trump.

[okasha]

15. As if we didn't all know this for the last year.

Fools.

[RandySF]

17. I read something similar every four years.

[CentralMass]

26. Good luck with thst.

[bobthedrummer]

29. The RNC has gone to hell, they can't do shit with Sanders except wage infowar n/t

[Chan790]

31. Right, the GOP has become an afterthought.

The GOP just thinks its still relevant in this election...every time Trump opens his mouth, the GOP bleeds-out a little bit more. I suspect it will be dead by November. My goal as a progressive is to keep it dead. We don't need a zombie GOP risen from its self-exsanguination

The entirety of the waging still lies, even with a nominee, between establishment Democrats who want to hold the center and progressives that want to pull the party to the left. As it should be...kick the GOP out everywhere and we can decide the best way to govern between the center and the left within this party. The key lies in doing it the right way.

If we can figure out how to motivate support in the mid-terms and locals in 2017, 2018, 2019--we'll hold all the power for a very long time. I'm not a fan or supporter of Hillary in the least...but she'll have my vote in 2016. All my efforts now as a Sanders supporter lie in local politics, coalition building and infrastructural building. That's where this party needs efforts and energy expended anyways. Winning the in-between-the-Presidentials.

So, let the RNC destroy itself. We've got work to do.

If you're a progressive and you're unhappy with Hillary...move the party to change the conversation inside the tent. Don't hand the White House to assholes on the verge of self-imposed permanent irrelevance.

Box the right-wing fuckers out. Fight the assholes, not ourselves.

[CobaltBlue]

33. Silly

The strategizing about the Democratic vice-presidential nominee doesn’t mean anything when Republican players, like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and the party’s last president and vice president, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney), are either not supporting Donald Trump or are working against him.