New DNC Rules Committee: All Clinton Supporters, Sanders locked out

36 Comments

1. 

   dervish on October 20, 2017 at 8:09 pm

   The DNC will anything and everything its oligarch owners tell it to. It doesn’t belong to us, it’s been bought by the billionaires.

2. 

   karl pearson on October 20, 2017 at 8:24 pm

   The DNC is way behind the RNC in fund raising, especially in small donor donations. Bernie Sanders’ supporters were primarily small donors and some of them would be giving, except the DNC continues to diss the progressive wing of the party. Not smart politics when one bites the hand that feeds you.

   • 

     karl pearson on October 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm

     “But the DNC’s gap in small dollar donations–$33 million versus $21 million in favor of the RNC–is concerning. As Michael Whitney, Bernie Sanders’s digital fundraising manager during the 2016 primary, wrote in Politico, ‘This isn’t just about money. Small-dollar donors are an important measure of how much grassroots enthusiasm a campaign or organization has’.” 

     https://newrepublic.com/article/144462/yes-democrats-fundraising-problem

3. 

   Marie3 on October 20, 2017 at 10:10 pm

   This drives me nuts:

   while I believe the DNC tilted to Clinton, I do not believe they were decisive.  We lost fair and square in the end.

   Tilted?  DWS resigned because she “tilted” favoritism towards Clinton?  Bollocks — and the effort was put together before the election cycle started.

   Only when a game, etc. is fair and square can one win or lose fair and square.  Otherwise, there is only an outcome and it can never be described as fair and square.  Unlike a general election, presidential primary elections evolve over many months and points to manipulate the results aren’t obscure (and some are used in most election cycles). As such it’s not possible to recast what the outcome would have been without the rigging.  Also, if rigging a game doesn’t change the outcome, why the hell would anybody bother to do it?    

   Anyone that believes that 2016 DNC (and that includes all the freaking superdelegates) ’tilting’ chang4ed nothing, need have no concern about the current DNC changes.  It won’t be any more ’tilted’ for the 2020 private pre-selected nominee than it was in 2016.  Therefore, way in advance it can be declared that any non-corporate, no-name, no-bucks, challenger will lose fair and square.  

   The Intercept, Democratic Party Drama… adds important additional information.  

   …
   They [DNC] touted new additions like Marisa Richmond, a millennial black transgender activist, and the first Dreamer member, Ellie Perez, to point to the DNC’s efforts at diversity.

   …It’s a stretch to call Richmond a millennial; she’s 58 years old and has been an activist longer than many millennials have been alive.

   This DNC diversity schtick sounds a bit hollow considering:

   Yet the three Ellison backers removed from the key committees are themselves a diverse bunch. Ellison, of course, is African-American, Muslim, and represents a working-class district, while Barbra Casbar Siperstein is transgender, Zogby is Lebanese-American (and Catholic), and Buckley is gay.

   One aspect of the 2016 primary that confounded me was the DP institutional support in NH.  Most, if not all of it, was with HER.  No less so than in IA, NV, and SC.  Yet, on primary election day that disappeared and produced a landslide win for Sanders (votes not delegates that were evenly split between the two).  This outcome was chalked up to NH voters being “rebellious.”  Perhaps slightly more so than the extremely predictable outcomes in many states, but not nearly enough to account for the ‘unelectible’ Sanders twelve point margin over the ‘electible’ Clinton.

   What was left out of the reports was the NH DP chair — Ray Buckley:

   Julia Barnes, who ran the Sanders campaign in New Hampshire, said that Buckley, as head of the party there, was relentlessly fair to the independent candidate making a bid in the Democratic primary. “He exemplified the kind of neutrality that everyone, especially from the Bernie campaign, was looking for,” she said.

   Also:

   …His [Buckley’s] familiarity with the arcane rules, bylaws, and byzantine procedures of the DNC is widely considered to be unmatched. After he dropped out, he backed Ellison’s bid for chair, opening up the perception that he was removed by Perez for supporting his opponent.

   Sort of takes the mystery out of why the centrist DNC Dems went after Buckley.  “Relentlessly fair” is not what they want.

   • 

     on October 20, 2017 at 11:44 pm

     Ray is an old Kennedy guy – not a conservadem at all.

     Not sure why they went after him though.

     And then the put Sullivan on the rules Committee.

     I guarantee this weekend the spin will be she will protect NH.  But Jesus….

     • 

       Marie3 on October 21, 2017 at 12:24 am

       You’re perplexed as to why they tossed Buckley and installed Sullivan?  

       • 

         on October 21, 2017 at 7:13 am

         They threw Ray off the Executive Cmte.  Why I don’t know – he wasn’t really a Sanders person.

         Sullivan is a Party hack – the reason for her elevation is obvious.

         • 

           Marie3 on October 21, 2017 at 10:04 am

           The answer to your “Why I don’t know” is in your last sentence.

           Character, even if only fleeting, and not political orientation in this instance.  A party loyalist in a position of authority isn’t supposed to play fair.

           Both the Clinton and Obama factions ended up loathing Howard Dean for playing fair in the ’08 election.  And all his subsequent groveling has only publicly established his lack of character without getting any favors from either Obama or Clinton.

           Excising “fair-mindedness” had been an on-going project for both parties.  Another component of why fewer and fewer people identify as either a Republican or Democrat.    

   • 

     Marie3 on October 22, 2017 at 8:57 am

     As I said:

     This is a fucking joke.
     The @DNC just made sure to rig to next primaries and lose the next election. pic.twitter.com/CJqmUekdb2

     — Amir (@AmirAminiMD) October 20, 2017

     It has become painfully clear that defeating Trump has never been a priority.
     The priority is saving this Pay2Play Party from progressives. https://t.co/R5nFKuMUtB

     — Amir (@AmirAminiMD) October 21, 2017

4. 

   Anonymous on October 20, 2017 at 10:57 pm

   Everyone wants to hold onto power to the extent that they rate their own ideas and abilities higher than everyone else’s, which everyone in power does.

   What’s interesting is that this feels a bit like a provocation. I’m no longer confident that our elites are capable of playing two-dimensional checkers, much less three-dimensional chess, but if it’s intentional provocation, what does that mean?

   • 

     on October 20, 2017 at 11:46 pm

     This Party can come apart.  If they press hard enough people are going to flat leave.

     I think some are looking for a reason to leave.

     It just isn’t smart.

     • 

       Anonymous on October 21, 2017 at 12:23 am

       Maybe. I don’t know. The Republicans are intent upon pressing even harder, it seems, in the opposite direction. They make ‘we’re not them’ look ideal.

     • 

       Marie3 on October 21, 2017 at 12:28 am

       I think some are looking for a reason to leave.

       No.  Some people have been looking for reasons to stay and over the past year all they’ve been given are more reasons to leave.

5. 

   Marie3 on October 21, 2017 at 12:15 am

   As important when citing prior acts that are distasteful to many:

   The at-large members chosen by Perez include Harold Ickes, a lobbyist for a nuclear energy company; Manny Ortiz, a lobbyist for Citigroup; Joanne Dowdell, a lobbyist for News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News; and Jaime Harrison, a former lobbyist for coal companies, big banks, and tobacco companies.

   Other Democratic influence peddlers chosen by Perez as at-large members are not registered lobbyists, but work at well-known corporate lobbying firms. Maria Cardona and Minyon Moore, two prominent supports of the Clinton campaign, both work at Dewey Square Group. The Dewey Square Group…

6. 

   seabe on October 21, 2017 at 7:49 am

   Normal organizations outside the political and with some semblance of accountability would have put Donna Brazile off to pasture on election night, but instead she gets applause and elevation:

   A third attendee told HuffPost that, despite Zach’s blow-up, there was “overwhelming” support for Brazile in the room. Her motivational words “had some staffers in tears,” per this attendee, and Brazile spoke to Zach’s concerns after he left.

   Of course, leaving would be stupid and that’s what they want. Eventually the New York power center is going to be thrown off and California — where an overwhelming majority of its delegates wanted a change and picked Ellison — can show the way. Hopefully it doesn’t take another electoral college loss for it to happen.

   • 

     on October 21, 2017 at 8:03 am

     At this point the fight is really over state committee membership.  Which means fights at State Conventions.

     A number of states tried to avoid this – Iowa threw out both the Sanders and Clinton slates for example in preference for a third slate.

     This is a list of the perma party.  DC based, and they exercise influence no matter who is in power and without reference to past success.

   • 

     Arthur Gilroy on October 21, 2017 at 10:54 am

     Donna Brazile is the very face of DemRat failure.

     Wikipedia:

     —snip—

     She was the first African American to direct a major presidential campaign, acting as campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000. She has also worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Jesse Jackson and Walter Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and for Dick Gephardt in the 1988 Democratic primary.

     —snip—

     Brazile has worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Jesse Jackson in 1984, Walter Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and Richard Gephardt in the 1988 Democratic primary.

     After Gephardt lost the primary in 1988, Brazile served as deputy field director of the Michael Dukakis general election campaign.[6] On October 20, 1988, she made headlines by telling a group of reporters that George H. W. Bush needed to “fess up” about unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair.

     Said Brazile, “The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House.”[7][8] The Dukakis campaign immediately disavowed her remarks and Dukakis fired her from his campaign staff shortly after the story broke.[6][9] Four years later, the same issue, the relationship of George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald, would be briefly rehashed during the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, who had his own extramarital affair rumors.

     —snip—

     2012 presidential election[edit]
     For several weeks in the spring of 2011, she served as interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. As vice-chair of the DNC, she led the organization during the transition between outgoing chair Tim Kaine, who resigned to run for the U.S. Senate, and his successor, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was not permitted to ascend to the post until at least fifteen days after being nominated on April 5, 2011.[18] Following Wasserman Schultz’s installation as DNC chair, Brazile returned to her post as vice-chair.

     2016 presidential election[edit]

     Brazile campaigns for Hillary Clinton at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire, October 7, 2016.
     After Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned her position as chairperson of the Democratic National Committee on July 24, 2016, at the start of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Brazile became interim chairperson of the DNC.[19][73][20]

     Brazile was responsible for “a plan to spend money to drive up inner-city turnout in places like Chicago and New Orleans — even though neither Illinois nor Louisiana was remotely competitive — because of fear that Clinton would win the Electoral College vote but lose the popular vote”. The Clinton campaign “refused requests to reallocate resources to places like Michigan because they did not want to risk the public relations nightmare that would come along with losing the popular vote” as they were confident of handily winning the Electoral College.[21]

     —snip—

     A WikiLeaks e-mail dump revealed that Brazile sent an e-mail message on March 5, 2016, to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri with the title: “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash.” The message continued, “her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”[22]

     At the next event in Flint, Clinton was delivered a similar question from audience member Mikki Wade, whose family was affected by the poisoned water.[23]

     On October 11, 2016, a WikiLeaks e-mail dump included an e-mail Brazile sent on March 12 to Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri with the subject header: “From time to time I get questions in advance.”[24] In the e-mail, Brazile discussed her concern about Clinton’s ability to field a question regarding the death penalty, and in a CNN town hall debate the following day, Clinton received a similar question about the death penalty.[22][25] According to tech blog Errata Security, the e-mail in question was verified using an everyday verification program and the DKIM system.[26] Brazile at first denied receiving or furnishing the Clinton campaign with any town hall questions, and dismissed the Wikileaks organization as “sad ass whipper leakers [trying] to destroy [her] groove”.[27] Jake Tapper, a former colleague of Brazile’s at CNN, provided his perspective on the possibility of a leak of a question to a Presidential candidate, calling it “very, very upsetting” and added that “journalistically, it’s horrifying”. Brazile, however, said that her conscience was “very clear”.[28][29] She later commented: “If I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”[30]

     In a talk at the College of Journalism and Mass Communications on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus on October 12, Brazile condemned the leaks, which intelligence officials said came from Russia,[31] were to “manipulate an election, disrupt or discredit or destroy our democracy” and ultimately try to “produce an outcome more favorable to them and their interests,” Brazile said.[32]

     On October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported: “CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked e-mails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”[33] CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on October 14, adding: “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”[34]

     On November 1, 2016, an internal call about the collusion was initiated by CNN President Jeff Zucker. Zucker informed his staff that, while the instances have been fully investigated and the perpetrators dealt with, the perception that campaigns could receive questions in advance “hurts all of us,” adding that, “I have no tolerance for her behavior or that kind of behavior,” going on to describe former network commentator Brazile’s interactions with the Clinton campaign as “unethical” and “disgusting.”[35]

     On March 17, 2017, Brazile admitted to forwarding debate questions to Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 Democratic primary, while she was Vice Chair of the DNC and working as a CNN commentator.[36][37][38] In an essay she wrote for TIME magazine, she said, “Then in October, a subsequent release of e-mails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign.” Brazile went on to explain: “My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those e-mails was a mistake I will forever regret.”[38]

     And she is still there!!!

     Amazing!!!

     But…sadly…true.

     These people will hold onto their power in the DNC until there is no more DNC. Then they will retire to academia or some island out of the way of hurricanes.

     WTFU.

     AG

     • 

       on October 23, 2017 at 11:44 am

       That’s a lot of losing campaigns to be associated with, some of them losing big time, and yet she stays on, gets hired by another promising campaign, gets promoted.

       I conclude there was probably a serious shortage of AA advisers with experience in national campaigns, so she almost had that narrow field to herself for a long while.

       Re the Gore campaign, it’s my understanding that after the candidate shook up his campaign staff at the end of the primary season, Brazile got a promotion on paper but effectively was still being used primarily as a minority outreach person, and was not among the inner campaign circle of a handful or less advising Gore on the big stuff.

       The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House.”

       Wow, what a weird, kinda creepy and big brotherish way of putting it. Sounds like she feels the American People might want some assurance with cameras installed in the WH bedroom.  And would sleeping in separate but equal twin beds be ok?  What if the First Couple prefers sleeping in separate rooms?  Did America and the world suffer because FDR didn’t sleep either in the same bed or bedroom with Eleanor?  I know Dukakis didn’t fire her for that reason — he just didn’t want anyone on his side getting into the gutter, as he put it. I might have fired her on the weirdness/invasion of privacy grounds alone.

       Now the DNC, failing to get the memo from about 1992 that Donna Brazile has reached her sell-by date, and has about zero credibility.  Tony Perez is turning out to seem to want to preside over the Disunity Party for Corporate Centrists.  A lifelong Dem, I’m getting close to heading out the door completely.

   • 

     sny on October 21, 2017 at 11:09 am

     Hopefully it doesn’t take another electoral college loss for it to happen.

     I would say hopefully it doesn’t take 20 years in the wilderness for it to happen. The party leaders apparently either think that Democratic voters need to be kept away from a populist uprising of losing policies (as if they haven’t lost enough by themselves), or just prefer lobbyist money to winning elections. We’ve seen it before – for example in the early 2000s when us idiot peons were warned that being against the Iraq war would be the road to failure. We also saw it for >10 years in UK where the Blairites warned against succumbing to non-3rd-way policies and leading to suicide. Both were proven wrong, and the people eventually chose who the party leaders warned against.

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on October 22, 2017 at 10:08 am

       Do you think that the U.S. would survive 20 years in this current wilderness?

       I don’t.

       AG

7. 

   TarheelDem on October 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm

   I think we understand how 2018 will go.

   Don Fowler was the kiss of death on the South Carolina Democratic Party and his wife kept it there.  Then he presided over the 1990s decline of Democrats in Congress. Forty-year-long losers seem to be what is populating the party committees.

   A recent article claimed that Obama for America was necessary in the midst of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy because there were enough state parties that would sandbag a black candidate for President.  Looks like the party leadership’s strategy for winning is sandbagging potential winners if they are not from the Club.

   The only way to defeat this “taking a fall” is to organize from the grassroots up in every piece of geography, and throw the dice.  Full-court primaries.  If there are not 435 better Democratic candidates than those currently in office, it is getting close to time to send the Club the way of the Whigs.

   • 

     on October 22, 2017 at 2:34 pm

     OFA was never anything but Barack’s organization in Florida.  It was mostly invisible during the mid-terms.

     The only remedy is a state by state fight to take the state committees.  

     This is all VERY unnecessary.  If Perez appoints 10 pro-Bernie reps – still a significant minority – it goes into nothing.

     • 

       Marie3 on October 23, 2017 at 12:32 am

       O/T — the front page thread spat.  Noticed that all the regulars that freely toss out troll ratings to those that don’t toe the DNC/neolib/neo-con line showed up.  Check out who uprated one of those that attacked you.  A clue …    

       • 

         on October 25, 2017 at 2:25 pm

         Booman basically red baited the left of the Party.  Anything that happened after that hardly is surprising.

         • 

           Marie3 on October 25, 2017 at 3:24 pm

           True, and his tolerance for the mad troll raters doesn’t speak well of him.  But don’t recall ever seeing him reward one of them which causes me to question how real they actually are.

8. 

   Marie3 on October 22, 2017 at 9:35 pm

   • 

     on October 23, 2017 at 11:53 am

     Jimmy Dore is so good at calling out these party hacks.  Brazile was so clearly trying to bs her way out of the reporter’s questions on the cheating.  She is being exposed as a cheater who got caught, and her dissembling about it is obvious even to the dimmest of bulbs watching.  Good on Jimmy too for calling out Brazile for trying to play the woman victim card.

     On a lesser note, Jimmy doesn’t seem aware of the recent exposé of warmongering, John McCain groupie Jake Tapper by Max Blumenthal (at Alternet, iirc).  If I were on Twitter I would let him know myself.

     • 

       Marie3 on October 23, 2017 at 1:19 pm

       Max’s article.  Tapper is shooting to become the 21st century Tom Brokaw; hence his polite public demeanor and getting just enough right to fool those on the left.  Don’t expect Dore to remain blind to Tapper for long.

       Why Dore is so good in this moment is that he may be the only one among the comedic socio-political critics that didn’t lose his marbles during the 2016 election and therefore, retained his integrity.  (Wish I’d included this from Dore in my diary on Clinton’s claim that Trump is a creep.)  Brazile is, contrary to the assertions of others, very good at bs, deflecting, and filibustering.  That only totally falls apart when her performance is subjected to a presentation as Dore did.  She, like Trump, knows that the largest audience is the one that views a performance once and that’s where the sale is made.  The audience for corrections is comparatively tiny.        

       Related:  In response to Kaczynski’s, “John McCain appears to mock Trump’s draft deferments”:

       the only way Donald Trump could have been a shittier person in the early 70s would be if he spent it dropping agent orange on farmers https://t.co/D8xR0ypMLj

       — Partisan Gridlock (@ByYourLogic) October 23, 2017

       Continues to amaze me that Max Blumenthal is Sidney’s son.  Perhaps Max fell in love with doing the hard work of journalism and avoided coming under the spell of any VIP.

   • 

     on October 23, 2017 at 12:24 pm

     Further on Jimmy Dore:  it would be nice if he could take over for Bill Maher, speaking of those who have passed their expiration date.  In Maher’s case — good for a pro-marijuana rant and a useful slapping down of religion — he seems to have lost a step in his critical thinking skills, as with his uncritical acceptance of the Russiagate pseudo scandal.

     And no, Bill, it’s not true that the US stopped fighting the CW after the fall of the Soviet Union, while Russia kept fighting.  Just the opposite — we took advantage of Russia’s weakness under Yeltsin to expand the reach of Nato, under Bill Clinton, and stateside we’ve been subject to 12-15 years of anti-Putin/Russia propaganda in our one-sided MSM with virtually no dissent allowed.

     Does Maher do any research for his shows or, as I suspect, does he go no further than checking the headlines at CNN and Msnbc?  

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on October 23, 2017 at 1:21 pm

       You write:

       Does Maher do any research for his shows or, as I suspect, does he go no further than checking the headlines at CNN and Msnbc?  

       i have never paid Maher much mind. Just another self-promoter. But…from the few times I did watch him, I believe that he does a great deal of research. He researches his ratings…probably minute-by-minute…and makes up his mind what he is going to say and which portentous leftiness talking head pundit assholes he is going to feature. He also spends a great deal of time admiring himself watching playbacks, and probably in the mirror as well.

       A true “deplorable.”

       AG

       • 

         Marie3 on October 23, 2017 at 1:46 pm

         Sometimes a stiletto (understatement) works as well as a sledgehammer.

       • 

         on October 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm

         Maher also seems to spend a lot of time researching to find his next RWNJ provocateur to promote on his show and foist upon the American public, and perhaps call his friend.  Ann Coulter famously.  That crazy woman office seeker from DE, who thankfully was rejected at the polls.  Milo Y, a real piece of work, in pearls and lipstick.  Others undoubtedly.

         Also plenty of time spent finding any kinda Goopers to fill out the panel for balance, and researching to find Rs from the small occasionally-sane wing of the party who aren’t enamored of Trump.  On the latter, he especially seems to like neocon ex-W staffer David Frum, author of the Axis of Evil speech, who, with the help of Maher and The Atlantic magazine, has been fairly well rehabilitated in the eyes of many forgiving libs.

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on October 23, 2017 at 4:13 pm

           Also portentous rightiness talking ass pundit headholes, of course.

           Whatever gets the ratings…

           AG

     • 

       Marie3 on October 23, 2017 at 1:43 pm

       Maher reads/watches MSM news.  That’s his source material.  Looks for what he can take a quick swipe at and not the long-term arc of what gets in and left out.  At best he’s only a middling social/political critic and comedian.  Not in the league on humor or critiques with Stewart and Colbert at their best.  However, IMO what mars all three is their cynicism.  (iirc it was Chomsky that first pointed this out many years ago.)  

       From a Slate article(difficult to keep up but in the naughts Slate was garbage and Salon was decent somewhere since then they’ve switched places):

       …I’m saying this because Jon Stewart, with his brand of left-leaning cynicism (sprinkled with occasional earnestness), is a bad example for the liberals who watch and love him.

       The emblematic Stewart posture isn’t a joke or a witticism, it’s a sneer–or if we’re feeling kind, a gentle barb–coupled with a protest: I’m just a comedian.…

       How many of these cynical asshats are now hugging GWB and hinting that GWB wasn’t so bad?  The major difference between GWB and Trump is that GWB had minders that controlled what the public saw and heard from him.  

       • 

         on October 23, 2017 at 3:00 pm

         Yes, Maher strikes me as someone from the smug left who feels informed and sophisticated about reading the NYT and watching Rachel Maddow and listening to NPR, and not much else.  Well, back in the 70s, NPR and the Times were overall pretty good sources; not so much anymore.  And Maddow went off the deep end when Russiagate came along.

         As for comedians, I expect cynicism to go with the territory for any who deal in politics particularly.  Two of my favorites of recent times, Bill Hicks and George Carlin, both were cynical, Hicks wickedly and consistently so.  Carlin would occasionally show a soft side.

         Both of them struck me as firmly on the outside of the Establishment tent, in the colorful LBJ use of the metaphor, rather than inside .  Not so Stewart and Colbert, who have a track record of decrying politics in both-siderist ways, and who likely had no problems embracing centrist Establishment pols like HRC.

         • 

           Marie3 on October 23, 2017 at 6:07 pm

           I don’t think Carlin was cynical.  He just didn’t buy into the notion that a tweak here and a tweak there by either party (and what their election campaign boil down to) makes any difference when the foundation is rotten.