Shaun King: I'm Leaving the Democratic Party

[Redstreak 6,653]

I've bolded the article's key points.

___________________________________________________________

Many of you aren't religious, so please forgive me for recalling my roots as a preacher and starting us off with a simple verse of scripture.

"The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

- 1 Timothy 6:10, The New Testament of the Bible

While my practice and devotion to religion has waxed and waned across the past few years, I still very much believe that verse is true. When you find evil in the world, when you find corruption, when you find starvation and exploitation, when you find poverty and despair, when you find drugs, guns, and substandard housing, when you find evil — if you dig far enough, you will often discover the love of money at the root. Underneath so much of what is wrong in this country is the deep love of money and all that it brings. Sometimes the connection is obvious and undeniable - other times not so much, but like the huge glacier underneath the still water, it is there.

Right now, the Democratic Party, which I have called home my entire life, is deeply in love with money. Consequently, its leaders have supported and advanced all kinds of evil, big and small, in devotion to this love affair.

My sweet mother, who worked in a scorching hot light bulb factory for over 40 years of her life, introduced me to the party. While I'm not so sure it was ever really true, she taught me that Democrats were for the poor and working class of America. We waffled between those two groups ourselves, so for me, I chose to be a part of the party that represented us.

As a senior in high school, I attended my first political rally in 1996 as President Bill Clinton spoke at the University of Kentucky in his reelection bid. He was amazing.

In 1999, Atlanta's first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, whom I loved and revered, recruited me to campaign for Al Gore and encouraged me to get involved with the party. As student government president at Morehouse College, I spoke at campaign events alongside Vice President Gore and his family and fought hard as hell for him to win. How he lost stung as much as the fact that he lost.

I had never lost an election or contest in my life. I was student government vice president in middle school. I was elected President of the Future Business Leader of America in high school. I was elected dorm president my freshman year of college and student government president for all of Morehouse the following year.

Seeing Al Gore lose was a bitter pill to swallow. Three years later, Maynard Jackson had a heart attack and died suddenly. With George W. Bush as President, Al Gore out of politics, and my political mentor dead, I bowed out and decided that party politics just wasn't my thing anymore.

 

For me, and I think for millions of Americans, that all changed when we first heard Barack Obama. As a preacher, I actually loved that Obama came from Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago. Dr. Wright was a legend in the Afrocentric and activist circles I walked in. When I learned that Obama was a bi-racial former community organizer with two young daughters, I was sold. At that time, I had two young daughters, was doing community work, and grew up as the mixed kid who never quite fit in.

I volunteered for his campaign in Atlanta, attended rallies and events, phone-banked for him, and began writing regular op-eds about his candidacy. On the night he was elected, I was in tears and spoke live on NPR about how monumental it was.

The optimism, hope and dedication to change that Obama campaigned with was authentic. To prove it, his transition team introduced what were called the "most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history."

They effectively banned lobbyists and their money not only from his transition process, but also put in place a 12-month-ban on when they could serve in the administration after serving as a lobbyist.

 

Because he came into office with such momentum and a clear mandate, Obama also began to enforce similar restrictions on lobbyists with the DNC. If he could first change his administration, then change his party, he could change the entire game, he thought.

Did you know that Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign against Obama, and is now the chair of the DNC, earlier this year did away with all of the restrictions on lobbyiststhat President Obama put in place?

According to the Washington Post,

"The DNC's recent, more sweeping reversal of the previous ban on donations from lobbyists and political action committees was confirmed by three Democratic lobbyists who said they have already received solicitations from the committee. The lobbyists requested anonymity to speak freely about the committee's decision, which has been otherwise kept quiet."

Unless you are a political insider, it would be hard to know that such a thing had ever happened. No doubt, that was their goal. Why? Are they ashamed? It certainly appears so.

The article continued,

"For the most part, they (the lobbyists) said, the DNC has returned to business as usual, pre-2008. The DNC has even named a finance director specifically for PAC donations who has recently emailed prospective donors to let them know that they can now contribute again, according to an email that was reviewed by The Washington Post."

Campaign watchdog groups were furious. This is a disgusting and unnecessary reversion, but it gives us a real clue into how the Democratic Party sincerely sees money in politics. They love it. They certainly didn't do this for Bernie Sanders. His campaign does not accept donations from SuperPACs or lobbyists and he's won 21 primaries and caucuses without it. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, is awash in this type of money.

In essence, Hillary Clinton and the DNC each wants us to believe that lobbyists and SuperPACs don't expect anything from them in return for their money. This is the most basic, foolish, offensive lie they could ever tell. Of course they want something in return. That's the business they're in.

On April 18, the Sanders campaign wrote an open letter declaring that Clinton's campaign was violating campaign finance laws through an unethical joint arrangement with the DNC. The Clinton campaign's response was that she was actually raising money for down-ticket Democrats. Two weeks later, though, Politico released an amazing investigative report which found that out of the $61 million the Clinton campaign was raising for state parties, the parties were only allowed to keep 1% of it. You read that correctly. I'll spell it out so that you know a digit wasn't missing. They got to keep one percent of the funds she claimed she raised for them.

It appears to be a money laundering scheme. Do you remember when George Clooney said that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right to be disgusted by the fact that some seats at the fundraiser cost $353,400 per couple, but that he could live with it because the money was mainly going to help smaller candidates win local elections?

He was wrong.

According to Politico, "The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88%) was quickly transferred (back) to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO's analysis of the FEC records found."

Who really got the money? The Clinton campaign pocketed almost all of it and state parties were left with one penny on the dollar.

"By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton's campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton's campaign if and when she becomes the party's nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for ‘salary and overhead’ and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion."

Of course, none of this is happenstance or coincidence. All of this is a well orchestrated plan. The American people are just now beginning to understand this ugliness. It's one of the primary reasons why 10 million people have voted for Bernie Sanders and why he has won 21 contests without even a smidgeon of support from the Democratic Party.

The thing is, though, the Democratic Party isn't really very democratic. It's sincerely just a machine for Hillary Clinton.

Van Jones, a former Obama administration official, said earlier this week on CNN, "Debbie, who should be the umpire, who should be the marriage counselor, is coming in harder for Hillary Clinton than she is for herself. That is malpractice."

"I wish Reince Priebus was my party chair. He did a better job of handling the Trump situation than I've see my party chair handle this situation," Jones said.

"I'm ashamed to say that. Yeah, I said it."

Let that sink in for a minute. A man who has not endorsed a candidate, who worked for Obama, and is an award-winning leader said that he would rather the Republican Party chair be in charge of the DNC than Debbie Wasserman Schultz because of how hard she fights for Hillary Clinton. Forgive me for being repetitive, but please remember that Wasserman Schultz was a co-chair of Clinton's campaign in 2008. None of us should be surprised that she is so biased, but we should be disgusted that she is in charge of the entire party at a time when it required an unbiased presence.

I'll give it to her — Debbie Wasserman Schultz will say or do anything to get Hillary Clinton elected, even if it means completely ignoring the political reality that nearly half of the people who've voted in this primary have declared that they want to see lobbyists and SuperPACs out of politics. Her words and her deeds throughout this campaign have not only been unethical, but are out of step with the future of the party. Voters under the age of 45 prefer Bernie because they trust him and his principles. Wasserman Schultz and Clinton represent a brand of politics that they know well, but we're simply tired of it.Another op-ed was just released calling on her to be replaced.

Robert Reich, the famed economist who served as Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, went so far on Thursday to suggest that a new party should be formed if Hillary wins the election.

Reich said, “Never, ever give up fighting against the increasing concentration of wealth and power at the top, which is undermining our democracy and distorting our economy. That means, if Hillary Clinton is elected, I urge you to turn Bernie's campaign into a movement — even a third party — to influence elections at the state level in 2018 and the presidency in 2020. No movement to change the allocation of power succeeds easily or quickly. We are in this for the long haul.”

Back in February, Michelle Alexander, the law professor and author of “The New Jim Crow,” made a similar declaration. Her words struck me to my core.

“The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he's running as a Democrat — as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires,” she said.

“Yes, Sanders has raised millions from small donors, but should he become president, he would also become part of what he has otherwise derided as ‘the establishment.’ Even if Bernie's racial-justice views evolve, I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself."

I am in full agreement with both Reich and Alexander. Whatever happens between now and the Democratic Convention - what's next is that we form a brand new progressive political party from scratch. It has never been more clear to me that millions and millions of us do not belong in the Democratic Party. Their values are not our values. Their priorities are not our priorities. And I'll be honest with you, I think too highly of myself, of my family, of my friends, and of our future, to stick with a party that looks anything like what Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are leading right now.

Clinton's refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Her indignant and irrational excuses made no sense — particularly in light of the reports stating that the transcripts would ruin her campaign and made her sound like an executive at the company.

I'll start where I left off — the root of all of this is the love of money. In this campaign, Bernie Sanders, with a ragtag group of misfits, proved to the world that another way exists. He has created a blueprint for us on how we build a political movement without the money from billionaire class and their special interests.

In my heart, I believe we are on the brink of something very special. It isn't going to be the presidency of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump either. It's going to be what those of us who've seen a better way do next.

Don't believe what anyone tells you — the ball is in our hand and we have more power than progressive people have had in a very long time in this country. I will fight for Bernie Sanders until he is no longer running for president.

After that, this will be my last election as a Democrat. I'm moving on and hope you do, too.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-leaving-democratic-party-article-1.2644307

[Edonis 28,974]

This OP is so long 

Anyways, him leaving isn't that much of a surprise. He seems like he's throwing a tantrum anyways since Bernie is basically out of the running as a democrat and would have to switch to being an independent. Poor Shaun. 

Edit: I almost never talk about politics but he annoys me so much lol

[Redstreak 6,653]

7 minutes ago, Edonis said:

This OP is so long 

Anyways, him leaving isn't that much of a surprise. He seems like he's throwing a tantrum anyways since Bernie is basically out of the running as a democrat and would have to switch to being an independent. Poor Shaun. 

Edit: I almost never talk about politics but he annoys me so much lol

Well yeah, when it becomes evident that a party no longer fights for your interests, you leave.

[Edonis 28,974]

Just now, Redstreak said:

Well yeah, when it becomes evident that a party no longer fights for your interests, you leave.

Buy because Hillary Clinton would become the nominee? That's a little extreme. You give up on an entire group of political thinkers that you agree with because you don't like her? Hm. It really seems to me that he's just upset that Bernie isn't the nominee. If it were the other way around, he wouldn't be doing this. Plus him having a breakdown basically on Twitter throwing mud at everyone because of it doesn't help his situation. 

[Redstreak 6,653]

12 minutes ago, Edonis said:

Buy because Hillary Clinton would become the nominee? That's a little extreme. You give up on an entire group of political thinkers that you agree with because you don't like her? Hm. It really seems to me that he's just upset that Bernie isn't the nominee. If it were the other way around, he wouldn't be doing this. Plus him having a breakdown basically on Twitter throwing mud at everyone because of it doesn't help his situation. 

You think it's simply because Hillary is the nominee and Bernie isn't? It's entirely about the system that's propped her up and will continue to prop people like her up that has a grip on the party. Please actually read the article.

[FATCAT 60,968]

Before realizing that the OP started with his letter, I assumed you were a preacher @Redstreak

 

Very well put. I've considered leaving the party as well, but I'll come to that decision after the convention. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

 

Funny how he loved Bill Clinton, but now hates his wife!   

Why wasn't he & every other democrat back in 1996, or in the 90's in general complaining about all this money in the Democratic Party?!?!?

It would be different if he was actually new to politics, and was disgusted by how much money was involved in it.  But he's been on and off since the 90's, and now he wants to throw a hissy fit about what was there from the beginning?!?!?

 

 

 

[Bebe 17,289]

There are some real progressives within the Democratic party who want real change, Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

I know this blows the mind of some Hillary supporters and they whine about handing over the presidency to Trump - but Bernie supporters have every right to be upset at the way the DNC has endorsed Hillary from the beginning, the money laundering from the DNC, the fact that Time Warner Inc who own CNN are Hillary's 7th largest donor, or the fact that Comcast who own MSNBC have also donated and been supportive of Hillary.

The Establishment has been fighting against Bernie from the beginning and for those who are deeply against the systemic corruption of the political establishment they have nobody who represents their values.

The wisdom shared by Clinton supporters is "Don't vote for independents or small parties who actually represent your interests more than the major parties, otherwise my favourite candidate will lose and I hate the other guy!"

But that sort of logic is so deeply flawed, people need to break out of this way of thinking. Frankly, the other side of the argument is that Clinton supporters are obstructing this movement and telling a large percentage of the population and millions of voters that they can't have a candidate that represents their political values.

Anyway... progress is a slow, tough and uphill battle. I think that there is already a very large progressive movement growing and the fact that voters under the age of 45 prefer Bernie Sanders is proof of what's to come.

[Bebe 17,289]

4 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

 

Funny how he loved Bill Clinton, but now hates his wife!   

Why wasn't he & every other democrat back in 1996, or in the 90's in general complaining about all this money in the Democratic Party?!?!?

It would be different if he was actually new to politics, and was disgusted by how much money was involved in it.  But he's been on and off since the 90's, and now he wants to throw a hissy fit about what was there from the beginning?!?!?

 

 

 

Shaun King has been very critical of Bill Clinton

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bill-clinton-sounds-donald-trump-jab-article-1.2593606

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

Shaun King has been very critical of Bill Clinton

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bill-clinton-sounds-donald-trump-jab-article-1.2593606

 

This says 2016, not 1996...  Where were his criticisms about the Clintons then!???

 

[Bebe 17,289]

10 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

This says 2016, not 1996...  Where were his criticisms about the Clintons then!???

 

Yeah, of course it was 2016... Where was the Bernie Sanders of 1996???

This is what I don't think a lot of Clinton supporters understand. I supported Obama in both elections, they were first election cycle I followed as I was really too young for any previous elections. I think Clinton would do JUST AS GOOD a job as Obama managed as president. 

Why did I support Obama back then? Because he was the best candidate we had, the problem of Super Pacs and money in politics was still an issue, but every candidate was taking money. We now have a candidate that is not taking huge donations from super pacs, who isn't holding huge fundraisers will millionaires and billionaires. We have a real progressive candidate that is pushing for fair elections and an end to corruption.

You can't compare 1996 to 2016. The political climate is different.

If you saw any of my facebook posts or posts anywhere back in 2008 or 2012 I would be praising Obama - but there wasn't a viable candidate that wasn't establishment to support back then.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

4 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Yeah, of course it was 2016... Where was the Bernie Sanders of 1996???

This is what I don't think a lot of Clinton supporters understand. I supported Obama in both elections, they were first election cycle I followed as I was really too young for any previous elections. I think Clinton would do JUST AS GOOD a job as Obama managed as president. 

Why did I support Obama back then? Because he was the best candidate we had, the problem of Super Pacs and money in politics was still an issue, but every candidate was taking money. We now have a candidate that is not taking huge donations from super pacs, who isn't holding huge fundraisers will millionaires and billionaires. We have a real progressive candidate that is pushing for fair elections and an end to corruption.

You can't compare 1996 to 2016. The political climate is different.

If you saw any of my facebook posts or posts anywhere back in 2008 or 2012 I would be praising Obama - but there wasn't a viable candidate that wasn't establishment to support back then.

This isn't about your experience, this is about HIS experience!  He supported the Clinton's in the 90's & he should have been complaining about big money infused with the Democratic Party back then, but he wasn't...  And as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he is an anomaly in the senate & always has been...  And the question is what will progressives do we he is no longer around?  Because at the moment the only person who even comes close to him is Elizabeth Warren.  And if she never decides to run, then the progressive left is screwed for the time being...!  I do agree tho that the future of the Democratic Party will go back to it's roots, and be way more progressive & liberal.  You guys just better hope the country has changed since then.  There was a reason Bill Clinton had to go to the middle & be a more moderate democrat. Because democratic presidential nominees who were also extremely progressive kept getting slaughtered by the republicans after election, after election.  And if we have to go back to a time like that, then I'll take the money in politics for $300 Alex...  IJS

 

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

This isn't about your experience, this is about HIS experience!  He supported the Clinton's in the 90's & he should have been complaining about big money infused with the Democratic Party back then, but he wasn't...  And as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he is an anomaly in the senate & always has been...  And the question is what will progressives do we he is no longer around?  Because at the moment the only person who even comes close to him is Elizabeth Warren.  And if she never decides to run, then the progressive left is screwed for the time being...!  I do agree tho that the future of the Democratic Party will go back to it's roots, and be way more progressive & liberal.  You guys just better hope the country has changed since then.  There was a reason Bill Clinton had to go to the middle & be a more moderate democrat. Because democratic presidential nominees who were also extremely progressive kept getting slaughtered by the republicans after election, after election.  And if we have to go back to a time like that, then I'll take the money in politics for $300 Alex...  IJS

 

He was 17 then?

I used my personal experience as a way to make a point. Like in 1996, when he was 17, I'm sure that Shaun King was very enthusiastic about Bill Clinton in the same way as I was for Obama.

The difference now is that campaign finance reform is now a major issue for a lot of Americans.

You are happy to give Hillary a pass when she 'flip flops' on issues because it was a year ago, or two, or five or ten. But the issue of money in politics has not been addressed in mainstream politics or in establishment media before this election cycle.

It's also relevant to point out that when he criticises "Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign against Obama, and is now the chair of the DNC" for saying or doing "anything to get Hillary Clinton elected" or when he  criticises her for doing away "with all of the restrictions on lobbyists that President Obama put in place" THAT is a current relevant issue that doesn't apply in 1996.

When he criticises one of the two current democrat nominees saying:

"On April 18, the Sanders campaign wrote an open letter declaring that Clinton's campaign was violating campaign finance laws through an unethical joint arrangement with the DNC. The Clinton campaign's response was that she was actually raising money for down-ticket Democrats. Two weeks later, though, Politico released an amazing investigative report which found that out of the $61 million the Clinton campaign was raising for state parties, the parties were only allowed to keep 1% of it. You read that correctly. I'll spell it out so that you know a digit wasn't missing. They got to keep one percent of the funds she claimed she raised for them.

It appears to be a money laundering scheme. Do you remember when George Clooney said that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right to be disgusted by the fact that some seats at the fundraiser cost $353,400 per couple, but that he could live with it because the money was mainly going to help smaller candidates win local elections?

He was wrong.

According to Politico, "The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88%) was quickly transferred (back) to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO's analysis of the FEC records found."

Who really got the money? The Clinton campaign pocketed almost all of it and state parties were left with one penny on the dollar."

 

That's a specific critique of one of the current nominees. 

You can continue to complain that when Shaun King was 17 he liked a Bill Clinton speech and didn't say anything strong on money in politics, but it does nothing to counter the points made by the 36 year old activist today.

If campaign finance had been an issue relevant in any other election cycle, and if there was a viable candidate on one of the major parties that wasn't involved with money in politics then we would have more room for discussing his past discussion of it (or lack of discussion on it). 

The problem with that is that this movement is just in its infancy, this election cycle has been the only election cycle where this issue has actually been seen as a major issue.

[teo 609]

Wow, them Bernie Sanders fans really are pressed as pancakes.
 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

42 minutes ago, Bebe said:

He was 17 then?

I used my personal experience as a way to make a point. Like in 1996, when he was 17, I'm sure that Shaun King was very enthusiastic about Bill Clinton in the same way as I was for Obama.

The difference now is that campaign finance reform is now a major issue for a lot of Americans.

You are happy to give Hillary a pass when she 'flip flops' on issues because it was a year ago, or two, or five or ten. But the issue of money in politics has not been addressed in mainstream politics or in establishment media before this election cycle.

It's also relevant to point out that when he criticises "Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign against Obama, and is now the chair of the DNC" for saying or doing "anything to get Hillary Clinton elected" or when he  criticises her for doing away "with all of the restrictions on lobbyists that President Obama put in place" THAT is a current relevant issue that doesn't apply in 1996.

When he criticises one of the two current democrat nominees saying:

"On April 18, the Sanders campaign wrote an open letter declaring that Clinton's campaign was violating campaign finance laws through an unethical joint arrangement with the DNC. The Clinton campaign's response was that she was actually raising money for down-ticket Democrats. Two weeks later, though, Politico released an amazing investigative report which found that out of the $61 million the Clinton campaign was raising for state parties, the parties were only allowed to keep 1% of it. You read that correctly. I'll spell it out so that you know a digit wasn't missing. They got to keep one percent of the funds she claimed she raised for them.

It appears to be a money laundering scheme. Do you remember when George Clooney said that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right to be disgusted by the fact that some seats at the fundraiser cost $353,400 per couple, but that he could live with it because the money was mainly going to help smaller candidates win local elections?

He was wrong.

According to Politico, "The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88%) was quickly transferred (back) to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO's analysis of the FEC records found."

Who really got the money? The Clinton campaign pocketed almost all of it and state parties were left with one penny on the dollar."

 

That's a specific critique of one of the current nominees. 

You can continue to complain that when Shaun King was 17 he liked a Bill Clinton speech and didn't say anything strong on money in politics, but it does nothing to counter the points made by the 36 year old activist today.

If campaign finance had been an issue relevant in any other election cycle, and if there was a viable candidate on one of the major parties that wasn't involved with money in politics then we would have more room for discussing his past discussion of it (or lack of discussion on it). 

The problem with that is that this movement is just in its infancy, this election cycle has been the only election cycle where this issue has actually been seen as a major issue.

...And so how do you propose to ultimately get money out of politics then??