It was a much bigger show today than we had expected when we started it!
First up on today’s BradCast, author, peace activist David Swanson joins us to discuss Obama’s speech today at American University on the Iran Nuclear Agreement. While Swanson is (somewhat uncharacteristically) optimistic and encouraged by the deal, he has concerns about how Obama and other Dems are misleading Americans in order to sell it. “I love that, for once, President Obama wants peace. I love that, for once, he’s using diplomacy rather than war. I wish he would use that in eight other places on earth,” Swanson tells me. “But at the same time he’s pushing the propaganda of his opponents.”
Then, Swanson asks, “Why Won’t Bernie Talk About War?” A new petition from RootsAction.org asks Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to start speaking up against U.S. militarism which, as Swanson argues, the U.S. Senator from Vermont has, up until now, been very reluctant to do for some reason.
Then, as we went to break, huge news came in from the very conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal striking down the Texas GOP’s polling place Photo ID restriction law. The opinion confirms most of a lower court judge’s previously ruling finding the restriction to be in strict violation of the Voting Rights Act as well as the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional law expert Ian Millhiser joins us to explain the very encouraging opinion from the court — which comes, incidentally, just one day before the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — and what happens next.
“The court got that voter ID laws do not really serve the purpose that their supporters say they’re supposed to serve,” Millhiser explains. “The court got that this was an attempt to dress up something that looks like a legitimate voter regulation in order to really do something else, which was to prevent groups like racial minorities and low-income voters who tend to prefer Democrats over Republicans from casting a ballot.”
But, he also warns, “this wasn’t a total victory for the good guys.” Listen to the show for all the details.
Finally, in the few minutes we have left, we squeeze in some Presidential politics in advance of tomorrow night’s first GOP Presidential debate, as sponsored — and rigged by — Fox “News”. And, yes, that Republican debate will take place, ironically enough, on the 50th Anniversary of the landmark federal Voting Rights Act which Republicans used to support…until they decided they couldn’t win elections anymore if all those “people” (read: qualified American voters who tend to vote Democratic) were allowed to vote.
Huh. Let’s see, now.. Sanders opposes using U.S. troops against Islamic State, and wants the regional powers to lead, instead; Sanders supports the Iran nuclear deal, which means no war; and he wants to cut defense spending because he thinks it’s obscene we spend as much as the next ten countries combined for defense. That’s off the top of my head and before I listen to Swanson.
Beginning at 21:38 of this video, Bernie Sanders discusses matters of war and peace:
George @ 1:
Let us know what you think after you listen. (Serious about that.)
All right. So, I listened. And, yeah, Sanders isn’t Kucinich. And, yeah, Brad may be right why that is. David mentions the F-35 boondoggle. Sanders doesn’t fight it. He said it’s unstoppable. There’s a sub-contract for every constituency. The project was designed much more carefully to be unkillable than the plane was to be cost-effective.
Re George @1 & 4:
I, like you, support Sanders’ candidacy. But, in a truly democratic society, support should never preclude leveling valid criticism.
While I believe that the suggestion that Bernie Sanders is driven by empire and militarism is over the top, I do believe that he could and should be far more forceful in challenging empire and the military-industrial complex. He could, as David Swanson suggests, have simultaneously challenged the erroneous assumption that Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability and, at the same time, defended the current negotiations.
OK, Bernie is not perfect. I only agree with him on 85-90% of his positions. Yes, he could/should be forcefully for slashing the military budget. However, he’s under massive attack for not being a realistic, electable candidate already. I was for Kucinich in ’08, gave him money, and watched him be totally closed out of the campaign early on (screw you Chuck Todd for keeping Dennis off the MSNBC primary debates). Then Dennis was turfed out of office in the 2010 redistricting, for continuing to call for single-payer health care. Bernie did oppose the Iraq war, in sharp contrast to Hillary. He has spoken out in favor of the treaty with Iran, against the Keystone pipeline, and against the TPP. Hillary has been wishie-washie and non-committal at best on those issues.
No, I think from what I have been reading is that the Black Lives Matter protest, and possibly the anti-military activists who are attacking Bernie may, MAY be part of a low-key, Clinton-instigated dirty tricks campaign against Bernie. Why else would these people be protesting someone who was getting arrested at civil rights protests before most of them were born? Yes, he supports Israel’s right to exist (I don’t – one of the 10% of things I disagree with Bernie on), but please show me one, just ONE successful officeholder in this country who openly opposes Israel. Not even the only Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison, dares to speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel. Hey, at least Bernie boycotted Bibi’s speech before Congress.
I think Brad hit on what Bernie’s thinking might be, stick to his long-time issue points, take Hillary down, and then come out with a comprehensive platform for the general election. With all of the powerful people and institutions aligned against him, he’s made amazing progress. Don’t buy into any dirty DLC tricks against him.