Skip to content

The Democrats do something right

Friday, April 12, 2019

I drafted this yesterday, but never put it up. I’ll preface it by saying that I see today that it looks like the Dems may be getting their act together on the propaganda front.

Yesterday the Democrats in the House did something right. They voted to reinstitute net neutrality, which the Trump appointed telecom industries stooges at the FCC repealed. Mitch McConnell says it’s going nowhere, as I’m sure he won’t even let it come up for a vote, but while that’s yet another symptom of our crumbling democracy, it’s not unexpected.

The question now is whether the Democrats will be able to craft a narrative to take advantage of the refusal of Republicans to vote on, or pass this and other popular measures the Democrats will (hopefully) pass in the House in the next few months.

It should not be that hard for the Democrats to make a little list of those measures, get some trusted Hollywood celebrity type to read them off, and, after each, solemnly intone that the Republican Senate wouldn’t even vote on it (!). 

The media is not going to remind people of these things. Only the Democrats can do that, especially on mainstream media. Who knows, maybe the DCCC will take some time off from running an incumbent protection racket and get some commercials produced that will drive this point home. We need to beat the genius in 2020, but it will do us little good if we can’t take the Senate. Without that, we can never turn the tide of autocracy.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Sometimes the old words are best

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

I checked my previous posts, and much to my surprise, I have not ranted on this subject before, so here goes.

Twitter is all a-twitter today because Ilhan Omar branded Stephen Miller a “white nationalist”. This is sort of like branding me a lapsed Catholic, but what Omar doesn’t seem to understand is that not only is it perfectly acceptable for a Republican to be a “white nationalist” but that it breaks the rules to point it out. She is an anti-Semite for stating a fact, and that means she should be scorned by Republicans and Chuck Schumer alike, but as a Republican Miller is entitled to his “white nationalism” being ignored even as it hides in plain sight. After all, CNN is undoubtedly keeping his seat warm should we escape the definite fall of the Republic in 2020.

But hypocrisy is not what this rant is about. This rant is about the term “white nationalist”, which has become a frequently used term over the course of the last couple of years. I may be wrong about the timing, but I think it’s come into vogue pretty much contemporaneously with the advent of our racist, anti-Semitic president.

I object to the use of this term.

For one thing, it is a term that out and proud “white nationalists” prefer. I don’t think they should get to call the shots on this any more than anti-abortion people should get to brand themselves “pro-life” as they happily support wars, the death penalty, and child kidnapping.

But I actually have a more nuanced reason for opposing the term.

First, lets agree that, depending on the context, “white nationalist” means “racist”, “bigot”, “anti-Muslim”, “anti-Semite”, or “Nazi”, or any combination of the foregoing. These are terms that the average person in this country understands fairly well. “Nationalism”, on the other hand, does not, in America, have the pejorative force that it has in Europe. Here it acts as a purifying agent, a respectable sounding substitute for the ugly reality, sort of like the way “ethic cleansing” has stood in for genocide.

So I take issue with Representative Omar. Lots of the terms I’ve listed above can be used to describe Miller. Personally, I’d go with “Nazi”, and so would his rabbi, but racist or bigot would do just as well. The term “white nationalist” lets him off far too easy.

On a related note, in that it relates to Stephen Miller, I think Steve over at No More Mister Nice Blog, has the right idea here as a way of getting rid of him.

Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

Thanks for thinking of us, Tim

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan is running for president. I know this because among other emails touting him, I got one from Mike Morley, someone who I’m sure is someone, who assures me that Tim has got what it takes:

Failed leadership and broken promises from the White House have made things much worse for everyone — from farmers in the Midwest to autoworkers here in the Rust Belt. Two years ago, people who felt abandoned by Washington and overlooked by our government embraced a con artist who told them what they wanted to hear. But in the end, it was all talk.

I guess the only people within the set of “everyone” eat in diners in the Midwest and voted for Trump. We people who, you know, actually vote for Democrats don’t qualify. And who know that the country was bounded on one side by the Midwest, and another by the Rust Belt, which in my ignorance I always thought was largely in the Midwest.

Ryan is the guy who considered running for Speaker of the House against Pelosi from the right. It just wasn’t enough, apparently, that she handed the DCCC over to the Blue Dogs. Generally speaking, he’s terrible, and is a loyal member of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. There’s a lot of deluded thinking within the Beltway; one of the prime delusions being the belief that Democratic voters are yearning for a candidate who is a “centrist” skilled at mouthing platitudes that translate into a promise to do absolutely nothing worth doing. 

There is a surplus of such candidates in the mix now. See, e.g., Corey Booker, and, most likely, Joe Biden. The danger is that one of them will float to the top because the good candidates split the plurality of the primary votes. If that happens, Ryan won’t be the piece of crap that floats to the top, so maybe his candidacy is a good thing, as it may siphon votes away from someone more likely to pull it off.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Say it’s no go, Joe

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

It isn’t often that a pundit (Krugman aside) hits the nail on the head, but Michelle Goldberg column about Joe Biden hit a homer in this mornings Times.

Biden has been the subject of a couple of recent accusations of inappropriate conduct toward women. Not exactly sexual harassment, more like the exact kind of conduct that led Kristin Gillibrand to force Al Franken out of the Senate. Goldberg doesn’t excuse the behavior, but she does get right to the meat of the reasons why Biden should spend a lot more time with his family.

Still, the widespread assumption that Biden would pose the strongest challenge to Donald Trump is unwarranted. In recent years, neither party has done well when they’ve chosen candidates who were meant to appeal to some elusive cadre of swing voters but lacked a robust grass-roots base. On paper, the war heroes John Kerry and John McCain looked electable; Obama and Trump did not. To those desperate to unseat Trump, the centrist, establishment Biden might seem like the safest choice, but it would actually be risky to pick a candidate who will need to constantly apologize for himself.

The “centrism” path doesn’t work, except with people like David Brooks, and even he probably pulls the Trump lever when in the safety of the voting booth. People have to feel like they’re voting for something, not for the status quo with a little kindness mixed in. It was progressivism that beat back the forces of darkness last time around, and it will either do it again or the republic will degenerate into complete autocracy while the planet burns. That’s our choice, and we can’t afford to nominate a guy who doesn’t see that stark reality.

Several months ago Biden was on Pod Save America, and I was absolutely flabbergasted at the degree to which his mind is still in the 1970s, talking about comity and reasonableness and bipartisanship. They were polite to him, but he was utterly clueless. This from someone who spent eight years as the Vice President of a guy who tried beyond reason to make nice with Republicans and who got nothing for it. This in an era when Mitch McConnell has the gall to complain about Democrats obstructing presidential nominations.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Biden’s front runner status will quickly disappear once the primary season begins in earnest. Fondly do I hope, fervently do I pray that I’m right. I’m sure the powers that be in the Democratic Party want to hand him the nomination, as much as they wanted to hand it to Hillary. Trump will eat him for breakfast if he gets the nomination, and he will inspire precisely no one. If the women who have made these complaints about his behavior put paid to his candidacy they both deserve the Medal of Freedom.

Filed in Democrats, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

The genius plots strategy

Friday, March 29, 2019

Trump is apparently planning to campaign in 2020 by trumpeting the Barr letter, which no one other than the brain dead (fortunately still not a majority in the country) accepts as valid.

A reliable barometer of Trump’s moods, Giuliani offered a glimpse into the future. Mueller might be done with his investigation, but Trump and company are loath to let it drop. They want to capitalize on the president escaping criminal charges and make Mueller’s findings a core piece of 2020 campaign messaging. In their view, Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of the report is a gift that vindicates Trump, undercuts Democratic investigations, and repudiates critical news coverage. There’s time enough to talk policy on the campaign trail. Team Trump first wants to showcase the special counsel’s conclusions: According to Barr, Mueller reported no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and he couldn’t make a judgment on obstruction of justice. Even though the probe has led to 215 criminal charges and five prison sentences, Trump and his allies have framed Mueller’s findings as total exoneration.

Yet many Republican lawmakers and strategists fear that Trump would be fixating on the wrong message at the wrong time. They worry that Trump risks repeating the same strategic blunder he made in the midterm elections, which culminated in Republicans losing control of the House. Rather than spotlight economic gains rung up on his watch, the president might wind up dwelling on collateral issues of scant interest to voters. In the midterms, Trump locked onto migrant caravans making their way north from Mexico, warning of a national-security threat that never materialized, and ultimately made little mention of the bread-and-butter issues that some strategists believe would have bolstered his party’s odds for winning.

Even if no other shoes drop, which seems unlikely, I think the “many Republican lawmakers and strategists” may be right. It’s hard to see how a campaign message consisting of “the guy I picked to squelch an investigation of me says I’m not guilty” is going to garner many votes. That’s just preaching to an ever quieter choir, but it’s all Trump really knows how to do. If the Democrats had any messaging ability they might suggest in response, for instance, that if he’s so innocent why can’t we see the whole report, etc. In fact, the Democrats might actually have the intelligence to do just that. I really don’t think “I’m not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of selling out to Russia” is a great campaign message. Here’s hoping he sticks with that approach.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Democrats are their own worst enemy

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

A friend sent me a link to this articleat the Intercept, in which a political consultant claims she was blackballed by the DCCC because she was helping Democratic primary challengers. I wrote back that although it was believable, I’d withhold judgment, given Fox Democrat Glenn Greenwald’s role at the Intercept, until I got verification elsewhere.

It didn’t take long to find it. One might argue that Down with Tyrannytends to be a little over the top, but the post is based on an article from New Yorkmagazine, which I think is authoritative enough. Besides, it was totally plausible to begin with. 

The DCCC is not only an incumbent protection racket, it is the exclusive domain of the right wing of the Democratic Party, dedicated to getting right wing Democrats elected, who will then either consistently vote with Republicans and/or oppose any initiative that is—how can I say this— popular with voters.

The Republican Party has been completely taken over by the extreme right. In order to avoid being taken over by a non-existent extreme left (I’ll say it again, today’s progressives are no different than run of the mill 60s liberals) Nancy Pelosi has handed the DCCC over to the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. It’s a funny thing, but it turns out that people who want to vote for Republicans tend to vote for the real thing, particularly when the alternative with which they are presented offers nothing but a lukewarm version of the red meat they get from Republicans. If we want to win, we have to convince people we are a better alternative, not that we are a kinder and gentler version of the Republicans.

I won’t give money to the DCCC. They raise money by promoting progressive ideas, and then they use it to squelch progressives.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Religion Lesson

Monday, March 25, 2019

This has nothing to do with politics.

I’ve mentioned before that I have an advanced degree in theology, courtesy of the nuns at the aptly named Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar school. But recently I discovered a shocking deficit in my theological knowledge. That deficit has been corrected, and I feel obligated to both confess error and share the fruits of my new found knowledge with anyone who happens to read this blog.

A little background. My son and daughter in law gave my wife and I tickets to The Book of Mormon for Christmas. The reader is free to speculate why my son and daughter felt that I’d enjoy this particular play. Some friends bought tickets for the same March 24th showing, and after the show we met them and my son and his spouse, at a very nice New York City Italian restaurant. The reader should not be surprised that the subject of religion came up during our dinner conversation.

Now my son was raised religion free, and while he may teach at a fancy pants university, the fact is that he just can’t match my academic credentials when it comes to theology, particularly the theology of the one true Holy Roman Catholic Church (see above). So, when he mentioned that Mary (you know, Virgin mother of our Lord Jesus Christ) had been immaculately conceived, I immediately pulled academic rank and stated that only Jesus, god’s only son who died for our sins on a crucifix, without singing so much as a single verse of Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, was immaculately conceived.

But I was wrong, and my smarty pants, unbaptized and therefore Limbo bound (at best) son was right!

During my rigorous religious training I was made aware early on that Mary was a virgin, and remained a virgin throughout her life, even after giving birth to our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sired, not by a bull, like in those Greek fables, but by God the father, even though the Lord Jesus Christ actually existed prior to his own birth. (We shall leave that conundrum aside) Truth to tell, during the first several years of my theological education I was a bit hazy on precisely what a virgin was, except for that it was a very good thing, but I did manage to piece it all together, no thanks to the nuns, before I got my degree. So anyway, Jesus was immaculately conceived because Mary never once “did it” with any mortal man (just the also aptly named God the Father, and that has no effect on virginity, apparently). We are left to speculate how Joseph felt about all that, but really he’s just a bit player and he had to take one for the team.

So, when my professorial offspring said Mary had been Immaculately Conceived, I leapt to the conclusion that he was saying that her mama and daddy never “did it” either, or at least didn’t “do it” the time Mary was conceived. I, e., that God the Father “did it” with Mary’s Mom, before he “did it” with Mary, which really seems a bit much, when you think about it.

But it turns out, Mary’s Mom and Dad did “do it” after all. But Mary was still immaculately conceived.

Okay, now we have to step back a bit. As we all know, we are all born sinners, carrying the stain of “original sin” which, so far as I can gather from all the evidence, is a result of the fact that we got here because our parents “did it”. Not a big deal (for Catholics, deadly for all others), because it’s easily washed away by a properly conducted Catholic baptism, all others being totally ineffectual. I should pause here and say that my fellow theology students and I could never quite see the fairness of blaming a newborn child for someone else’s sin (even if we didn’t quite know what “doing it” was at first, not to mention the confusion engendered by the story about the apple). Now, it turns out that inasmuch as God (the Father) had plans for Mary, he gave her a free pass and even though her parents “did it” she was born with a clean slate so to speak. That way she could be sin free when she “did it” with God, because back then they didn’t have baptisms, and even if they did, they didn’t count because they weren’t Catholic baptisms. And she did indeed live a sin free life, which again was easier back then, since she didn’t have to come up with any sins (“I lied to my parents three times”) to satisfy the priest during confession. So Mary was immaculately conceived as was Jesus, only in a completely different way.

Some people might say that you can’t make this stuff up, but somebody did! Now compared to the stuff Mormons have to believe, you can easily swallow this stuff with one gulp, and you’d better, because if you don’t, you’ll spend eternity in the fires of hell, and if the Church could bring back the good old days, you’d get there by being pre-burnt here.

Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

You can stop if you’ve read this same rant elsewhere

Monday, March 25, 2019

I realize that everything I’m about to say has been said ad nauseum, but inasmuch as this is my blog and no one has to read it if they don’t want, I will proceed to vent.

First, lets stipulate that when people read newspapers, they often just scan the headlines, or read the first couple of paragraphs of any given article. Everyoneknows this to be so. It, therefore, behooves the press to make sure those headlines reflect that actual state of affairs for any given piece it chooses to publish. It’s simply not enough to put qualifying statements in the last paragraph of a piece.

Robert Mueller sent his report to Barr, and Barr proceeded to provide a “summary” to Congress and the public. Lets step back and recall some rather salient facts.

  • Before he was chosen as AG, Barr wrote articles in which he essentially argued that Trump could not possibly be guilty of obstruction of justice.
  • Barr was chosen to be AG precisely because Trump hoped and expected that he would do what was necessary to protect Trump from Mueller.

These facts, in the eyes of any but the most rock ribbed Republican, would lead one to conclude that one must be wary of any summary he would provide, particularly when that summary includes his own admission that Mueller felt there was evidence that Trump obstructed justice, and Barr decided he hadn’t after giving it a nanosecond of thought.

So why do all the headlines blare that Trump has, essentially, been cleared? Sure, the op-ed pages are full of caveats, but no one but junkies reads them. It’s probably the case that by the time one reaches the final paragraphs of these articles that it is conceded that one must consider the source, and that perhaps this “summary” might be somewhat slanted. Given Barr’s background, and given the overall mendacity of Trump and his criminal cohorts, the headlines and leading paragraphs should reflect that reality. Instead Barr and Trump got just what they wanted.

Have I said anything original? Nope. I’m even a little late, but that’s because I was away yesterday and couldn’t write this rant until now. Who knows, maybe if enough people scream about this we’ll see a change in behavior from our media elites.

Filed in Media, Rants, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

This guy’s pretty good

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Watch this video at Crooks and Liars of Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He’s obviously a long shot, but he’s quite impressive. It has been a pet peeve of mine for years that people in this country throw around the word “socialism” as if we all share a definition of that term, when in reality it is nothing but an all purpose word of derision for the right. The word has really been thrown around ever since, as Buttigieg points out, Obama’s conservative think tank inspired health plan was labeled socialist. Never have I seen anyone demand that those using the term define it. It’s just assumed that we all know what the word means, and we all agree on that meaning. As a result, it now means anything Republicans want it to mean. They always seem to get their way, don’t they?

Anyway, “Mayor Pete” is having none of that. He implicitly calls out Joe Scarborough for using a term that has become completely devoid of real content.

More of that, please.

Also, everything else he said made sense.

Filed in Language, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Pundit amnesia syndrome

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Every Tuesday and Friday I religiously check out the op-ed page at the New York Times to peruse Paul Krugman’s latest. I’m not sure if David Brooks always runs on those days as well, but if he is I also check out the title to his latest, groan, and make a mental note read the inestimable Driftglass’s deconstruction of Brooks latest bullshit. He reads Brooks do I don’t have to, and I truly appreciate it.

Today Brooks piece is titled Cory Booker Finds His Moment. (I refuse to actually link to David Brooks) I immediately knew two things upon reading that title. First, that I should push Booker even further down on my presidential preference list, though truth to tell I think he’s only been ahead of Kristin Gillibrand and Tulsi Gabbard. Second, I could sense that Driftglass would have a field day with this particular column, and indeed he did. He had something up before I put the paper down.

Brooks premise, apparently, is that Booker would seek to govern in a bipartisan fashion; would work with both Democrats and Republicans in a spirit of comity and mutual respect; that this would be a surefire way to get important and meaningful things done in this country; and that it’s about time someone tried governing like that. Driftglass points out:

Golly, if only Democrats would elect a president who is calm and humane. Formidably intelligent and fundamentally decent. A president who would reach out to Republicans to a fault, no matter how ruthlessly they slander him, how scurrilously they attack his family and no matter how relentlessly they sabotage anything he tries to accomplish, even if it means filibustering their own bills.

But of course Democrats did try that, didn’t we?

I remember it like it was yesterday. I’m sure you do too, as do billions of human beings around the world. How very, very strange it is, therefor, that quite possibly the only adult human on the planet who doesn’t remember a single thing about the Obama administration is the senior Conservative political/cultural columnist for The New York Times.

That last cut is unfair to Brooks. Lots of beltway pundits don’t remember a single thing about the Obama administration. Consider the fact that Chuck Todd just blamed Obama for failing to bring the country together.

Orwell was right about a lot of stuff. One of them was the memory hole, into which people like Brooks and Todd consign every past event that is inconvenient for any meme they wish to push in the present. In Brooks case, this very often includes his own columns, predictions and opinions from years, months, or weeks past. It is the only way to preserve the illusion that both sidesare responsible for getting us into the parlous situation in which we now find ourselves. In the Brooksian world, as Driftglass points out, right and wrong are irrelevant. Or, more precisely, they are irrelevant when your side is in the wrong. 

Yet another reminder that we on the left must not forget, and must keep reminding the forgetful other side of its history.

As a bit of a sidenote, I must note that not all facts are consigned to the memory hole. It always amazed me that before he ended his pundit career by letting his racist flag fly too obviously, Jeffrey Lord constantly made the argument that Democrats were evil because they were the party of racists back in 1850 or thereabouts. An actual historical fact. No one ever asked him how, precisely, that had any salience in the second decade of the 21st century. For that is another privilege that only the right has: the right to spout non sequiturs without challenge.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)