Trump Missed Last Chance to Work With Dems

On Tuesday night, President Trump delivered the third-longest State of the Union in the nation’s history and he spoke about the importance of national unity. Yet, he clearly doesn’t expect much in Congress. There isn’t much Democrats and Republicans can agree about right now in the policy sphere, but there are least a couple of things that they might come together to pass. The Democrats are very interested in investing in infrastructure. Our roads are in disrepair, many bridges are unsafe, our energy grid is insecure, and our rail and air systems are hardly the envy of the world. A lot of people can be put to work if Congress will authorize the spending.

Yet, Trump invested about twenty seconds to the subject. Here’s the entirety of what he said about infrastructure:

“I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill — and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.”

Another subject that Congress might conceivably tackle is the high cost of prescription medication. The Democrats successfully ran on the issue during the midterms and will be passing legislation through the House of Representatives. Trump said it was a priority for him, too, but this is all he had to say about it in his speech.

“The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs — and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.

“Already, as a result of my Administration’s efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years.

“But we must do more. It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, unfair, and together we can stop it.”

I am asking the Congress to pass legislation that finally takes on the problem of global freeloading and delivers fairness and price transparency for American patients. We should also require drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals to disclose real prices to foster competition and bring costs down.

To begin with, fact-checkers saw Trump’s claim about “the largest decline [in drug prices] in 46 years” as mostly spin.

According to the Consumer Price Index, that dip is .62 percent, looking at data collected on Dec. 2017 to data from Dec. 2018. Last fall, an Associated Press analysis examined the list prices for some 26,000 brand-name drugs and found 96 price hikes for every one price cut.

In addition to that, anyone who understands anything about the Republicans’ attacks on the Affordable Care Act knows that they were incapable of coming up with any alternative that would protect people with preexisting conditions. That has not changed. But it’s not the misleading rhetoric that is main problem here.

There were a few things Trump mentioned that should interest Democrats, like working to end new HIV transmission within a decade and making a push to fight childhood cancer, but his overall vision for bipartisan legislation on health care was sparse. One of the ideas he obliquely referenced is actually a bill already being pushed by Senate Finance Committee chairman Chuck Grassley that would allow Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada and save money in the process. Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is a cosponsor of the bill, but the main holdup is opposition from the GOP caucus in the Senate. Perhaps the president could have been more specific and emphatic about his desire to see Grassley’s bill on his desk.

Trump spent most of his time talking about the horrors caused by the drugs and people coming across our southern border and reemphasizing his distaste for international cooperation on trade, nuclear proliferation, and arms control. He accused the people of New York of cheering infanticide. But he had almost nothing to say about issues of concern to Democrats, including education, climate change, and civil and voting rights.

He could have put his focus on what the Republican and Democrats in Congress could jointly accomplish in this session. He could have singled out key Democratic chairpersons that he was interested in working with to accomplish specific goals.

He did not do those things, which shows that legislation is still not a priority for him or even for his speechwriters and strategists. And to top it all off, he actually suggested that the Democrats should not investigate him if they want to get anything else done.

“An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!

It was always going to be unlikely that the Trump administration would work productively with the Democratic House, but it would have been good politics to at least aspire to accomplishing something. With the right kind of message, Trump could have put great pressure on the Democrats to produce at least an infrastructure bill.

As for Trump’s assertion about the way things work, if there is no legislation then there’s nothing left for Congress to do but investigate his administration. That looks like where we’re headed.

Donald Trump: His Satanic Majesty/The Father Of Lies

There…I’ve said it.

Phew!!!

I feel much better now.

Read on for more.

Please.
I watched about 25 minutes of the SOTU dumbshow…as much as I could stomach. Following is what I saw and heard of any import as far as I am concerned:

#1-The initial images of Melania Trump looking like she was suffering from either a case of model’s rictus, an over-application of cosmetics that unexpectedly hardened under the lights, an early-in-life plastic surgery gone wrong or…most likely…the sheer horror of her life after marrying that serial woman abuser Donald Trump in search of even more money than she made as a model.

#2-The elephantine Trump waddling down the aisle, ascending to the stage and then…apparently with no teleprompter whatsoever…blithely (And quite effectively, apparently. Read today’s headlines.) lying through his teeth for the remainder of the time that I could stand to watch.

#3-At least 2/3rds of the Dems in the audience…including Nancy Pelosi, who I believe should have walked off the stage and out of the room in protest, followed by every Dem in attendance except the central group of women in white who should have remained without a movement or a sound as a statement of the real resistance to Trump and his minions.

And…the heartbreaker.


At least it was for me:

#4-Some amount of time into the broadcast, a camera operator panned in on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as she sat there with a look of sheer horror on her face. There is no other way to describe it. She looked like someone who had suddenly realized the true depth of evil that Trump represents, and her relative unimportance and isolation…so far…from the fat and happy old-line Dems who obediently stood after every few sentences and clapped their hands in a show of obeisance to the old ways.

INCLUDING FUCKING NANCY PELOSI!!!

I turned off the TV and went to bed early…only to be awakened 3 hours later by the title of this post.

I’ll say it again:

Donald Trump-His Satanic Majesty/The Father Of Lies

If he is not that entity…the existence of which I have always believed to be a metaphor for evil, even as a young Irish Catholic…then he has been effectively occupied by him. There is no other explanation that I can find for Trump’s success.

I wish that it were otherwise.

Think on it.

It is common knowledge that he is…and has been for his entire career…a massively and totally unapologetic crooked businessman. The highest-level total ripoff artist in perhaps all of U.S. history.

In this #MeToo/PC world that effectively unseats politicians, stars and billionaires for…in many cases unproven or even minor…relatively juvenile expressions of sexism and/or racism/religious bias, this sexist/racist motherfucker has risen to the most powerful position in the world!!!

Give me a better explanation of how and why this has happened other than something totally Satanic in nature.

Damned if I can find one.

Plus…Pelosi and most of the rest of the Dems? The ones who stood and clapped for this Satanic creature because they are “going along to get along!!!???”

I suggest that they go read one of the greatest books about morality and human survival that has ever been written:

The I Ching.

Here’s what it says about dealing with evil:

Kuai / Break-through (Resoluteness)

…a compromise with evil is not possible; evil must under all circumstances be openly discredited.

There it is.

Clear and clean.

Or…if you want the Christian view?

Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:23:

Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

He said this to Peter, one of his disciples, the one about which He also said:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Maybe you don’t like the religious stuff?

OK…not all roads lead to Rome, but the road upon which this country is now traveling plainly leads to disaster, and playing by the book is equally plainly not going to avert that disaster. Trump proved that in the primaries and and in the election. He trounced every challenger…including HRC…by not playing by the book!!! And his winning is continuing despite all of the “by the book” attempts to defeat him, including the army of lawyers sicced on him by the Mueller probe. Lawyers are by the book. That’s their job. They use “the book”…the laws of the land, also written primarily by lawyers…to protect their clients and prosecute their enemies.

Ain’t working.

Sorry, but there it is.

Those bipartisan schlumps dutifully standing and applauding The Lord Of The (F)Lies?

Most of them are lawyers, and those that aren’t are in constant contact with other lawyers who advise them on how to…

How to what?

How to go along to get along is what!!!

So there the usually exuberant and combative ex-barista AOC sits, surrounded by a number of compatriots who also managed to get elected despite their relative differences with most of the legislators in place in DC’s Swampland.

And the hammer comes down on her.

New party? Who dis!!!???

She said it…originally in another context, replying to the execrable double turncoat/go along anywhere to get along Joe Lieberman’s criticism of her stances and policies. But here she is, surrounded by Joe Lieberman types who have been a little slicker/a little more subtle than was ol’ Joe.

Outnumbered and outgunned.

A latter day Socrates Fortlow. (Don’t recognize the reference? You should. Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, by Walter Mosely. Read it. You be bettah off. Bet on it.)

I turned the TV off at that point and went to bed early, trying to sleep off the horror.

Joseph Conrad’s The Heart Of Darkness, there for all to see.

The horror! The horror!

Only…how many people actually see it?

AOC did.

Bet on it.

Me too.

You?

I hope so.

Know thine enemy

Sun Tzu knew:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Today?

So far?

The so-called “opposition” to Trump?

A little of Sun Tzu’s second sentence, more of his third sentence, and very damned little of his first sentence.

The result?

Here we jolly well are, aren’t we!!!

WTFU.

You been had.

A popular definition of insanity goes like this:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

Yup.

Four years into Trump’s rapid rise to power?

Isn’t it about time to start trying “something else,” instead of what we saw at that SOFU farce?

I think so.

You?

Again…

I hope so!!!

Later…

AG

The State of the Union Sucks

Federal prosecutors in New York City issued expansive subpoenas to President Trump’s inaugural committee on Monday and they are reportedly seeking interviews with executives at the Trump Organization.  Trump’s campaign chairman will be sentenced on March 13, likely to what will amount to life in prison. His former personal lawyer has been sentenced to three years in prison and will be provided damning testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee before reporting to prison on March 6th. His former deputy campaign chairman is still cooperating with prosecutors and so is his former national security advisor, but both of them will eventually be sentenced and do substantial time behind bars. In December, the Trump Foundation ceased to exist as part of a criminal settlement with the New York state attorney general’s office. Meanwhile, the president is facing numerous serious allegations of felonious wrongdoing that include campaign finance violations, bank fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and a potential criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people by colluding with a foreign government to pervert a presidential election.

This is the context for tonight’s State of the Union address, where the president will also have to contend with a Republican Party in open revolt and a Democratic Party eager to get its hands on his tax returns and otherwise begin serious oversight of his administration.

It should be interesting.

An Alternate Look At Booman’s "Dems Prefer Electability to Ideological Purity" Post

In a recent post…Dems Prefer Electability to Ideological Purity (https://www.boomantribune.com/story/2019/2/4/144611/1283) Booman made a case for a more centrist 2020 Dem presidential candidate rather than a more “progressive” one.

I disagree.

Here’s why. (Hint, hint…it’s all about the numbers.)

Read on.
Booman…the following is the fly in your electoral ointment:

…most Democratic voters are more concerned with winning than with finding a candidate who can check all of their boxes.

Now…this is not exactly a shoofly, but rather a true fly.

Why a fly of any kind?

Because…as true as it may be, it does not recognize the potent fact that about 40% of the potential electorate simply doesn’t vote!!!

Fortune Magazine:

Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says

When it comes to the Donald Trump presidency, nonvoters are just as responsible as verified 2016 voters for the presidential election results, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center.

The study notes an important statistic: four in 10 Americans who were eligible to vote did not do so in 2016. And by taking the unique (and uniquely valuable) step of validating those who claimed they voted, Pew researchers were able to determine who actually voted and who did not. Breaking out these categories into hard data makes it clear: Nonvoters in 2016 had just as much to do with establishing the Trump presidency as actual voters.

The really important question is:

Why didn’t they vote?

Immediately followed by the next important question:

Who and/or what would motivate a majority of those non-voters to show up and vote in 2020?

And my own seat-of-the-pants answer is that only a candidate who successfully reaches out to the entire population of this country…not one who stinks of deplorablism and public/private positions, not one who has the stench of corporate control and/or racism, not one who has made a career out of being  a Washington DC insider of either party…can mobilize an appreciable part of this essentially ignored by  both major parties and the Trumpists “dark matter” (In the physics sense) to come to the polls.

Think on it, Booman.

Here are some numbers…2012 was the best I could do on limited search time:

…analysis by the University of California, Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project found that there were 235,248,000 people of voting age in the United States in the 2012 election

8 years later? Let’s round the number out to 250 million, ok?

40% of that electorate equals roughly 65 million potential voters!!!

HRC lost to Trump while getting roughly 66 million votes to his 63 million or so , but she lost in the (totally jive) Electoral College.

If she had reached even 10% of those non-voters…let alone a majority of them…she would then have had such a majority that the Electoral College vote would have been hers as well.

But NOOOOOoooo…she and her DNC tried to run the old “public/private position” game and got caught out doing it, mostly  because of social media.

Long story short?

Sure.

The regular “Democratic” voters…including the so-called progressives and the more neocentrist/neoliberal types…were not enough to give her an unchallengeable win.

Do you really think that…given Trump’s and the Republicans’ fairly unshakable base…yet another mainstream DNC-supported DC career insider is going to be able to motivate some large percentage of those non-voters to come out in 2020? A percentage large enough to perhaps even “blue wave” the Senate?

I don’t.

With any of the thoroughly DC-branded pols who are leading the so-called polls now, 2020 will be a squeaker.

At the end of your post, you say:

This election cycle is not going to reward ideological rigidity or radicalism.  On the other hand, the winner could wind up being as far out of the historic mainstream as Trump.  Anything is possible with the right kind of campaign.

I want to add to that…it is not going to reward Washington DC insiderism either. In fact, I think that…just like in 2016…it will to some degree punish that characteristic, on both sides of the political spectrum.

I have been posting a great deal recently here about Beto O’Rourke, and I have gotten flack from many of the pro-DNCers here about wishful thinking vs. pragmatic politics, etc.

As George Santayana so accurately wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

If the Dems try to foist another mainstream DC insider on the electorate, it’s going to be Groundhog Day, one more time once. It might come out…due to the ongoing, awful sight of a narcissistic madman in the Oval Office…pro-Dem. But it will not be a landslide by any means.

However…if they present a candidate and platform that reaches some effective part of the silent 40%? Not necessarily a candidate who kowtows to the Dem’s current so-called “progressive” system, but one who is a truly pragmatic politician. One who reaches people of all races and cultures in this miraculously multiracial and multicultural nation?

Landslide!!!

A landslide of historic proportions.

So far, O’Rourke is the only possible presidential Dem candidate who is not playing by the rules.

The rest?

The same tired games.

“Expert” advisors.

Making …necessarily perfunctory, so far… showings in the primary states.

Hustling the corporate donors.

And so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, this O’Rourke guy has been breaking all of the rules, most importantly the one that says important, privileged politicians can’t go out and meet the people without a cadre of advisors and bodyguards at the ready.

As far as I know, this is truly revolutionary!!!

We shall see.

He may not run.

But if he does?

Watch out, DNC-ers!!!

A benevolent candidate is threatening your hegemony.

All’s I can say is:

It’s about time!!!

And about the numbers, too.

Watch.

Later…

AG

P.S. Given the grousings about O’Rourke’s voting record as a House member from some supposedly “ideologically pure” Dems, here and elsewhere, maybe your title (if not necessarily your conclusions) is quite accurate.

“Dems Prefer Electability to Ideological Purity”


Lord A’mighty!!!

I certainly hope so!!!

The Mother of All Headaches

When the Daily Caller asked President Trump during a recent interview if former Speaker Paul Ryan had lied or “played” him when he promised that he’d get funding for his wall, Trump said that he didn’t know for sure. According to the president, Ryan had begged him to sign an omnibus spending bill that included a big increase in military spending but no money for a physical barrier at the border.

TRUMP: Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that, because I don’t like this bill,’ although I love the bill for what it did for the military. And therefore, if it weren’t for the military, I would have vetoed it.

Just so you understand, our military needed funding desperately. Totally depleted. And this bill was great for the military. Had I vetoed it, you would never have gotten the numbers back that I got. 700 and 716 billion dollars over the past two years. Which is substantially more — much more than President Obama was able to get for the military.

So that was a negative, but a big factor as to why that was the reason I signed it. But another very big factor was the fact that Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’

Obviously, Ryan did not keep that promise. Trump offered that maybe Ryan had intended to keep it at the time but that he’d lost the power to accomplish it when he announced his retirement and became a lame duck Speaker.

The omnibus bill Trump was referring to was signed in March 2018 and Paul Ryan announced he would not seek reelection on April 11, 2018. When Trump reluctantly agreed to the March spending bill, he stated, “I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again.” But the omnibus only provided funding through the end of the fiscal year, which ends annually on September 30.

So, right around Labor Day, the congressional Republicans found themselves in the uncomfortable position of needing to convince Trump to sign off on a new spending bill with no wall-funding, which he had promised he would never do.

The top two Republicans in Congress arrived at the White House [in the first week in September] armed with props aimed at flattering and cajoling President Trump out of shutting down the government at the end of this month.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) showed the president glossy photos of a wall under construction along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) brought an article from the Washington Examiner that described Trump as brilliantly handling the current budget process, and portrayed the GOP as unified and breaking through years of dysfunction.

Their message, according to two people briefed on the meeting: The budget process is going smoothly, the wall is already ­being built, and there’s no need to shut down the government. Instead, they sought to persuade Trump to put off a fight for more border wall money until after the November midterm elections, promising to try then to get him the outcome he wants…

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Ryan did not want Trump to cause a government shutdown in the lead-up to the midterm elections. They were desperate enough on that point to bring glossy photos that misleadingly suggested that Trump’s wall was already under construction. They told him that they would try to get his money after the midterm elections were over, but they privately knew that they did not have the votes to accomplish that.

GOP leaders are convinced that they don’t have the votes to appropriate the money even now, when they control both chambers of Congress. They are trying to avoid a messy fight just ahead of the midterms.

They chose not to emphasize the point that the votes were not there at the time and would not be there after the midterms either.

Trump was given assurances at the White House meeting Wednesday that he will have GOP support for the wall funding once the midterm elections are over, said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

“He is very passionate about getting a vote on and, again, getting wall funding,” said Thune, who attended the meeting. “And I think that what we’ve tried to do is convince him that the best way to do that is to fund the government, get our work done and litigate that another . . . day. . . . I felt like coming out of that meeting that everybody was in the same place.”

Thune said Republican leaders believe that shutting down the government could lead the GOP to lose a number of congressional races in “these districts that we need to win to keep the House.”

The key point is that, for the second time, the congressional leaders succeeded in convincing Trump to keep the government open. In the latter case,  they promised to work for the wall-funding after the midterms. Yet, after the midterms they worked out a deal with the Democrats to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open that did not include the promised funding for the wall.  You can call this a broken promise since that’s exactly what it is, but it was only possible because the president was too stupid to understand the basic problem. They did not have the votes for his stupid wall in March, they didn’t have them in September, and the would not have them during the post-midterms lame duck session of Congress either.

What they had succeeded in doing twice was avoiding a government shutdown, and they seemed to convince Trump to avoid a government shutdown in December, too. The Senate passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open on an unanimous voice vote only to see Trump turn on a dime and force a 35-day shutdown when he was stung be criticism from some of his staunchest supporters.

The Democrats had retaken control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, so now Trump was trying to force a Democratic Speaker to do what a Republican one had been unable to accomplish.  To say this was a long-shot is an understatement, which is why the president quickly began rooting around for a way out of the crisis he had created that would allow him to save some face.

When someone mentioned to him that he might use emergency powers to bypass Congress’s power of the purse and divert funding to his wall, he seized on the idea as a way to exercise some leverage and to perhaps have a fallback plan.

In the Senate, the idea had a certain appeal. The Republicans there felt betrayed when the president ignored their unanimous vote to fund the government and instead forced a shutdown. They did not want to have to override the president’s veto to force the government open again. If he would agree to sign their spending bill and end the shutdown, it would get the problem off of their plate. An emergency declaration would get tied up in the courts and would ultimately fail, and they could in the meantime get back to their normal routine.

So, a few Republican senators embraced Trump’s threat thinking it was better than complete capitulation or having to take on the president’s supporters. But then someone who understands congressional procedure and the law realized that there was a fatal flaw in this plan. Rather than getting the Senate off a hot seat, it would quickly put them on an open flame.

Mr. [Mitch] McConnell, according to three people familiar with his thinking, has grown increasingly frustrated with the White House in recent days, telling associates that he thinks members of the president’s staff have failed to adequately brief him on the legislative and political perils of moving ahead with a disaster declaration.

During his White House meeting, disclosed by The Washington Post, Mr. McConnell predicted that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have the House immediately pass a “resolution of disapproval” attempting to block him from using existing funding for the wall.

Any senator from either party could then demand a vote, because the resolution would be deemed “privileged.” Mr. McConnell told Mr. Trump that he would have no choice but to schedule a floor vote on the measure within 15 days, and Republican aides have estimated that between three and 10 Republicans would side with the chamber’s Democrats against Mr. Trump.

That would force the president into a politically costly effort to keep the Senate from overriding his veto of the resolution, even as Democrats moved to block him in the courts.

The emergency or disaster declaration would force a Senate vote of approval or disapproval, meaning that every member would have to go on the record on a plan designed to usurp their spending powers. They would not have the votes to win, which would infuriate the base and put the president in another difficult and humiliating position.

Needless to say, Congress never actually approved of the emergency plan on the merits. The Republicans simply saw it as a way to end of the standoff that would keep them from having to confront their own president. But the plan would not come close to accomplishing that. First they would rebuke the president’s emergency declaration and then they’d have to decide whether or not to override his veto.

The veto override vote would be particularly painful. They would have already experienced a rupture with their base and with the White House, so any hope of avoiding those outcomes would be in the rearview window. On the merits, the emergency plan was bad politics, an usurpation of their powers, and still likely to be struck down by the courts. But they had humored the president in the idea long enough that they couldn’t get him off it.

Mr. Trump is not expected to declare the state of emergency during Tuesday’s [State of the Union] address. But he continues to threaten that he will divert funding for other military and infrastructure projects to build the wall, with or without congressional approval. He has told people close to him that he views the threat as his last remaining leverage in the fight.

It’s an astonishing failure on the congressional Republicans’ part that they have so thoroughly failed to influence the president that he still thinks the emergency threat is creating leverage on the Democrats. The Republicans certainly have the excuse that Trump just cannot understand or accept basic facts, but they’ve tried to manage this problem by leading him on. At first, it was just triage. If they could avoid a shutdown today then they could worry about the wall-funding problem later. Then, when the shutdown finally came, it was the flawed idea that an emergency declaration would be the least painful way to end it.

So, now they’re in the position of trying to talk Trump out of declaring an emergency because it will present them with the worst of all possible worlds. It’s a problem that they have richly earned.

Dems Prefer Electability to Ideological Purity

It looks like my suspicion that Democratic voters are in no mood for ideological purity is correct.

The poll also asked registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents about their party’s nomination process.  In considering who should be their party’s standard bearer, a majority of 56% prefer someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.  Just 33% say they would prefer a nominee who they are aligned with on the issues even if that person would have a hard time beating Trump.  Democratic women (61%) are more likely than men (45%) to say they would put their policy positions aside in order to get a nominee who could beat Trump.

“In prior elections, voters from both parties consistently prioritized shared values over electability when selecting a nominee. It looks like Democrats may be willing to flip that equation in 2020 because of their desire to defeat Trump. This is something to pay close attention to when primary voters really start tuning into the campaign,” said [Patrick] Murray, [the director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute].

This is why I don’t agree that some kind of ascendant socialism or millennial-driven enthusiasm will have an outsized role in determining the winner of the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating process. You might come to that conclusion if you spend a lot of time online looking at passionate blog-posts and infuriated tweets, but most Democratic voters are more concerned with winning than with finding a candidate who can check all of their boxes.

Obviously, this runs contrary to a lot of common wisdom which holds that the Democrats are moving sharply to the left and are desperate for confrontation and open resistance from their leaders. This is supposed to mirror the mood of the Republican electorate in the 2015-16 cycle. There are no doubt many similarities to be found between the two periods, but consider the standing of the Republican congressional leadership of John Boehner and Eric Cantor during Obama’s second term and compare it to Nancy Pelosi’s standing with rank-and-file Democrats today.

It’s important that, at least so far, Pelosi’s style of confrontation and resistance is seen as effective and laudable. Republicans saw Boehner and Cantor as completely ineffective.

That’s not to say that Democrats are thrilled with the performance of the Establishment as a whole, but they aren’t in open rebellion against their own leaders. They’re looking for a new leader who is broadly appealing and can’t be easily caricatured or beaten down. Where they stand on the left, right or center is of secondary importance to them in this cycle because losing isn’t an option.

This does not mean that Democrats are uninterested in ideology, nor that a centrist or moderate candidate will have some necessary advantage. All other things being equal, a moderate candidate will be at a disadvantage.  However, a candidate who can successfully project broad non-ideological appeal will be most of the way toward making a winning argument.  As I’ve long argued, with the right image and messaging, that candidate can be as progressive as they want to be.  But if they are quite obviously alienating wide swaths of gettable voters with either their rhetoric or their policies, that’s going to hurt them badly with Democratic voters.

This election cycle is not going to reward ideological rigidity or radicalism.  On the other hand, the winner could wind up being as far out of the historic mainstream as Trump.  Anything is possible with the right kind of campaign.

Why is Trump Turning to Dr. Ronny Jackson Again?

They call Dr. Ronny “the Candyman,” and not because he rolls those laughing bones.  It’s not because he’s reportedly known for getting drunk on the job and creating a hostile work environment. In truth, while serving in the White House,  Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson has passed out prescription medication like it is candy.  For all of those reasons, and also because he claimed that President Trump was in excellent health due to his “great genes,” Dr. Ronny was rejected by the U.S. Senate when he was nominated to be the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs.  Apparently, the inspector general of the Pentagon’s investigation of Jackson is still ongoing.

The president was furious when his personal doctor didn’t get a job in his cabinet and he placed most of the blame for the failure on Senator Jon Tester of Montana. He campaigned hard against Tester’s reelection in 2018, but he failed in that effort, too.  Perhaps out of spite, he kept Jackson on as employee of the White House Medical Office despite all of the allegations against him.

Something stranger is going on now. Trump has asked the Senate Armed Services Committee to promote Jackson in rank and give him a second rear admiral’s star.  In addition to that, he’s announced that Jackson “will serve as assistant to the President” and resume his role as Trump’s chief medical advisor.

You’d think that someone facing an active investigation could wait to get a military promotion, but the president is in some kind of hurry. It could be related to the fact that he’s not in the greatest health and Dr. Ronny has been a great help with that in the past.

Despite test results indicating that Trump is borderline obese and has a common form of heart disease — and worsening cholesterol and coronary calcium levels — Jackson described Trump as being in “excellent health,” and joked that if the President had a “healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old.”

At the time of Jackson’s last medical assessment of Trump, there was much speculation that the president is suffering from some kind of progressive mental decline, but Jackson administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test and declared that Trump had registered a perfect score. Now the president is due for his annual physical exam again, with an appointment at Walter Reed scheduled for February 8th. Perhaps he didn’t want just any doctor doing the tests.

That’s one possibility, although maybe he just doesn’t care what anyone thinks and his number one priority is to keep the Candyman closer at hand.

 

Ralph Northam

A simple question: How is it possible that nobody looked at Mr. Northam’s college and medical school yearbooks when he was running for governor?

Another Neo-Centrist Coward Has Once Again Zeroed Me Out.

And again I am posting the zeroed-out comment as a standalone.

It happened on Booman’s most recent “Casual Observation” post regarding the ongoing Northam ruckus. (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2019/2/2/152020/9213)

I will not be censored, nor will I be in any other way be silenced.

Bet on it.

Read on for more.
Centerfielddj posted a long and scurrilously inaccurate comment that…as usual…accused me of being some sort of right-wing sympathizer trying to promote dissension on this blog. Go to the “Casual Obervation” URL above if you want to read the whole thing. It starts with words “It’s generous to infer …”

I answered it quite thoroughly.

Following is my…now missing…reply to a comment by NJersey that seemed to accept some of centerfielddj’s inaccuracies as facts. I had considered posting it as a standalone instead of a comment/reply when I wrote it, but I had students to teach and ran out of time.

Thank you, centerfielddj or whichever other neocentrist tool and/or fool who zeroed it out.


Now even more people will read it.

Great work!!!

My reply to NJersey follows:

Please do not be fooled by this entity’s attacks. My non-lockstep position below (from my post above) sums up the essential source of all of the trolling done against me on this site.

This partisan bullshit has got to stop!!!

Rotten DemRats as well as rotten RatPubs need to be called out, and called out hard!!!

On every level!!!

Please!!!

Here are a few other red herrings that this [centerfielddj] entity throws out on a regular basis about my positions:

AG campaigned for Donald Trump here from August to November 2016 by concentrating his participation in this community by lodging nonstop attacks on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

No. I did not “campaign for Donald Trump.” I opposed HRC because she and her neoliberal/neocentrist (and crooked as hell) DNC satraps backstabbed Bernie Sanders in the primaries in every way that they knew how to do it. I still to this day maintain that Sanders would have beaten Trump if given a fair shot in he primaries, and even if he had failed at that he would have moved the Dem battle lines way left and way sooner.

During that same general election campaign, he wrote diaries here which documented his travels in conservative areas of New York and Pennsylvania. He not only conceded then that he did not try to talk conservative voters out of voting for Trump as he tried to talk progressives out of voting for Clinton, he angrily defends that behavior to this day.

Truly…in the simple interests of sheer self-survival…I did not try to talk rural white working class strangers in Dunkin’ Donuts, local restaurants and other places out of their political stances.

I have roots in Maine equivalents of those places and I know better than to mess with the beliefs of strangers of that sort. Things can get ugly in a hurry, so I kept my peace and simply listened/observed. I was in automobile transit for more than a week at that time. Had I gotten to know them and gained their trust to some degree, I most certainly would have tried to reason with them. I have had many discussions with people much like them who know and trust my family in Maine, and have not only gotten somewhere with them but also have begun to understand why they support people like Trump.

Long story short?

Sure.

We know he’s an asshole. But he’s our asshole!!!

Can’t argue with that. Not really. It’s not true, in the long run…he’s only in it for himself and his political/economic allies…but the same could be said of many people who support most mainstream Dems today. The Dems have fucked up 6 ways to Sunday…Trump’s election was just the capper…since Clinton I’s nifty little NAFTA move, and the whole country has paid for it. Talk people out of supporting them??? An almost Sisyphean task, as the give and take on this blog has so readily illustrated over the past several years. The Dems think that they’re better than the Republicans; the Republicans think that they’re better than the Dems, and the truth of the matter is that both parties are currently full of shit at their highest levels. The only truly good news as far as I can see it lies in the new Dems like AOC and Beto O’Rourke.

AG’s attacks here on Barack Obama and his Presidency were constant and frequently way over the top for most of Obama’s eight years in the office. He spent far, far more time here criticizing the first African-American President than he has spent criticizing our incredibly racist current President.

There are plenty of people…here and elsewhere…doing a thorough job of criticizing Trump, but not so many people understand that Obama’s reign…and the DNC/DNC-controlled media that supported and publicized him… were con jobs. Why pile on one side and ignore the faults of the others? The Dem’s problems are what brought us Trump.

Obama?

The “Peace President?”

No.

Obama the War president.

The Universal surveillance president.

The Wall Street president.

The globalist corporate-owned and operated president.

Bet on it.

A cursory reading of some truly progressive sites should be enough to establish that truth. Try back issues of Counterpunch for starters. (https://www.counterpunch.org)

I could go on puncturing centristfielddj’s red herring balloons, but I have to go to work now. That entity and its allies are not going to stop with the false attacks here…they hold to mainstream, neocentrist/neoliberal Dem positions and as I said above, the sum total results of those positions since Clinton I is a downward curve for this country any way you look at it. That applies to the RatPublicans, too. They both suck!!! You are relatively new here, I believe, and I hate to see new people poisoned by this kind of bullshit.

Think on it.

Later…

AG

No more need be said.

You either get it or you don’t.

Centristfield and his little gang of neo-McCarthyites most obviously do not.

Sad.

Later…

AG

Not until faithfulness turns to betrayal-and betrayal into trust-can any human being become part of the truth. — Rumi

It’s Too Early to Game the Dem Nomination

I’m not sure what to make of this analysis from my Washington Monthly colleague David Atkins. He’s taken on a task that is probably too ambitious, which is trying to predict how the Democratic primaries will go and what kinds of factors will drive them. I’d probably be dissatisfied with any blog-length effort to do this at such an early point in the process, including any I might offer myself.

Having said that, I do have specific critiques of the arguments Atkins has put forth. To begin with, he insists Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders should be considered odds-on favorites because the Democratic socialist wing of the party is “ascendant,” but it’s not really clear what he means by that term. The socialists are certainly on the rise, but that does not mean that they are dominant. Some of their ideas are moving from the fringe of the party toward the mainstream, but that can cut both ways. The ideas are getting more support in part by being coopted or accepted, which means less of an advantage for those who pushed them first. Anyone voting on the basis of Medicare-for-All, for example, will have perhaps more than a dozen options to choose from this time around.

Then there’s the way Atkins categorizes the candidates. He’s putting Sanders, Warren and Gabbard in one box and everyone else in another. He categorizes Booker, Harris and Castro as “establishment” candidates, which must be news to them. For some reason, Sherrod Brown doesn’t even warrant a mention. He doesn’t really explain his reasoning for putting Warren in a camp with Sanders and excluding everyone else but Gabbard.

While he correctly notes that early polling is largely about name recognition, he doesn’t address the latest poll in the field out of Iowa which shows former vice-president Joe Biden still in a commanding position with 29 percent of the vote. That poll, like the more general polling average, shows Warren and Sanders collectively pulling about a quarter of the Democratic electorate. Both of them individually trail Kamala Harris in Iowa who is clearly riding a post-rollout surge.

In an effort to rebut charges that the socialist wing lacks support from African-Americans, he makes distinctions about age, noting that Sanders did better with younger blacks in 2016. He also insists without providing supporting evidence that people of color are not any more ideologically moderate than liberal whites. That’s probably wishful thinking in the one area that really matters for this analysis, which is understanding the basis on which people cast their votes. I doubt very much that a significant fraction of blacks will cast Booker and particularly Harris into a category of retread apologists for the status quo and establishmentarian policies. I also doubt that the residual love for Barack Obama in the black community will fail to lift Joe Biden’s support with them above what it might be simply based on some ideological test. Black voters are more pragmatic than ideological and they don’t vote strictly based on identity. That is why so many of them waited until they saw Obama win in the nearly all-White state of Iowa before getting on his bandwagon back in 2008. If Booker or Harris have early success, then it’s possible that black support for them will surge, but again without much regard for ideology.

There will be another group of Democrats strongly interested in having a woman as the nominee, and they will likewise rally to a woman who takes an early lead without a whole lot of consideration for ideology. Protestations aside, identity politics on the left is at least as ascendant as socialism, which is one reason Warren could win the nomination even though she’s been typecast (yes, even by Atkins) as some kind of radical choice. The problem here is that Atkins is arguing that she could win because of her ideology rather than in spite of it.

In an effort to argue from authority, Atkins sets out his credentials at the outset.

I was one of the few writers to consistently predict from early on that Donald Trump (or perhaps Ted Cruz) would win the GOP nomination over his more establishment foes (and that he had a very good chance of winning the general election as well.) It wasn’t just a hunch: it was based on a close reading of the GOP base as well as the basic polling.

I also predicted early on that Trump stood a very good chance of winning the nomination, although I never took his general election chances seriously enough. Where I’ve had predictive success in the primaries, going all the way back to 2004, is by looking very closely at the process of how delegates are actually awarded. I am unwilling to make predictions for 2020 until I have completed a thorough analysis of how that process will work this time around, as well as at the calendar.

More than that, though, I think the candidates need to be heard from before we begin categorizing them. I see enormous distinctions between Warren and Sanders that Atkins doesn’t acknowledge. I think Cory Booker is surprisingly strong on market consolidation, particularly in the agricultural economy. Kamala Harris supports essentially doing away with the private health insurance industry which really ought not place her in the camp that doesn’t threaten Wall Street. Sherrod Brown is bringing his “dignity of work” message which aspires to bridge the artificial gap between progressives and the labor movement. I don’t think the candidates have even begun to ideologically sort themselves, and many of them haven’t even finished developing their message or strategies. There will no doubt be a few people who run to the middle arguing that everyone else is dangerously radical, but they won’t get any traction.

Above all, with so many candidates and without winner-take-all contests, it’s going to be difficult for anyone to take a majority of the delegates to the convention. For now, I’d rather be Joe Biden than any of the other candidates. He’s in the lead and he can count on Obama’s neutrality if not his outright support. He has the most appeal to the widest ideological range and would be the logical consensus choice in any brokered convention. He has connections and media approval that no one else can match. And, more than anything, there are so many options that it will be hard for anyone to consistently beat him from contest to contest.

He may not be a logical fit for the times or even the mood of the Democratic electorate, but he’s in the strongest position. The biggest threat to him is an early winnowing of the field, but that seems unlikely to happen this time around. For one thing, on the delegate math alone, no one will be able to get much of an early lead. For another, Trump showed how you can run a primary campaign on a shoestring budget, and there are always billionaires who can keep people alive with Super PAC money and the power of small donations for any candidate who can get a passionate following.

While I am not making any strong predictions here, I also think Atkins underestimates how badly 2016 damaged Bernie Sanders’s standing with the Democratic electorate. He’s treating the quarter of the electorate that currently supports either Sanders or Warren as a moveable block, as if Sanders could command it were Warren to drop out. It’s more likely that the 15 percent Sanders is currently pulling in Iowa is close to his ceiling. He’d have to secure the nomination before hoping to win the support of a single Clinton voter from 2016, and his base of support is already splintered among other alternatives. I don’t see how he could win more than a small fraction of it back.

Having said all of this, I do think it’s likely that the eventual nominee will emerge with an ideological profile far to the left of what has historically been the norm. But I don’t think that it follows from that they will have necessarily started from that point on the spectrum. The Democrats are going to push the candidates to the left but they’re also going to be on the lookout for weaknesses that they’ll worry can be too easily exploited. The desperation to beat the Republicans in 2020 will be great enough that pragmatism will still play a gigantic role in how people vote.