Tag: Democrats
Biden's latest mammoth success
What a difference a day makes.
All day Sunday and well into Monday I remained fretful. Afraid of the chaos and catastrophe that would result from a free-for-all at the Democratic Convention, wary of the media shitstorm that would drive and promote said chaos leading up to the convention, bracing for the Republican exploitation of all that chaos. It had the potential for unparalleled disaster considering the stakes of this year's election.
But by late yesterday most of my agitation was gone. My anxiety receded to a normal, healthy level of "WTF??!!!" regarding national politics in this time of Republicans becoming full-on fascists.
All thanks to Joe Biden.
Not because the president stepped aside and ended his reelection campaign, but because of how he did it. In a masterstroke of irony, President Biden did what few if any other leaders could do, successfully herded cats throughout the Democratic party and turned what he undoubtedly felt was an unfair, outsized, irrational betrayal by, if not party leadership then the American electorate, into a feat of political deftness that once again may have saved the country from fascism and a failing press corps.
I realize this is largely based in suppositions, but I have to believe this or something very close to this is true: Perhaps a week ago, likely just after he did the interview with Lester Holt on NBC, the president met with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Schumer somehow convinced him that key states were so greatly at risk, and that downballot races were so greatly at risk, that we'd be balancing on a knife's edge all the way through election day and that even if the president prevailed, the Senate would be lost to the fascists. Over the next few days, President Biden considered this information, consulted with the vice-president and his inner circle, and proceeded to work on a deal with the Democratic Party leaders. He would drop out of the race for renomination if and only if everyone got behind Vice President Harris right away. There was to be no open convention, no more infighting, no more of the crap that fed the irresponsible reportage that we've been swimming in. If the people who were allegedly considering getting into the race agreed not to run, if everyone in leadership would endorse Kamala Harris, and do it with time to spare before the pre-convention official nomination that needs to happen to counter Republican legal fuckery in Ohio and maybe a couple of other states, then he would agree to step aside. If not, he was in it to the end, because chaos would help Trump win way more than Biden being the nominee would.
The agreement was reached, and the president kept his final decision to himself from probably Tuesday or Wednesday of last week. Then he kept quiet until the Republican convention of autocratic fanboys and fangirls and cultists concluded, finally informing everyone at once on Sunday afternoon. Allowing a brief interval to pass while people reacted to the bombshell, he then released the statement throwing his full unequivocal support to Vice President Harris.
And what do you know, as the hours passed, Harris was endorsed by more and more Democratic leaders. Biden delegates in state after state pledged themselves to the VP. By the end of yesterday, Harris had the enthusiastic support of a healthy majority of the delegates needed to win the nomination.
Democrats are a so-called "big tent" party. We welcome all sorts, pretty much anyone who's supportive of the U.S. Constitution, which means there's lots of disagreement within. It's always a mess to get through a primary season when there's no incumbent running and there is always a faction that won't support the eventual nominee because reasons. I have to think that, without Joe Biden's skills and experience in politics, this transition to Vice President Harris would have been a clusterfrak.
Joe came through for us. Again. Despite (and because of!) the way he was treated by the press, by some of his own party, and by voters who claimed—without backing the claim up—he had zero chance to win reelection even though his has been the single most accomplished administration in a generation or more. (And, as was pointed out by Lawrence O'Donnell last night, done with a degree of difficulty neither LBJ or FDR had to face given the makeup of Congress then and now.)
I still believe Biden would have won in November, but now we'll never know. I also think Kamala Harris is fantastic, that she is a formidable candidate that can and will win by a much larger margin.
I didn't want Joe to drop out. He deserves better. But I'm pleased with how things have turned out so far and anticipate a very fine Harris presidency.
Tagged
President Biden,
Democrats,
Kamala Harris |
Posted on July 23, 2024 at 3:16pm | Permalink | 
| 
Now what?
Well, I didn't see that coming.
Really. I did not think I was wrong when I said Joe Biden isn't going anywhere. But clearly I was, because just before I left for my umpiring shift today he ended his campaign for reelection.
Not much news has broken yet, just the official statement of his withdrawal from the race and an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee. Plus word that several Democratic leaders have also endorsed Harris.
What made Joe change his mind? We may learn that at some point, we may not. I mean, we'll get a rationale sometime this week, I imagine, but I wonder if it will be real or just sanitized for public consumption. Was the president truly convinced this was the best move, or was he essentially forced into it by moneyed interests? Was it just due to polling? If it was simply polling data, then shame on the Democratic Party; the polling is janky and incomplete to say the least, and is more an indictment of the party apparatus' failure to break through the noise and bullshit in what passes for news media these days.
I hope, and I suspect, that President Biden made it a condition of his agreeing to step aside that all the party mucketymucks get behind Harris, that the alternative candidate possibilities that have been thrown around—Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, House and Senate leaders—promise not to run and fuck things up. That the condition for his agreeing to not run is the infighting stops. NOW.
It was not so much the president's debate performance that killed his candidacy as it was the subsequent freakout and colossally irresponsible corporate press obsessing over the freakout and ignoring the Republican promises to turn this country into an autocratic despotism. The people freaking out and the press seem to want chaos, as infighting sells newspapers (or their digital equivalents) and generates ratings on cable news, and the last thing we need now is chaos at next month's Democratic Convention. Assuming the decision was not, in fact, based on a legitimate and specific health issue, I have to imagine that President Biden is pretty pissed off right now.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a lengthy video on Friday warning against pushing Biden aside because of the logistics, the fact that the primary is over, and the fact that Republicans will exploit any chaos that results not just politically but legally, possibly finding ways for critical state ballot decisions to make their way to the six corrupt apostates on the Roberts Supreme Court. Her arguments are basically the same as the ones I've tried to make, and are why I am now freaking out when I wasn't before.
If there is chaos, we're in serious trouble. If it is a smooth, conflict-free (relatively; I mean, we are Democrats) transition to Vice President Harris atop the ticket, then things might start to look good again. But until the convention is over in a few weeks I will be metaphorically biting my nails and spastically twitching now and again in anticipation of a supreme self-inflicted fuckup that ends the country.
Tagged
Politics,
President Biden,
Democrats,
Kamala Harris,
AOC |
Posted on July 21, 2024 at 8:03pm | Permalink | |
Panic never leads to good decisions
It's been two weeks since the horrible, awful, no-good debate performance from President Biden. In that two weeks, the press—most notably the New York Times, but plenty of other outlets as well—has been stunningly irresponsible in perpetuating the panic within the Democratic party. A panic brought on by the two big events the president appeared at after his multiple trips to Europe last month: a fundraiser in Los Angeles and the so-called "debate" in Atlanta. The president was not at his best, to say the least, at either event, appearing tired and softspoken and failing to deliver the kind of tactical rhetoric that would effectively wound Donald Trump. Some Democrats have extrapolated from this that President Biden is too frail, too diminished, to continue running for reelection, and the Times and other media have jumped on it like flies swarming over fresh manure.
We've had two weeks of this and that two weeks of panic has done more damage to the campaign than the events themselves ever could have.
I get that people are scared. Hell, I'm scared. But what we're scared of is not Joe Biden.
Not one person outside of the MAGA cult lemmings, not even the cult's leaders, is afraid of what might happen if Joe Biden wins reelection. No one outside the cult lemmings fears a serious crisis befalling the nation if Joe Biden remains president because we know that Joe Biden is decency personified. Because we know that his vice-president, his cabinet, and his staff are supremely competent people committed to upholding the Constitution and American values and ethical behavior. Because we understand that if it should happen that Joe Biden became unable to continue his second term as president due to declining faculties, those competent people would step in, and should they be unable to convince the president he wasn't able to continue they would put country first and employ the 25th Amendment.
The only people that fear a second Joe Biden victory are the grossly uninformed, the rubes that swallow right-wing propaganda whole, and the racists/misogynists who can't abide a woman minority possibly succeeding to the presidency (and no one should give those people the time of day).
As I've said before, what we fear are stupid people. We fear the tens of millions of voters who behave like Level Seven Susceptibles, mindlessly absorbing Republican misinformation and fearmongering. Most of whom don't really have evil intent; only a relative few of these millions are actually pro-fascism, actually want to see their neighbors rounded up and sent to concentration camps, actually want the courts to continue shredding the Constitution, actually want to see American military troops stationed all over major U.S. cities enforcing a police state. They've just been conned.
That's who is causing the gigantic and potentially suicidal freakout within the Democratic party.
Let's just keep that in mind as we pore over yet more coverage of said freakout and see the freakout spread to our own circles.
I have had three conversations in the last week with friends who are in the Biden-needs-to-drop-out camp. I think they are very much wrong, but I understand why they feel the way they do. Winning this election is critical, and because the news media as a whole has proven itself unwilling to stand on the side of democracy and law and truth, the perception keeps growing that Biden Is A Problem That Can't Be Surmounted.
But here's the thing: it's too late to change candidates. If there were really and truly worries within the party about Biden's cognitive faculties and ability to do his job—real, thought-through evaluations and real rationally-arrived at concern—it would have surfaced when the primary campaign began and the push would have been made then to nominate someone else. But that didn't happen, and now the primaries are over, and the delegates and campaign funds and infrastructure belong to Joe Biden. The only—repeat, only—possible alternative candidate at this point is Vice President Harris, as hers is the only other name on the ticket and she is the only other person allowed to use those funds. (Not to mention the fact that Biden is beloved by the African American community and should he decide not to continue, bypassing his VP would be a slap in their collective face.)
But would switching to Harris actually make the race more winnable?
I've heard arguments that such a switch would galvanize young voters, that it would bring more people of color into the fold, that it would give a fresh sense of "youth" to the race. All of which is pure, unadulterated speculation conjured from an imaginary universe. Might it be true? Sure, maybe. Might it not? Sure, maybe. Those first two arguments in particular I think are specious; younger voters are by far the least reliable constituency year after year, and as mentioned, you risk alienating POC just as much if not more than attracting them by dumping Biden.
It's a matter of the devil you know versus the devil you don't. The potential for utter catastrophe is, in my view, far greater, enormously greater with the devil we don't. Incumbents challenged from within their party always lose. A challenge at the convention would invite chaos. Republicans would have a field day exploiting such chaos.
There is almost nothing I would want to emulate from the modern Republican Party—they are led as mindless drones by exploitative, greedy, power-hungry, fascistic liars with the ethical standards of Pol Pot—but they have illustrated something about the American public that the rest of us should take note of:
No matter how unfit and disastrous for the country they know most of the electorate would find their candidates, they close ranks and fight for him (it's usually a him, Marjorie Sporkfoot notwithstanding), and as often as not, it works.
Richard Nixon won thanks in large part to Democratic chaos in 1968. Ronald Reagan won in large part because Ted Kennedy primaried incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980. George W. Bush won—or came close enough that it didn't matter—in 2000 and 2004 despite being demonstrably stupid. And Trump won in 2016 despite his litany of crimes and crassness and obvious colossal ignorance. All of these Republicans championed policies that were profoundly detrimental to a large majority of Americans and all of them committed crimes in office (and, to this point at least, got away with them). Except for Reagan—who was able to use his Hollywood charisma to fool people into thinking he was a good guy and, for his reelect, to mask his Alzheimer's—they were also terrible candidates, but the GOP nevertheless closed ranks and pushed them through. (Please see and share my capsule history of the presidency.)
I'm not suggesting that Democrats now employ Republican tactics of lying to voters and conning them into thinking their guy isn't who their guy really is. Not only is that despicable, there's no need for it. Our guy really is a good guy fighting for all citizens, Americans and global citizens as well. He's just old.
No, I'm suggesting Democrats quit fighting amongst ourselves and back the President. Strongly, without reservation, without fretting about age or how loudly he speaks or how tiring the job of President is. Yes, by all means, coach him on better rhetoric to use when campaigning, get him in front of the public and on TV frequently to not only tout his phenomenal record but show the uninformed how dangerous the Republican plan to destroy the country really is. (We also need to remind people how awful the Trump Administration was and that Trump 1.0 was only that disastrous because there were patriotic Americans in government to stop him from taking even more ruinous actions, and Trump 2.0 would have no such patriots to get in his way. But I suspect that's a job for ads and surrogates more than for the president himself.)
All of us have known older people. Some frailer than others, some mentally sharper than others. We all (or mostly all) have the firsthand experience of knowing that only some senior citizens are incapable of rational decision-making, which is what the job of President boils down to. My grandfather lived to be 92, and sure, after he hit 80 he wasn't getting around as easily and his voice lost some of its timbre, but he never lost his faculties. He was sharp at 90, conversing about novels and relating stories of his aviation career and marveling over Vladimir Guerrero's ability to hit terrible pitches. He just spoke with less vocal strength. He had a friend, a fellow ex-pilot, who at 80 or maybe late-70s had physically declined so much he could hardly communicate. For whatever reasons, some people fare better than others, and physical decline from age does not necessarily bring cognitive failures with it. This shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Joe is over 80. Trump is a sociopathic criminal bent on tyranny. Joe has, like all but one president before him, shown obvious signs of age beyond the norm from the stress of being president. When Trump was president, he of course never actually worked enough to stress himself beyond the levels of his previous life of crime and grift, so his aging seemed "normal." Joe can get tripped up by his stutter and his over- or mis-preparation for appearances getting in the way of extemporaneous speaking. Trump will occasionally say something truthful by accident while spewing a torrent of bullshit. Joe is comparatively robust for a man in his 80s in a phenomenally stressful job. Trump is essentially a few Big Macs away from cardiac failure and is lazy as fuck.
This is not only a winnable race, it's a rout waiting to happen if the Democratic Party will just quit rending its garments and panicking over what the stupids might do if they think Joe Biden is an old man.
Focus. Get behind your guy, because he's not going away. Champion him, campaign your asses off, and make it clear to anyone who will listen that Biden's disembodied brain in a jar Futurama-style would still be infinitely more desirable than Donald Trump at any age.
Tagged
Politics,
President Biden,
Democrats |
Posted on July 11, 2024 at 3:27am | Permalink | |
One of these things is not like the other
A while back I made reference here to what I call the "battered spouse contingent" of the Republican party. I was subsequently asked what I meant by that, and it's pretty simple—people who continue to vote Republican despite the fact that Republican policies have hurt them repeatedly. That wasn't readily accepted as valid by my questioner, and in the interests of civility I didn't press the point overly much.
This individual reminded me a lot of people I've known over the years that have espoused sentiments like, "it doesn't matter who wins [a presidential election] because they're all the same." Or, "I voted for [third-party candidate] because s/he's the only one that I agree with," or for reasons of protest over the two-party system.
The "they're all the same" garbage seemed to peak (in my lifetime, anyway) in the 2000 campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore. We can thank Ralph Nader for a lot of that. But regardless of the why, the result of people thinking like that was a GWB administration that began with corruption of the energy industry (Enron, anyone?), then 9/11 shocked the president despite his having been warned well in advance that something like it was being planned, then the response to 9/11 changed the world for the worse for decades.
They were not remotely the same.
While it's not as prevalent as it was in 2000, the idea that there's little to no difference between the parties is still espoused by a not insignificant percentage of Americans. Most of this is out of ignorance, some willful some not, but today the idea is being pushed indirectly by the Republican party—because if everyone is corrupt, then who cares that so many Republicans are? The Trumpification of the GOP has us more polarized than ever, but the parties have been starkly different for a long time. People who are not political junkies like me just don't know it.
So I had this idea to put together a little snapshot of how the country did under the last several presidents, something that would be easy to digest. Kind of like the back of a baseball card, with the important stats and facts laid out in black and white. (While my formal education in American history is limited to some University survey courses, I am a bit of a history nerd and know a thing or two from study and from having lived through time with my eyes and ears open.) And then I heard Buzz Burbank on The Bob Cesca Show joke about how we need a "pamphlet drop" to remind people about everything from 2016-2021, and I started expanding the thought.
In putting that idea into form, I found it isn't practical to just list economic stats and global crises if you want to convey the performance of an administration. You need more information. But I've endeavored to find a middle ground between back-of-the-baseball-card and pages-in-an-encyclopedia to show at a relative glance how the country fared under different administrations.
So, parameters:
Firstly, to my knowledge and judgment, the last Republican president who was worthy of holding the office—that is, who took his oath the the Constitution seriously, who actively worked for the benefit of the people as a whole, who didn't commit or abet crime or corrupt practices, and who wasn't otherwise overtly doing harm for his own purposes—was Dwight Eisenhower, POTUS No. 34, whose term ended in 1961. (One could make an argument for Ford, but he wasn't elected as either POTUS or VP and that pardon... No. The pardon is a disqualifier.) In Ike's time, the Republicans were a centrist party that balanced a belief in free-market capitalism with the needs of the populace, were staunchly anti-Communist and saw the US as a global force for freedom and democracy, and were happy to maintain the social status quo. Since then we can see a steady decline from that to today's autocratic, anti-democracy, isolationist, corruptly fascist Republicans, with mileposts along the way in Richard Nixon, Henry Kissenger, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell, all the way to Trump and his Trump Sycophants.
So we begin with Ike's successor, John F. Kennedy, in 1961, and examine several items for each administration: economic indicators, military conflicts, scandals, global or national crises, notable staff, important achievements or policies, and Supreme Court appointments. I wrap each one up with a brief(ish) few paragraphs of context, keeping things to a single page (though I did have to adjust my typesetting format a few times to make that work). It's a remarkably even split between the two parties in power—in those 64 years, there have been six Democratic presidents and six Republican presidents, each covering a total of 32 years (including 2024).
But before getting into the individuals, here's a composite back-of-the-card snapshot.
DEMOCRATS (8 TERMS)Total budget deficit increase: (–$2.716 trillion) Major wars: 2, 1 inherited |
REPUBLICANS (8 TERMS)Total budget deficit increase: $3.338 trillion Major wars: 4, 1 inherited |
Republicans added three and a third trillion dollars to the deficit, Democrats recovered over two and two-thirds trillion of it despite the handicap of having to pay all that interest on Republican debt. Republicans gave us almost seven years of recession to the Democrats' one and a quarter (more than half of which was recovering from The Great Recession of G.W. Bush). Tell me again how the Republicans are the fiscally responsible ones.
Anyway, here's the completed project. I plan on distributing it to some podcasters I like in hopes they will make it available to their audiences in hopes that members of those audiences will share it with folks they know and in an ideal world it "goes viral." Not really expecting that, based on my history in trying to promote things on the Internet, but we'll see.
Feel free to spread this around, everybody.
Tagged
Politics,
Republicans,
Democrats |
Posted on April 23, 2024 at 4:23pm | Permalink | |