Democrats for Ohio governor in the news today: Schiavoni, Pillich, Whaley, Sutton, Cordray, Springer... The only question: Who will Win, Place and Show?
The mainstream media never -- never! -- tells us what candidates stand for. We knew far more about Always Dreaming on Derby morning than we'll know about our next governor when we get up on election day.
Body slamming the electorate
Absentee balloting, as it was originally conceived, is a good and necessary thing. There is no reason that people away from home, disabled or living in nursing facilities should be denied their franchise. But the abuse of absentee voting by both parties has reached a point where in many districts the outcome of elections are determined by party loyalists who have not bothered to consider and compare the actual candidates.
A dramatic example of this is happening this week in Montana's special congressional election, where the local sheriff’s office cited GOP candidate Greg Gianforte on a charge of misdemeanor assault for “body slamming” journalist Ben Jacobs after he asked the Republican about the GOP's recently passed health-care bill. It is more than likely that at least some voters undecided or leaning toward Gianforte will reconsider their vote in light of his seeming inability to control himself under pressure. How likely do you think it is that the outcome of the race will be changed, however, when you consider that election analysts estimate that roughly two-thirds of early votes had already been cast before one of the candidates faced an assault charge?
One possible way of fixing early voting abuse would be to permit absentee ballots to be mailed no sooner than three days before election day; ballots with earlier postmarks would be disqualified. To keep party operatives from rounding up ballots weeks in advance and bulk mailing them within the deadline, absentee ballots would also be required under penalty of law to be signed on the day they were mailed. Such a deadline would not seriously inconvenience any of the intended users of absentee voting, those actually absent from their precincts, while allowing campaigns to play out to the fullest extent possible.
A dramatic example of this is happening this week in Montana's special congressional election, where the local sheriff’s office cited GOP candidate Greg Gianforte on a charge of misdemeanor assault for “body slamming” journalist Ben Jacobs after he asked the Republican about the GOP's recently passed health-care bill. It is more than likely that at least some voters undecided or leaning toward Gianforte will reconsider their vote in light of his seeming inability to control himself under pressure. How likely do you think it is that the outcome of the race will be changed, however, when you consider that election analysts estimate that roughly two-thirds of early votes had already been cast before one of the candidates faced an assault charge?
One possible way of fixing early voting abuse would be to permit absentee ballots to be mailed no sooner than three days before election day; ballots with earlier postmarks would be disqualified. To keep party operatives from rounding up ballots weeks in advance and bulk mailing them within the deadline, absentee ballots would also be required under penalty of law to be signed on the day they were mailed. Such a deadline would not seriously inconvenience any of the intended users of absentee voting, those actually absent from their precincts, while allowing campaigns to play out to the fullest extent possible.
For the Record:
"This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!" -- Pres. Donald Trump
"As the Representative of Salem, MA, I can confirm that this is false." -- Rep. Seth Moulton
"As the Representative of Salem, MA, I can confirm that this is false." -- Rep. Seth Moulton
A new New Deal
In another ridiculous discussion of Bernie Sanders' undermining of the grand old Democratic Party, this: "We are the only party in the last 100 years to successfully push this country toward real progress."
This is absolutely true. It also ended about 45 years ago. The history of the country since the early 1970s is a record of decline. And since the 70s, the Democrats have held the reins of power more often than the Republicans. In that time, we have suffered militarization of foreign policy and, domestically, of the police; incarceration of vast numbers of citizens; severe decline of infrastructure; neglect of public services; huge transfers of public wealth into private hands; decimation of the middle class; a housing crisis; increased poverty...
It is true that more Democrats than Republicans resisted these developments, but not a majority and not the leadership; that is an argument for electing Democrats with those principles and policy goals; it is not an argument favoring continuing control of the party by neoliberals. Most Democrats agree on social issues (abortion excepted), but that's not why we're Democrats; you can be a liberal on social issues and still favor right-wing and libertarian economic policies. The reason to make progressive economic policies primary is that they are the area of broadest agreement among Democrats (neo-liberals excepted), and the guarantee of a decent life -- basic income, a roof over one's head, the ability to be properly educated and trained, protection from impoverishment by medical catastrophe, job loss or old age -- has the broadest appeal to the electorate.
History will look back at the last 40 years as the Reagan-Clinton era. It is time to turn in a different direction, back toward the road to economic and social justice that was the promise of Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. We need a new New Deal. The goal should be a great society, not an okay one.
This is absolutely true. It also ended about 45 years ago. The history of the country since the early 1970s is a record of decline. And since the 70s, the Democrats have held the reins of power more often than the Republicans. In that time, we have suffered militarization of foreign policy and, domestically, of the police; incarceration of vast numbers of citizens; severe decline of infrastructure; neglect of public services; huge transfers of public wealth into private hands; decimation of the middle class; a housing crisis; increased poverty...
It is true that more Democrats than Republicans resisted these developments, but not a majority and not the leadership; that is an argument for electing Democrats with those principles and policy goals; it is not an argument favoring continuing control of the party by neoliberals. Most Democrats agree on social issues (abortion excepted), but that's not why we're Democrats; you can be a liberal on social issues and still favor right-wing and libertarian economic policies. The reason to make progressive economic policies primary is that they are the area of broadest agreement among Democrats (neo-liberals excepted), and the guarantee of a decent life -- basic income, a roof over one's head, the ability to be properly educated and trained, protection from impoverishment by medical catastrophe, job loss or old age -- has the broadest appeal to the electorate.
History will look back at the last 40 years as the Reagan-Clinton era. It is time to turn in a different direction, back toward the road to economic and social justice that was the promise of Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. We need a new New Deal. The goal should be a great society, not an okay one.
From the Your-Mouth-To-God's-Ear Desk:
“I’m not a candidate for FBI director.” -- Rudy Giuliani, at the Trump hotel bar in D.C. after midnight early Wednesday morning.
Who's on first?
It's revealing that the establishment media in the U.S., having taken repeated notice of the number of French voters who abstained or cast blank ballots in the French presidential election to raise questions about Emmanuel Macron's legitimacy ("blank invalid ballots account for 9% of all registered voters; abstention rate at 24.52%"), is not similarly troubled about the U.S. government's legitimacy given that about 40% of adult Americans routinely abstain from voting.
"French election results: The case for saying Marine Le Pen actually came third," as one headline put it. Applying this analysis to November's results, Donald Trump came in third, Hillary Clinton second, and -- to the relief of most Americans -- None of the Above is president of United States.
"French election results: The case for saying Marine Le Pen actually came third," as one headline put it. Applying this analysis to November's results, Donald Trump came in third, Hillary Clinton second, and -- to the relief of most Americans -- None of the Above is president of United States.
From the Money-Talks-Bullshit-Walks Desk:
“No district is off the table." -- Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the House Democratic campaign chairman.
Except, so far, for Kansas and Montana. In other words, except for two out of three.
Except, so far, for Kansas and Montana. In other words, except for two out of three.
Fight!
Republican Tommy Pope is favored over Democrat Archie Parnell in SC's 5th District next month. That contest is unlikely to see the same magnitude of investment from national parties and superpacs currently flooding the special elections in Georgia and Montana. Apparently, it will be more like the Kansas race that was narrowly lost because of the national Democrats' disinterest.
So much for the "50 States" strategy.
If the Democrats are serious about winning in 2018 and 2020, they will need to treat every contest seriously, not least because a losing race can lay the foundation for a win later and can influence outcomes in neighboring districts and in contests further up the political food chain, such as governor and senator. The Working Families Party, Greens, independents, et al might want to look at whether the Democrats' strategy of giving up various congressional districts and senate seats without a fight is an opportunity.
So much for the "50 States" strategy.
If the Democrats are serious about winning in 2018 and 2020, they will need to treat every contest seriously, not least because a losing race can lay the foundation for a win later and can influence outcomes in neighboring districts and in contests further up the political food chain, such as governor and senator. The Working Families Party, Greens, independents, et al might want to look at whether the Democrats' strategy of giving up various congressional districts and senate seats without a fight is an opportunity.
Yelling at buildings is not enough
The resistance is gratifying and fun and maybe consciousness-raising, but real change will come from an aggressive and eventually victorious opposition.
In the fight over the omnibus spending bill, the Democrats didn't do too badly: no funding for the border wall; no penalty for sanctuary cities; no rollback of environmental programs; no gutting of consumer financial protections; plus funding for ACA subsidies, Planned Parenthood, miners’ health benefits, and Medicaid payments for Puerto Rico.
But both the reactionaries now in power and the neoliberals they replaced must be overcome in 2018 and 2020 if the republic is to be set back on the road toward economic and social justice from which it was deflected 40 years or so ago. It will do us no good to go back to the politics and policies that made the reactionaries' victory possible -- inevitable -- in the first place.
Comprehensive Government Funding Bill Released (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
