Monthly Archives: May 2018

Still waiting for President Sanders

We have the opportunity to avoid making in 2020 the same mistakes that we made in 2016. There is absolutely no guarantee that we’ll avoid repeating those mistakes, however. Stupidity tends to be repetitive.

In March I noted that

My regular readers (there are at least a handful of them) will have noticed that during the illegitimate reign of the unelected Pussygrabber regime my blogging has dropped off considerably.

It’s that I can’t blog on every outrage. There are far too many of them these days (and weeks and months).

That remains true. And “President” Pussygrabber doesn’t deserve all of the attention that he gets for being The Chaos “President.” That and after the dust from all of the chaos has settled, we still have the same old status quo.

Therefore there is no use in expending energy over the illegitimate Pussygrabber regime, except in cases where it’s necessary to protect imminently the civil and human rights of its victims, of which many organizations (such as the American Civil Liberties Union) and the federal courts are doing a fairly good job.

Unfortunately, given the U.S. system of governance, there is little that we, the people, can do but ride it out (and vote wisely). When we have a shitty “president” like George W. Bush or Pussygrabber — neither of whom took the Oval Office with the highest number of votes of the American people — given that the removal of a sitting president requires a vote of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, our best hope is to neuter the awful president/“president” in Congress.

As I also noted in March:

What’s more likely to happen is that the Repugnican traitors lose the U.S. House of Representatives in November. Then, “President” Pussygrabber is neutered. (True, expect him and his band of fellow traitors and criminals to do as much damage as they possibly can until then and even afterwards.)

Then, after November 2020, ideally we’ll have both houses of Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, as woefully imperfect as the Democratic Party is, and we’ll have President Bernie Sanders in the Oval Office.

I still surmise that the Democrats most likely will take back the House in November, and that they’ll probably retake the Senate in 2020 if not in November.

And Bernie Sanders must pose a serious threat to the “Democratic” establishmentarians who always are ready, willing and able to accept and excuse a certain surprisingly high amount of evil in the names of “common sense,” “pragmatism,” “adult compromise” and the like, because the attacks on him by the Billarybots (that is, the “centrist” “Democrats”) have returned.

The website Politico, for instance, has a resident Bernie-basher on board named Edward-Isaac Dovere, whose recent headlines include “Bernie’s Army in Disarray” and “Sanders to Run as a Democrat — but Not Accept Nomination” on May 21, “Our Revolution Keeps Consultant Who Made Anti-Immigrant Comments” on May 22, “Sanders Group Reverses, Ditches Aide Who Made Anti-Immigrant Comments” on May 23, and “Second Top Official Resigns from Bernie Sanders Group” on May 24.

Are we not to notice that the same guy hammers on Bernie Sanders days in a row?

Let me respond to some of those headlines. If “Bernie’s army” is in “disarray,” well, um, the 2020 presidential cycle hasn’t geared up yet, and, already having run for president once, he’s in much better shape now than he was in 2016.

And in 2016 Bernie Sanders pretty much came out of nowhere to end up winning 22 states in the caucuses and primaries, and he won 46 percent of the pledged (democratically earned) delegates.

He won over almost half of the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters when Billary “Crown Me Already” Clinton had been running for the Oval Office ever since her mama popped her out, but Bernie’s remarkable achievement in 2016 never has been and never will be acknowledged by the soulless, lying Billarybots, of course.

Bernie runs the way that he runs in Vermont, and the voters there keep returning him to office. That’s between him and his voters. And as Politico’s resident Bernie-basher himself reports:

The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution over the weekend supporting Sanders’ move, proclaiming that he could still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.”

“It’s hard to explain to people from out of state how we’ve made peace with it as a party, how Bernie’s made peace with it. We’re on board,” said Vermont [Democratic Party] state chairman Terje Anderson.

That’s good enough for me, but we don’t want to ruin a perfectly good nasty headline, do we? So we’ll keep “Sanders to Run as a Democrat — but Not Accept Nomination.”

Other stories do apparently have some validity. For a while Bernie’s organization, Our Revolution, apparently did keep on board an individual (a Tezlyn Figaro, whom I’d never heard of) who had expressed anti-immigrant sentiment, apparently pushing out Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman and a founding member of Our Revolution, and Catalina Vasquez, an undocumented immigrant and transgender activist who was another member of Our Revolution. (I’d heard of Flores, but not of Vasquez.) Figaro since has been expelled from Our Revolution, which reportedly and apparently needs to do a lot better with Latinos, who comprise the largest non-white racial and/or ethnic group in the nation.

But do I think that reports of infighting within Our Revolution, this far out, will harm Bernie Sanders’ presidential run for 2020? No, probably not. Infighting is present in most groups of diverse people. And the earlier that the Sanders camp learns to be more inclusive of and more sensitive to those of other groups, the better, even though the Sanders side is punished more severely than is the establishmentarian side for the same real or perceived or even fabricated transgressions.

And the Politico-stirred-up brouhaha is indicative, I think, of the dueling concerns of the famously messy Democratic coalition. There are so many interest groups that gravitate toward the Democratic Party — feminists, blacks, Latinos, Asians, non-heterosexual and transgender individuals, immigrants’ rights activists, environmentalists, labor-union members, socialists and even some capitalists, atheists and plenty of theists, et. al. — that it’s going to be a political blood bath if one believes that his or her (or “their”) own group’s interests should be the party’s centerpiece and that the other groups should take a back seat.

Let us learn this lesson now.

Bernie did it right in 2016, I think: he focused primarily on socioeconomic justice, which affects virtually every member of the Democratic coalition, and not only the Democratic coalition, but the growing number of American voters (myself included) who call themselves “independents.”

No, we don’t throw the various members of the Democratic Party coalition under the bus, but we also need to acknowledge that the “independents” who aren’t hard-core feminists or black or Latino or gay or immigrants are turned off when they don’t feel that they are included in the discussion or within the circle of concern, but glibly are written off as “deplorables.” They then vote for the likes of Pussygrabber.

It’s a delicate political balance. No, I don’t advocate that we lick the asses of the Pussygrabber voters. No. But we need to recognize — and recognize well — that with identity politics, we don’t give a reason for those who aren’t a member of one of the vaunted special-interest groups to vote for us.

And craven identity politics still rears its ugly head. For example, I congratulate Stacey Abrams on her recent win of the Democratic Party’s nomination for governor for Georgia. (She was endorsed by Our Revolution, I’ll add.)

However, pretty much the only thing that I know about Abrams, besides the fact that she was a minority leader in her state’s legislature, is that if elected as Georgia’s next governor, she’d be the first black female governor in U.S. history.

That would be an important milestone, no doubt, and we already should have had a black female governor by now, but is that really the primary (or even the only) reason to support her? Given the buzz about her, apparently it is.

But what about her stances on the issues? What about her accomplishments?

Black female voters can participate in and perhaps even relish in the fact that Abrams would be the nation’s first black female governor, but what about other voters?

Ditto for Kamala Harris. We’re overdue for a black female president, too, but being a Californian who has voted for her and who is familiar with her, I can say that it’s way too early to proclaim Harris, who hasn’t been a U.S. senator for even two years now, to be presidential material, and no, it’s not enough that she’s a black woman.

If the Democrats want to lose 2020 like they lost 2016, all that they have to do is front a Kamala Harris — and proclaim that anyone who isn’t enthusiastic about voting for her for president is not only sexist, like they supposedly were for not wanting to vote for the deplorable Billary Clinton, but that they’re racist, too.

If that happens, “President” Pussygrabber will get a second term. Mark my words. You saw it here today.

Bernie Sanders’ message of socioeconomic justice in 2020, however, would, I am confident, be a winning message.

If you doubt that, here is a simple fact of history that the Billarybots never will tell you: Right up to the point where he lost the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination to Billary Clinton, Bernie Sanders was beating Pussygrabber in the polls by just more than 10 percentage points on average.

At the same time period, Billary was polling only a few percentage points ahead of Pussygrabber on average, a dynamic that stuck all the way to Election Day 2016.

The polls well before the November 2016 election were crystal clear: Bernie was much more likely to beat Pussygrabber than was Billary. But because she had the Democratic Party establishment machine wrapped around her finger, Billary won the presidential nomination and thus lost the presidential election.

Because he always was the better candidate, hands down — and because he was screwed royally, as the leaked Democratic National Committee e-mails and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s overdue resignation as DNC chair proved — my support firmly remains with Bernie Sanders.

I refuse to let my support for him to be shaken by such a losing prospect as craven identity politics. The more that I was called a “Bernie bro” or a “brogressive” by the misandrist Billarybots for supporting the ironically actual Democrat Bernie over Repugnican Lite Billary, the stronger my support for him became.

So to the brainless Kamala Harris supporters who already hypocritically plan to call me racist as well as sexist for not supporting her primarily or even only because she’s half-black and because she’s a woman: Bring it on, bitches! I can do this forever!

I know — that doesn’t sound very conciliatory. But I don’t want reconciliation with the craven identity politicians, because their brand of politics is a losing one, as we saw spectacularly in November 2016 and as we continue to pay for today, with Chaos “President” Pussygrabber and his wrecking ball, which operates 24/7.

There is a way out of this mess. But if we miss it again, then we deserve whatever we get.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized