Tag Archives: Barbara Boxer

Bernie has nothing to apologize for

Corrected and updated below (on Wednesday, May 18, 2016)

In a Saturday, May 14, 2016 photo, supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders react as U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., speaks during the Nevada State Democratic Party’s 2016 State Convention at the Paris hotel-casino in Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic Convention turned into an unruly and unpredictable event, after tension with organizers led to some Bernie Sanders supporters throwing chairs and to security clearing the room, organizers said. (Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP) LOCAL TELEVISION OUT; LOCAL INTERNET OUT; LAS VEGAS SUN OUT Photo: Chase Stevens, AP / Las Vegas Review-Journal

Associated Press photo

Thuggish supporters of thug-in-chief Bernie Sanders thuggishly display their displeasure at the Nevada Democratic Party convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. They were supposed to take their railroading by the pro-Billary Clinton Democratic Party establishment silently and meekly, like a good Democrat caves in to evil, you see.

Billarybots, frustrated that Bernie Sanders won’t drop out of the race like he’s supposed to do, are trying to make a big deal of the reported fracas in Las Vegas on Saturday. (So much for what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas…)

No one has been hurt, mind you, but the Billarybots are going to maximize the charge that “Bernie bros” are thugs and that they are poor, civilized, wholly innocent victims. I mean, their candidate is a treasonous Repugnican-Lite sellout who is disliked more than she is liked by the American electorate by double digits in most polls, whereas the opposite is true of Bernie, who is beloved by millions, so what else do they have?

Reports The Associated Press today:

Under pressure from Democratic Party leaders to denounce ugly tactics by his supporters, Sen. Bernie Sanders instead struck back with a defiant statement [today] that dismissed complaints from Nevada Democrats as “nonsense” and asserted that his backers were not being treated with “fairness and respect.”

It followed chaos at the Nevada Democratic Party convention Saturday night, where Sanders’ supporters threw chairs, shouted down speakers and later harassed the state party chair [Roberta Lange] with death threats.

Gravely alarmed, Democrats pressed Sanders to forcefully denounce it. The dispute stands as the most public rift yet between the Sanders camp and other Democrats, and may undermine the party’s attempt to maintain a unified front as frustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.

“Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals,” Sanders said.

But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night, something Democratic officials deny. “The Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place,” he said.

Sanders issued his statement moments after speaking with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who told reporters that Sanders had condemned the violence in Las Vegas. “This is a test of leadership as we all know, and I’m hopeful and very confident Sen. Sanders will do the right thing,” said Reid, D-Nev.

The head of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., also condemned the events in Las Vegas. “There is no excuse for what happened in Nevada, and it is incumbent upon all of us in positions of leadership to speak out,” she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who was booed when she spoke at the convention, told reporters [today] that she’d feared for her safety and said Sanders should give a “major speech” calling on his supporters to reject violence and opt for unity. …

Gee, what to say? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another DINO shill for Billary who has been instrumental, as head of the Democratic National Committee, in ensuring that Billary be crowned, the democratic process be damned, and also on Team Billary are the ineffectual and uninspiring center-right Harry Reid, who should have stepped down as Democratic “leader” of the Senate years ago, and Barbara Boxer, who used to be a progressive years ago but who over the past several years has become worthless (I’m quite happy that she decided not to run for re-election this year; had she run, I would not have voted for her over her support for Repugnican Lite Billary alone; no true progressive could support Billary Clinton).

So of course all of these DINO assholes on Team Billary are going to trump up the Las Vegas fracas. They have a horse’s ass in this race.

Let’s unpack that Vegas fracas: Chairs were thrown. Horrors! OK. One probably shouldn’t throw a chair at a public gathering, but no one was injured by any flying furniture. Speakers were shouted down. Oh, boo fucking hoo! It sucks to be shouted down, but it doesn’t put you in the hospital.

Count three: Death threats! Hmmm. Until and unless any of the alleged “death threats” is investigated by law enforcement, I wouldn’t rule out that a Billary supporter or supporters did it or even that the supposed recipient(s) of any death threat(s) fabricated it. There is no proof that any supporter of Bernie Sanders issued a single death threat to anyone. We have only allegations.

As far as death threats go, let law enforcement handle any alleged death threats, and in the meantime, if there is a claim of a death threat in the midst of a heated political campaign, take it with a grain of salt until and unless it’s investigated by law enforcement and proven to be actual.

I wasn’t there, but the Vegas fracas sure looks trumped-up to me — trumped-up for political purposes by the Billarybots exasperated by the fact that not all of us have given up, sold our souls to Satan, and settled for Billary.

What’s funny, I think, is that as a U.S. senator in October 2002, Billary voted for the Vietraq War, in which more than 4,000 of our troops died for the unelected Bush regime’s lies for Big Oil and for the war profiteers (including Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, with its no-bid contracts with the federal government in Iraq), and in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died.

Bernie, as a U.S. representative in October 2002, voted against the Vietraq War, but the Billarybots actually would have everyone believe that war hawk Billary Clinton, whose talons are dripping with blood, is the candidate of peace while Bernie Sanders, democratic socialist of Vermont, is the ruthless, evil leader of murderous hordes!

This is some fucking bullshit.

Bernie Sanders has nothing to apologize for. He wasn’t even fucking there in Las Vegas on Saturday. He didn’t throw any chair. He didn’t shout anyone down. He didn’t issue any death threat (although it can’t be long before a crazy, lying Billarybot alleges that he has).

Nor can Bernie Sanders be held responsible for anything and everything that anyone claiming to support him does or says. Bernie can’t control millions of people, and we are responsible for our own words and actions.

At the Bernie Sanders rally that I attended here in Sacramento last week, at which at least 15,000 people attended and where I was for several hours, I didn’t see even a verbal altercation. Not one. I saw nothing but peaceniks, so there’s no fucking way in hell that I’m going to sit back while the Billarybots try to paint us supporters of Bernie Sanders as thugs. (Unlike the typical effete Democratic Party hack, I believe in fighting back.)

But, of course, this isn’t even about what happened in Vegas (that certainly wasn’t going to stay in Vegas).

No, what this really is about is the Democratic Party hacks/the Billarybots trying to bring Bernie Sanders and his supporters to heel — you know, the way Billary said that “super-predators” must be brought to heel.

These are the last gaps of the obsolete, irrelevant, self-serving Democratic Party establishment — the corrupt-beyond-belief Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the worthless Harry Reid, yes, even the now-pathetic Barbara Boxer, et. al., et. al. — who want to claim victimhood even while they’ve hardly been nice themselves, but have used the Democratic Party as a vehicle to their personal enrichment while the Democratic Party, year after year, more and more serves the moneyed elite at the expense of the rest of us, the commoners, the rabble.

These Democrats in name only are not nice people. Oh, they don’t throw chairs or even shout (that would be “uncivilized”!), but the damage that they have caused to millions of Americans (and to millions throughout the world) through their cowardly caving in to the Repugnican Tea Party and to their corporate sugar daddies over and over and over again and their craven selfishness and their having dragged the once-venerable Democratic Party so far right that with each passing year the two duopolistic parties are more difficult to distinguish, is much, much, much worse than is an airborne chair.

The smooth-talking weasel in the business suit is much more harmful and much more dangerous than is the person who tosses a chair or shouts. Don’t be fooled by the fine garb and the “polite” behavior. Underneath lurks the rabid wolf.

Bernie Sanders is correct to point out how much the Billarybots have disrespected the democratic process throughout the entire presidential primary season. He would be guilty of dereliction of duty to democracy if he did not. Every opportunity to unfairly and unjustly boost Billary over Bernie, the Billarybots have taken. This is the context in which the events unfolded in Las Vegas on Saturday, context that the guilty Billarybots of course don’t want to discuss.

Even the Associated Press news story isn’t neutral and unbiased. Look at the word choices: “ugly tactics.” I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism. In a news story you can describe events, but you don’t judge them, such as with the adjective “ugly.” A “defiant statement.” (Bernie Sanders is defiant!) “Gravely alarmed.” Hyperbolic much?

“[F]rustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.” Is the AP writer’s opinion that Sanders should shut down his campaign? (Or is the writer supposedly merely reporting the facts?) Why should Sanders shut down his campaign when Billary hasn’t secured the 2,383 delegates necessary for the nomination?

Sanders’ statement on the Las Vegas drama proclaimed: “Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.”

But that wasn’t enough for the AP writer, who notes, “But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night…”

Why should Bernie Sanders apologize for something that he did not do? Why does the AP writer have a stake in the Democratic Party hacks’ assertion that Bernie should apologize for something that he did not do?

Why would Bernie’s condemnation of “any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals” not be enough for anyone?

Why should Bernie not reiterate the grievances of his supporters in Nevada? (Because the rabid Billarybots want him to act like a castrated man; they’re to lie and to attack and he’s to just stand there and take their hypocritically sex-based abuse, lest they call him a misogynist for defending himself. This, my friends, is neo-feminism.)

This bullshit is enough to make me want to shout and throw a chair.

Because I’m a “Bernie bro” and that’s all that we’re about, right?

It’s fine, though. The Billarybots/Democratic Party hacks do themselves no long-term favors by attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Fact is, the ranks of independent voters, disgusted by the treasonously self-serving D.C. elite and their Coke Party and Pepsi Party, are growing while the ranks of the party hacks, both of the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party, are dwindling.

The Democratic Party hacks don’t have enough numbers to win a presidential election on their own. If they make Billary their nominee, there is a good chance that they’ll see startling evidence of this on Election Day in November.

And we progressives are patient. The Billarybots are just trying to shove their widely despised candidate into the White House, even if they must cheat to do it (they have no conscience, so cheating comes easily to them). They think in the short term, because their lemming-like brains are incapable of long-term thought.

By continuing to alienate us progressives — who are Berners now because he’s our champion right now, but who will remain progressives long after this presidential election has come and gone — the DINO dinosaurs only speed up their own inescapable extinction.

P.S. Here’s an Associated Press photo of Bernie supporters protesting in Las Vegas on Saturday:

Do they look as dangerous to you as they do to me?

P.P.S. You should read the AP story in its entirety. It’s a wonderful piece of “unbiased” “news” reportage. It includes these humdingers, too:

… It [Las Vegasgate] comes as Donald Trump is wrapping up the nomination on the Republican side, yet Democrats remain divided and now some Democrats fear that Sanders’ supporters are starting to mimic backers of Trump in their sexist and aggressive behavior.

Democrats also fear that the unrest in Nevada could be a taste of what is to come at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia this summer.

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, an influential political committee devoted to electing women that is backing Clinton, said in a statement: “These disgraceful attacks are straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, and Bernie Sanders is the only person who can put a stop to them. Sanders needs to both forcefully denounce and apologize for his supporters’ unacceptable behavior — not walk away.”

… The Nevada Democratic Party sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee accusing Sanders supporters of having a “penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting.”

Sanders dismissed that as “nonsense.” “Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence,” he said.

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics,” he said. …

Yup. The Democratic Party troglodytes ignore the changing political landscape at their own political peril.

Slanderously comparing Bernie Sanders’ supporters to Donald Trump’s supporters (replete with “sexist and aggressive behavior”) is complete and utter bullshit, the epitome of unfairness and untruthfulness — there have been no documented cases of any violence at any Sanders rally — and Billarybots Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the head of EMILY’s List, which is a blatantly sexist organization that endorses Billary even though she’s never met a war criminal she didn’t love (including Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, who is buddy-buddy with Donald Trump, too) it’s enough for the sexists of EMILY’s List that Billary is a woman, you seehardly are unbiased sources for this “news” story.

Correction and update (Wednesday, May 18, 2016): Rachel Maddow’s coverage of this “controversy” is fairly enlightening. Las Vegas political “journalist” Jon Ralston apparently has shilled Team Billary’s version of events without having even bothered to talk to Bernie’s supporters, which is typical of a pro-establishment/establishment “journalist,” and very apparently there is no video of any chair actually having been thrown — only video of one individual raising one chair off the ground and then putting it down again.

So that (along with yelling) constitutes the “violence” that the Billarybots claim happened in Vegas on Saturday. Fucking liars.

Rachel Maddow — who (along with all of MSNBC) as of late has been slanted toward Billary but who still can do real journalism, unlike Ralston — interviews a Nevadan delegate for Bernie named Angie Morelli who is quite well-spoken and who gives us a lot more context to the events in that convention hall in Vegas on Saturday — again, context that the Billarybots don’t want mentioned, because it weakens their self-servingly exaggerated narrative of events.

Reportedly one or more supporters of Bernie Sanders publicly released the phone number and other personal contact information of the state’s Democratic Party chair, and nasty messages were left for her. “Death threats” some of them have been called, but I’ve only heard one voice message proclaiming that for her crimes against democracy she should be publicly “hung” (sic), not a direct death threat as in “I am going to kill you.”

If the voice message about public hanging isn’t a false flag, yes, of course that would be intimidation, but, again, there is zero proof that any Bernie supporter did it, indeed, no proof that any of the nasty messages was left by a Bernie supporter. Some, most or all of these messages were created by Billary supporters trying to tarnish Team Bernie with a false-flag campaign, for all that anyone knows.

That said, one or more Bernie supporters might be guilty of verbal intimidation, but that would be a tiny minority of Bernie supporters (and, again, Bernie Sanders can’t control and can’t be blamed for the words and actions of millions of people).

And verbal intimidation is a form of violence if you use a broad definition of the term “violence,” but most people’s own personal definition of “violence” includes physical violence, of which there was none perpetrated by a supporter of Bernie Sanders in Las Vegas on Saturday — none of which there is any evidence, anyway. (Morelli claims that the only act of violence at the convention that she is aware of is that a Billary supporter intentionally shoved her.)

So when the Billarybots claim that we “Bernie bros” have become “violent,” they’re not just exaggerating — they knowingly are lying, slandering and libeling for attempted political gain.

As I just wrote earlier today:

With Billary only around 3 percent to 5 percent ahead of Trump in the match-up polls right now — and this is because the nation’s electorate apparently hates Billary just a little less than the nation’s electorate hates Trump — you’d think that the Billarybots would be a lot nicer to us Berners instead of painting pretty much all of us as sexist, misogynist, violent animals who are just like Trump’s supporters.

But no.

The Lemmings for Billary are determined to go right off of that looming cliff that is in plain, clear view.

P.S. Yet another update: Rolling Stone claims to have verified that at least three male supporters of Bernie Sanders left nasty messages for the chairwoman of Nevada’s Democratic Party.

Rolling Stone actually contacted these three individuals, of whom it reports:

… None of them were [sic] present at the convention, or even live in Nevada. They watched from their homes in Texas, Georgia and Utah, and felt the brazen theft they saw validated their actions. All of the men we spoke to reject the idea that their words could be interpreted as threats or harassment. And all of them were concerned about the media contorting their words. So, in their words — edited only for length and clarity — here is what they had to say for themselves. …

I read what the three young men had to say for themselves, and overall I’d say that they are young and socioeconomically struggling and thus frustrated (which is a fairly redundant way to describe our young people here in the U. S. of A.), fairly new to paying attention to politics and therefore passionate, and more or less contrite that their passion gripped them to the point that they sent nasty messages to the head of Nevada’s Dem Party. (I’d say more, such as about testosterone and how it can make a young man behave, but I’ll stop here.)

Even if these weren’t three socioeconomically frustrated young men who let their political passion get the best of them, even if they were just three flat-out evil men, three people, or even 3,000 people, aren’t representative of a movement of millions, yet the Billarybots gleefully are pretending that this is the case, as happens in political dogfights.

As far as intimidation goes, anyone who is demonstrated to have broken a law (or even terms of service) should be dealt with accordingly, but if we’re going to define the term “violence” broadly, let’s also include the act of not just exaggerating, but quite intentionally lying in order to try to disempower an entire group of people based upon the words and actions of only a tiny fraction of them.

It is a lie that supporters of Bernie Sanders were physically violent in Las Vegas on Saturday. No one was physically stricken by a Sanders supporter or even physically harmed.

It is a lie that even a sizable chunk of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are prone to violence or even to intimidation, so it’s even a much bigger lie to assert that “Bernie bros” (itself a sexist term) are just like Donald Trump’s worst supporters.

In any group of millions of people, a small number are going to act like juveniles or otherwise utter words and/or commit actions that could be used by the group’s opponents to try to embarrass and disempower the entire group. That is no lie.

P.P.S. For the record, I don’t represent Bernie Sanders. I represent myself. I always have and I always will. I am an American citizen, not a campaign worker (paid or even volunteer), so I’ll say whatever the fuck I wish, as the First Amendment gives me the right to do.

The term “Bernie bro” is funny to someone like me, a gay man, but whatever; its widespread use only shortens the political survival of both the pseudo-feminists (themselves spiteful, mean-spirited, man-hating sexists) who use it and the Democratic Party that stopped representing the interests of the people many years ago.

Finally, there are many forms of violence if we want to define the term broadly. Limiting the number of debates, as corrupt national party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blatantly did (apparently the promised 10th debate between Billary and Bernie this month isn’t going to take place, by the way) is a form of violence. Party operatives (from Wasserman Schultz on down) doing everything in their power to give their preferred candidate an advantage (a.k.a. cheating and rigging the game), as has happened in Nevada and throughout the nation, is a form of violence.

The people who perpetrate this anti-democratic bullshit aren’t “nice.” They’re perpetrators of violence. It’s that their violence is indirect and passive-aggressive and widely socially considered (incorrectly) to be acceptable, but it causes as much harm as textbook violence, if not even more.

When these passive-aggressive perpetrators of violence finally evoke a response in their victims, they then hypocritically accuse their victims of being the violent ones.

This is textbook bullshit. Worse, it’s pretty much PSYOP.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tell your ‘super-delegates’ that voting against the people is a deal breaker

If Billary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination democratically — that is, if she legitimately wins the majority of the votes in the primary elections and caucuses — then I’ll accept that result.

That doesn’t mean that I’d vote for her in November — because I very most likely would not — but I do accept the results of fair elections.

The 2000 presidential election, for instance — I never have accepted and never will accept that result. Al Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes, and there is no way in hell that George W. Bush would have “won” the 2000 presidential election were it not for his brother Jeb! having been governor of the pivotal state of Florida, then-Repugnican Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (as the state’s chief elections official) having been co-chair of the effort to elect Gee Dubya in Florida (no conflict of interest there!), and finally, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court having shut the whole thing down and by so doing declaring Gee Dubya the “winner.”

I was at a “Not My President’s Day” rally at the California state Capitol in February 2001, replete with my homemade sign declaring that “George Dubious Bush” was “not my president!” (I would return to the state Capitol not too terribly long after that to protest the unelected Bush regime’s looming illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked — and thus treasonous — Vietraq War.)

All of that said, I didn’t vote for Al Gore, but I voted for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader in November 2000. (Hold your ammo. Of course Al Gore won all of California’s electoral votes, so no, because the U.S. president is selected by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote [as it should be], my vote for Nader, which I do not regret [the charisma-free Gore didn’t even win his home state of Tennessee, but the Democratic Party hacks blame Nader voters], did not help Gee Dubya.)

But the fact that I hadn’t voted for Gore in November 2000 didn’t make me any less outraged that the presidential election was stolen by the treasonous Repugnicans, who just wanted the White House, regardless of the clearly expressed will of the American people (again, Gore had won the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes; Gee Dubya became president only through the anti-democratic Electoral College [with his theft of Florida], which must be eliminated).

Similarly, while I don’t support Billary Clinton whatsoever — and the more the Billarybots attack, the less likely I am ever to support her (the Billarybots don’t successfully shame me into supporting their ethics-free candidate, but only reinforce my beliefs about their craven candidate) — I am not a sore loser, and so I accept it if my candidate of choice doesn’t win, as long as that loss happens fairly and squarely.

So, being a lover of democracy, the blatantly anti-democratic calls of the Billarybots for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race have enraged me. (Thankfully, as it has become clearer to the anti-democratic Democrats in name only that Sanders isn’t going to drop out before there is a clear winner who has earned the win, they’ve eased up a bit on their calls for Bernie to exit prematurely for their convenience.)

Where we stand now with the estimated pledged (that is, actually [more-or-less] democratically earned) delegate count is Billary with 1,266 and Bernie with 1,038. That means that of the democratically earned delegates (delegates earned in primary elections and caucuses), thus far it’s Billary with 54.9 percent to Bernie with 45.1 percent, a difference of 9.8 percent.

As I’ve said before, for a “fringe” candidate, Bernie is doing pretty fucking well, and for a supposedly universally beloved candidate, and for a candidate who pretty much has been running for the White House at least since 2000, when she carpetbaggingly ran for the U.S. Senate for the state of New York, Billary is not doing nearly as well as she should be doing within her own fucking party for the candidate for whom the Billarybots are saying we should just shut up and crown already.

Again, the magic number of delegates to win the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination is 2,383. Billary is “only” 1,117 delegates away from that, but we’re just supposed to coronate her already. Why make a dynastic member of royalty earn it?

If the battle for delegates goes to the Democratic Party convention, so be it. That would be called democracy.

Billary can’t actually get any of her “super-delegates” — the anti-democratic delegates (the [vast] majority of them apparently Democratic Party hacks who fall in line rather than vote their conscience, since, being party hacks, they have no conscience, but are only part of the hive mind) — until the party convention this summer. We can talk until we’re blue in the face about Billary’s “super-delegates,” but for today, since the hive-mind delegates can’t vote until late July, Billary has only 1,266 delegates.

How many of the “super-delegates” Bernie Sanders can win from Billary is an unknown (the “super-delegates” may say that they’re going to support one candidate but then vote for another candidate at the actual convention), but I can say two things today:

One, as I’ve already noted, the Democratic Party needs to follow the lead of the Repugnican Tea Party and force its “super-delegates” to vote with the people. (That said, as I’ve noted before, forcing the “super-delegates” to vote with the people makes the “super-delegates” redundant, and therefore, “super-delegates” need to be eliminated altogether in both parties. Any system in which the popular vote could be subverted needs to go. That would include the Electoral College, too, of course.)

Two, again, I can accept it when my chosen candidate doesn’t win an election that was conducted fairly and squarely, but anti-democratic bullshit I cannot stand.

Therefore, should Bernie Sanders win my congressional district in California’s presidential primary election on June 7 and my member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat Doris Matsui, as a “super-delegate,” vote for Billary Clinton at the convention, I won’t cast a vote for Matsui ever again.

(I am assuming here, of course, that after the “super-delegates” vote, how they voted will be released publicly. I refused to vote for Matsui for years but then did vote for her in November 2014, since at least at that time she had been on the right side of many issues, but, again, if Bernie wins my congressional district and she actually votes against that as a “super-delegate,” I won’t vote for her ever again.)

I never vote for the center-right DINO U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein anyway, who no doubt will cast her “super-delegate” vote for Billary even if Bernie wins California on June 7, because that’s just the kind of person Dianne Feinstein is. (If memory serves, I voted for Feinstein once, when I was new to California and didn’t know any better, but that was it. Once I got to know her, I was done with her.)

And Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer isn’t running again in November, but hopefully she would cast her “super-delegate” vote for Bernie should he win California. It would be a shitty end to her long political career if she went against the will of the state’s voters at the convention this summer.

Unfortunately, per Wikipedia’s roundup of the “super-delegates,” my U.S. representative and both of my U.S. senators have indicated that they plan to vote for Billary at the convention.

My governor, Democrat Jerry Brown, as a “super-delegate” (per Wikipedia) remains “uncommitted” (he did run against Bill Clinton for the presidential nomination in 1992…). While Brown cannot run for a third term in November 2018, for the most part I expect him to cast his “super-delegate” vote for Bernie Sanders should Bernie win California. Jerry Brown is just that kind of guy (that is, democratic as well as Democratic).

I am going to send a letter (snail mail is more effective, I believe, than is e-mail) to my elected representatives encouraging them as “super-delegates” to vote with the people of California, and informing them, if they stand for re-election, that their voting against the will of the people as a “super-delegate” is a deal breaker for any future vote from me.

I encourage you to do the same; the list of “super-delegates” (and how they have indicated they intend to cast their vote) is here, and a simple Google search will give you your “super-delegates'” contact information.

The Democratic Party, if it is to survive, must be a democratic party as well.

P.S. The next two big contests are Wisconsin (86 pledged delegates), on Tuesday, and New York (247 pledged delegates), on April 19.

Real Clear Politics’ average of polls right now has Bernie up by 2.2 percent in Wisconsin and Billary up by 27 percent in New York. However, The Huffington Post’s average of polls right now has Bernie up in Wisconsin by 4.6 percent and has Billary ahead in New York by just 12 percent and includes a graph that shows Bernie rising rapidly in the state:

So we’ll see.

If Bernie can’t win New York, I expect him to get a big chunk o’ delegates there anyway.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Party hacks are giving Obama his bogus war on Syria

It was inevitable, I suppose, that the Middle Eastern nation of Syria was going to be proclaimed a “national security threat,” and the Obama regime has obliged us.

This “national security threat” is even more risible than was the “national security threat” that the members of the Bush regime claimed Iraq posed in their run-up to their Vietraq War.

At least the treasonous war criminals of the Bush regime lied to us that Iraq itself posed the “national security threat.” The war criminals and would-be war criminals of the Obama regime are lying to us that Syria is a “national security threat” by proxy — that is, if we don’t lob some missiles at Syria for no other apparent reason than to spook Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and to flex our military muscles again in the Middle East, other nations, especially Iran and North Korea (with Iraq, the other two members of the Bush regime’s “axis of evil”), might — gasp! — feel emboldened!

So, quite Orwellianly, a “national security threat” no longer means that another nation is actually poised to actually strike the United States — a “national security threat” now has been redefined to mean that it’s a “national security threat” should the U.S. maybe appear to be weak or irresolute or some other synonymous adjective in the eyes of any other “bad” nation.

Wow.

This is even worse than the Bush regime’s “pre-emptive strike” bullshit. Again, at least the Bush regime lied that the U.S. had to strike Iraq before Iraq could strike the U.S. (Iraq, of course, never had any such capability, which we all knew before the Bush regime launched its Vietraq War); we now have the Obama regime lying that we have to strike Syria so that other nations don’t strike the U.S.

What the fucking fuck?

Perhaps even more pathetic than this, though, is that very apparently whether or not the typical American supports a particular war depends upon his or her party affiliation and the party affiliation of the current occupant of the White House.

Most Democrats in D.C., if they’re not happy about the Obama regime’s plan to attack Syria just to attack Syria, don’t have the balls to stand up to the Obama regime, so they’ll keep their mouths shut. (Even my own Democratic/“Democratic” U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, I am deeply sorry to report, was one of the 10 “yes” votes on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s 10-7 vote on Wednesday to allow the Obama regime to use military force against Syria.* Et tu, Babs?)

And many (if not most) Americans who voted for Obama, primarily only because they voted for him, won’t oppose the Syria misadventure like they opposed the Iraq misadventure.

I opposed the Vietraq War because it was an unprovoked, unjust, immoral and illegal U.S.-led war upon another sovereign nation, but apparently the primary or even only reason that many if not even most so-called Democrats opposed the Vietraq War was that it was the Bush regime’s war.

To be sure, that the regime that first had stolen the White House in 2000 because enough Americans just allowed them to then went on to launch a bogus war in March 2003 (because enough Americans just allowed them to) was and remains a problem for me — the crimes of the stolen presidential election and the resultant illegitimate regime’s bogus war still have not been punished or nationally atoned for, and therefore they remain open wounds on the nation — but the Vietraq War would have been just as fucked up and wrong had it been waged by a “Democratic” president like Obama.

But progressive columnist David Sirota notes in his latest column:

… So what happened to [the anti-war] movement? The shorter answer is: It was a victim of partisanship.

That’s the conclusion that emerges from a recent study by professors at the University of Michigan and Indiana University. Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats “withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success” in the 2008 presidential election.

Had there been legitimate reason to conclude that Obama’s presidency was synonymous with the anti-war cause, this withdrawal might have been understandable. But that’s not what happened — the withdrawal occurred even as Obama was escalating the war in Afghanistan and intensifying drone wars in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

The researchers thus conclude that during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead “motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.”

Not surprisingly, this hyper-partisan outlook and the lack of a more robust anti-war movement explain why political calculations rather than moral questions are at the forefront of the Washington debate over a war with Syria. …

This is red-versus-blue tribalism in its most murderous form. It suggests that the party affiliation of a particular president should determine whether or not we want that president to kill other human beings. It further suggests that we should all look at war not as a life-and-death issue, but instead as a sporting event in which we blindly root for a preferred political team. …

That’s just some fucked-up shit.

I mean, as much as I detest Repugnican U.S. senators John McCainosaurus and closet case Lindsey Graham, for instance, at least they consistently are pro-war. There isn’t a war that they wouldn’t support. (Canada? Hey, they’re too close for comfort! Sweden? Their “pacifism” is just a facade, a ruse!) McCainosaurus wants to look tough and bad-ass and so does Graham, apparently trying to overcompensate for his very apparent homosexuality by trying to create the persona of an uber-macho war hawk (it’s not working, girlfriend!).

Love them or hate them — and I hate them — but at least we know what to expect from the likes of McCainosaurus and Graham.

What can we expect from the “Democrats”? Oh, it depends upon the party affiliation of the current president!

That only a minority of Democrats in D.C. truly embody the spirit of being anti-war — which is that you don’t take the nation to war unless it really, really, really is necessary, because war is a gravely serious thing — is a testament to the extent of the moral decay of the so-called Democratic Party of today.

And don’t kid yourself; there is no fucking guarantee that lobbing missiles at Syria will remain a “limited” military operation, as the liars who comprise the Obama regime would have you believe.

The Middle East is an oil-soaked tinderbox, and you cannot drop a match anywhere there and guarantee that you’ll scorch only a “limited” patch of it.

Perhaps direct comparisons of Syria and Iraq can’t be made, but at least one disturbing similarity between the Vietraq War and what’s happening now is that over time we saw the treasonous members of the Bush regime making increasingly hysterical and hyperbolic claims about the “national security threat” that Iraq posed to the U.S. (such as the “smoking gun” coming in the form of a “mushroom cloud”), and now we are seeing the members of the Obama regime (I am regretting that I once supported John Kerry, since he now is shilling for Obama’s bogus war on Syria) making increasingly hysterical and hyperbolic claims about the “national security threat” posed to the U.S. by Syria — such as that if we don’t attack Syria, we can expect attacks from other nations, like Iran and North Korea.

The more that the war hawks ratchet up their ridiculous rhetoric, the more you know that their casus belli is for shit.

*Tellingly, of the seven U.S. senators on the committee who voted “no” on Obama’s desire to attack Syria, only two are Democrats and the rest of them are Repugnicans. Of the 1o who voted “yes,” seven are “Democrats” and three are Repugs. Newly minted Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, who should have voted “no” if he calls himself a progressive, voted “present.”

Obviously, partisanship trumps morality in D.C.

Again: This is some sick fucking shit.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s (probably) Billary’s if she wants it

FILE - In this April 2, 2013, file photo Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are seen in Washington. Clinton, whose popularity is high when out of public office and who carries the scars of being seen as inevitable in 2008, is trying to strike the right careful balance between staying out of the daily political maelstrom and setting herself up for a possible second presidential run. Her fans and foes are making that difficult. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

Associated Press photo

Recent polls put Billary Clinton (photographed above with Vice President Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., in April) at 50 (yes, fifty) or more percentage points ahead of Biden for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and show her beating her toughest potential Repugnican Tea Party challenger, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an average of 6 percentage points in the November 2016 presidential election. If Billary runs for president in 2016, she most likely will be our nation’s first female president, so it’s too fucking bad that her record indicates that as president she’d be little to no more progressive than the dismally disappointing Barack Obama has been…

Admittedly, I have wondered if Billary Clinton would have been a better president that President Hopey Changey has turned out to be. In 2017 and the following years, most likely, we’ll find out.

Smug individuals point out that Barack Obama for 2008 campaigned as a moderate and that thus the way that his presidency has unfolded could have come as a surprise to no one. My response to that, in a word, is: bullshit.

It’s true that Obama did not campaign as a radical. Crucial to his 2008 victory, I think, was the fact that he didn’t come off as “threatening” to too many white voters, as though once in the Oval Office he’d orchestrate the violent overthrow of the white ruling class by blacks, a revolution that many whiteys, at least in the back of their minds, still fear even today (they’re still talking about the New Black Panthers non-scandal, for fuck’s sake), a revolution that never could be successful any year soon, given the fact that the 2010 U.S. Census put whites at 72.4 percent of the American population and blacks at only 12.6 percent (not to mention the giant gap in wealth and power between white Americans and black Americans as groups).

It’s true that in his first presidential campaign Obama’s mantra was so-called “bipartisanship,” and that his stated goal was that he basically wanted to induce all of us to hold hands around the national campfire and sing rounds of “Kumbaya” until we all dropped of exhaustion.

It’s true that I cringed when Obama repeatedly publicly evoked the name of Ronald Fucking Reagan as A Model President, as though a Repugnican president would publicly praise Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter. (The last Democratic president that any of the Repugnican Party set have viewed as remotely OK to praise publicly is John F. Kennedy, probably because he’s dead and because the way that he died made him a bit of a martyr.)

But Obama in his first campaign for the White House also promised “hope” and “change” — ubiquitously and relentlessly — and promised to turn the nation around, promised to undo the damage of the eight long years of the unelected Bush regime.

The word “change” means something, and it does not mean “status quo.” Obama had talked and written about the “audacity of hope.” We were to bravely dare to hope. Just like he claimed he did.

And while Obama never promised to be a left-wing radical, we progressives understood that, politically, he probably couldn’t afford to do so, not if he wanted to actually win the White House, but while Obama was campaigning at least as a progressive lite, Billary Clinton, as her quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination became more and more desperate, acted as though she weren’t a limousine liberal.

After Obama had taken some heat for having stated during a private fundraiser in San Francisco (!) in April 2008 that some Americans “cling” to their “guns or religion” (which is, um, true*) — audio of which was leaked to the public (probably by the Clintonistas)  the desperate Billary saw an opportunity and so she took some shots: an actual shot of whiskey to show what a bad-ass redneck she actually is, and a shot at Obama, calling him “elitist and out of touch” and remarking, “I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America.”

Jesus fuck, I thought at the time (and still think). Which party’s presidential nomination is it that she wants?

Seriously: Billary was using the same rhetoric that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors were using against her own party. (Well, OK, this was in 2008, before the rise and fall of the so-called “tea party,” but still…) Billary painted Obama as an “out-of-touch” “elitist,” as though she weren’t a carpetbagging Beltway hack herself, and as though the state she had dragged her carpetbag to, New York, were a red state (indeed, New York is bluer than is Obama’s Illinois).

Given Billary’s mad dash to the right as she became more and more desperate in her losing quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, given her vote for the unelected Bush regime’s obviously bogus Vietraq War in October 2002, and given her husband’s destruction of the Democratic Party through the now-thank-Goddess-defunct “Democratic Leadership Council,” which dragged the party to the right to the point that the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Tea Party now pretty much are the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party — two plutocrat-and-corporation-loving parties that, like Coke and Pepsi, are hard for many if not most of us to differentiate — Barack Obama to me was the obvious choice in 2008.

But now, five years later, admittedly, I have to wonder if Billary would have been a better president than Obama has been.

It wouldn’t have taken much for Billary to have done a better job as president than Obama has, given that as president Obama has done little, that he squandered his best opportunity to push through an actually progressive agenda (which was in 2009 and 2010), that instead of tackling the nation’s in-its-death-throes economy head on, he spent all of his initial political capital on “Obamacare” (I have to wonder if he had wanted to accomplish what Billary had tried but failed to accomplish when she was first lady — to reform health care), and that because Obama squandered his initial wealth of political capital, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors regained the House of Representatives in late 2010 and probably will retain it after the November 2014 election, thus ensuring that Obama will have no legacy other than the dubious “legacy” of “Obamacare.”

Would Billary Clinton as president have spectacularly squandered the political opportunity of 2009 and 2010 like Obama, with both houses of Congress controlled by his own party, did?

Sure, you might say, she would have tried again with health-care reform, and perhaps she would have, but at the same time, her husband’s mantra for his 1992 presidential run was the James-Carville-credited “It’s the economy, stupid!”

My guess — and, admittedly, it’s just a guess, just a hunch — is that as president, Billary would have worked to fix the economy first, and then focused on health-care reform later (if she ever took it up at all).

Consequently, my further guess is that had Billary been elected as president in 2008, the Democrats would have kept the House of Representatives after the November 2010 elections, allowing Billary to continue pushing for an actually progressive agenda beyond her first two years in office.

Barack Obama has been such a fucking failure and such a dismal disappointment, and already is a lame duck so early into his second term that already the 2016 presidential speculation has heated up; all of us already are looking to what comes after him, knowing that the rest of his second term will be, at best, a wash.

I mean, Billary Clinton is getting her own fucking miniseries on NBC, for fuck’s sake.

Yes, today.com reports:

Betting on Hillary Clinton’s second candidacy for president, NBC has ordered a four-hour miniseries based on the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state’s life.

“Hillary,” starring Diane Lane [as Billary], will recount Clinton’s life from 1998 to the present and will be written by Oscar-nominated screenwriter Courtney Hunt (“Frozen River”). NBC chairman Bob Greenblatt announced the miniseries [yesterday] at the Television Critics Association summer press tour.

“I think she’s one of the most fascinating women of our time and this world,” Greenblatt [said]. “And on the precipice of what we all assume will be her running for president, we think it’s an interesting story to tell with classy producers and a great star.”

The script, which has not been written, will begin with Clinton living in the White House during her husband’s second term and will likely include her second run at becoming the nation’s first female president. It is not based on a book and Clinton is not involved with the project, Greenblatt said. Lane was already attached to the mini-series when NBC bought it, Greenblatt said. …

The miniseries would likely air before Clinton would announce her candidacy if she decides to pursue the nation’s highest office. …

Since Bill Clinton was impeached by the Repugnican-controlled House of Representatives over the (literally…) messy Monica Lewinsky scandal in December 1998 (and was acquitted in February 1999 by the Repugnican-controlled Senate, which could not muster the 67 votes necessary to remove a president from office), presumably the miniseries will begin with the bullshit, uber-partisan Lewinsky affair, but I expect the miniseries to get it over with fairly quickly.

Anyway, I get it that the NBC bigwig is shilling the show, but how, exactly, is Billary Clinton “one of the most fascinating women of our time and this world”?

What, exactly, has this whiskey-guzzling, supposedly “elitist”-hating, carpetbagging, Vietraq-War-rubber-stamping woman accomplished? Does not pretty much everything that she has “accomplished” stem from the fact that she has been married to William Jefferson Clinton?

Would the voters of New York have elected her as their U.S. senator in 2000 had she not first been first lady? Or, like almost anyone else would have been, would she have been rejected by New York’s voters as the shameless carpetbagger that she was?

How is gaining success via your spouse “fascinating”? Or inspiring? And what, exactly, does it do for feminism?

I’m more than ready for our First Female President, but I can’t say that I’m ready for President Billary Clinton.

I’m much more impressed by a woman who made it without having ridden her husband’s coattails. How about my own Sen. Barbara Boxer for president?

I have much more respect for her than I do for Billary. Not only did Boxer have the brains and the balls to vote against the Vietraq War in October 2002, but in January 2005 she had the balls to be the only U.S. senator to stand with U.S. representatives in their objection to the certification of Ohio’s Electoral College votes in light of the serious problems at Ohio’s polls. (Like Florida was crucial to George W. Bush’s “win” in 2000, Ohio was crucial to Bush’s “re”-election in 2004, and like Florida’s chief elections officer in 2000 [Katherine Harris] was openly supporting Bush’s campaign [no conflict of interest there!], so was Ohio’s chief elections officer in 2004 [Kenneth Blackwell].)

Boxer also in early 2005 famously took on then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza “You Know She’s Lying When Her Lips Are Moving” Rice during a hearing in D.C., stating, “I personally believe – this is my personal view – that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth.” Hell yeah!

When did Billary Clinton ever do anything as courageous as these things?

Much like Barack Obama used to be, Billary to a large degree still is a political rock star, even though, like Obama, she has accomplished little to nothing in D.C. and thus doesn’t deserve the status.

But, just like in a high-school student-council election, it’s popularity, not accomplishment, that gets you into the White House. (Well, unless you’re George W. Bush; when, like Gee Dubya, you don’t have enough popularity, you have swing states’ chief elections officials who are of your party and the right-wing members of the U.S. Supreme Court and your governor brother help you out…)

And while Billary Clinton has little to no actual accomplishment, she does have popularity aplenty.

Billary shows a whopping 50 (yes, a five-oh)-point lead above Vice President Joe Biden in recent polls of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate preference. Biden consistently comes in at second place in only the low double digits. Yes, Billary consistently is hitting more than 60 percent in these polls.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, on the hand, have no clear front runner for the White House for 2016, with not one member of the possible field of Chris Christie, Pretty Boy Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Prick Perry, Prick Santorum and yes, Jeb Bush, able to reach even 20 percent in recent partisan 2016 presidential-preference polls.

And in recent hypothetical matches against Repugnican Tea Party traitors for the 2016 presidential election, Billary handily beats them all. She beats even her thus-far most formidable opponent, Chris Christie, by an average of 6 points. (Recent polls, by contrast, have Biden losing not only to Christie but even to the likes of Jeb Bush…)

In a Bloomberg poll taken not too terribly long ago (May 31-June 3), 40 percent of those polled said they “probably” or “definitely” would vote for Billary if she were the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, while only 34 percent said they “definitely” would not vote for her. Twenty-three percent said they “might” vote for her and 3 percent said that they were “unsure,” so if you give her the support of only half of those individuals (which is 13 percent), that’s 53 percent before she’s even declared her candidacy.

Fifty-three percent is not bad. (And it’s what Obama got in 2008 — 52.9 percent of the popular vote.)

So, while I never have been and never will be enthusiastic about Billary Clinton, whom I consider to be just another Democrat in name only, just another Repugnican Lite, the numbers very apparently are behind her.

Add to this the probability that Billary’s mere official announcement of her candidacy probably would effectively or perhaps even literally, totally clear the Democratic field, saving her a primary fight and thus allowing her to focus her time, energy and money on the November 2016 election, while we’ll probably see another crowded Repugnican Tea Party primary field, as we did in 2012.

Not only will these Repugnican Tea Party candidates have to focus on the presidential primary elections (and caucuses) and the presidential general election, but if they have a particularly nasty primary season, the eventual winner could come out of the process fairly bruised, battered and tarnished.

And my guess is that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ “Benghazigate” bullshit** has been helping Billary more than it has been hurting her, in that those (34 percent or so) who already solidly hate her already solidly hate her, and in that if the Repugnican Tea Party traitors attack Billary viciously and frequently enough, they could induce even unenthusiastic-about-Billary people like me to support her.***

And that’s a feat that only morons of the magnitude of those who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party could accomplish.

*The fuller quote is:

“… You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are [going to] regenerate, and they have not.

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. …”

Again, there is a word for these remarks: the truth.

Indeed, the “tea party’s” best accomplishment is blaming the wrong people for the nation’s problems (feminists, immigrants, non-heterosexuals, progressives [a.k.a. “socialists” or “Commies”], labor unionists [also a.k.a. “socialists” or “Commies”], Muslims, et. al.) while those who actually are responsible for the nation’s problems (the plutocrats, corporatocrats [Wall Street weasels and many, many others] and militarists, mostly) get off scot-fucking-free.

**Statistician god Nate Silver, who I hope writes about the 2016 presidential election despite the fact that he soon is leaving the New York Times for ESPN, wrote this about “Benghazigate” and Billary’s popularity back on May 31:

… So, are Americans carefully parsing through the details of the Benghazi attack — and finding Mrs. Clinton more culpable than Mr. Obama?

Probably not. Instead, the decline in her ratings was likely just a matter of time — and if the Benghazi hearings had not triggered it, something else would have.

… It’s easy to be popular when nobody is criticizing you — and there was a long period, from the closing stages of the 2008 campaign through most of her tenure as secretary of state, when Republicans had little interest in attacking Mrs. Clinton directly. Now that Republicans have chosen to engage her again, her numbers are coming down. … This is what happens when a politician returns to being in the partisan fray after having drifted above it for some time.

But if Mrs. Clinton were to run for president in 2016, Republicans would undoubtedly have found any number of other ways to criticize her — from her policy proposals, to concerns about her age or health, to gaffes that she might make on the campaign trail, to controversies recycled from her tenure as secretary of state.

Mrs. Clinton, if she runs in 2016, is highly unlikely to win by the double-digit margins that some polls have given her over prospective Republican opponents. But the same would have been true regardless of Benghazi. The main circumstances in which a presidential candidate wins by double digits are when that candidate is an incumbent running in a time of exceptional economic growth, or when the other party’s incumbent is viewed as having performed terribly. Or, every now and then, the opposing candidate might be viewed as extreme or incompetent, and swing voters will feel as though they have no real choice. …

I expect Billary, if she runs for president in 2016 (and I put it at more than a 75-percent chance that she will), to do about as well as Obama did in 2008 and in 2012 (Obama in 2008 beat John McCainosaurus 52.9 percent to 45.7 percent and in 2012 beat Mittens Romney 51.1 percent to 47.2 percent).

In fact, again, Billary’s polling against the most-popular-thus-far potential 2016 Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate, Chris Christie, has her, on average, 6 percentage points ahead of him, and Obama’s average popular-vote victory over his Repugnican opponents in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was 5.55 percent, which to me suggests that we’re seeing about a 6-percent gap between those Americans who prefer a Democratic president and those who prefer a Repugnican Tea Party president.

This to me appears to be a demographic (and not a situational) gap that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors cannot close, which would explain why they want to further rig our future elections, such as through even further voter suppression (especially in the name of preventing “voter fraud”) to the greatest extent that they humanly possibly can.

***That said, about the only way that I could see myself casting a vote for Billary for president in November 2016 would be if her Repugnican Tea Party opponent, whoever it is, actually were close to winning California and its huge chunk of electoral votes, which is quite unlikely, given that Billary beat even Barack Obama in California’s 2008 Democratic presidential primary election, 51.5 percent to 43.2 percent. She’s quite popular here in California.

However, were Billary’s campaign actually struggling nationally and her Repugnican Tea Party opponent actually within range of winning the White House in November 2016, I cannot, as I type this sentence, rule out holding my nose and giving her campaign some money…

As much as I’m not a fan of Billary, of course, when push comes to shove, I’d prefer her in the White House over any Repugnican Tea Party traitor.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Win some, lose some

Posted November 2, 2010, 10:50 p.m.

John Boehner

Associated Press photo

You say Boehner, I say blogging material: Anyway, here Repugnican U.S. Rep. John Boehner’s steel-cold blue eyes well up with tears as he ponders how he’ll abuse his new-found power to further help the filthy rich at the expense of the dipshits who actually believe that the Repugnicans actually care about them (and also at the expense of the rest of us).

Tonight’s election results turned out to be what I’d expected: A win for Democratic Governor-Elect Jerry Brown and for Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer here in my home state of California, a ref — er, a repudiation of Repugnican millionaires and billionaires who want to buy office, at least here on the Left Coast.

I had expected Proposition 19, which would have legalized the use of marijuana here in California, to fail, as polls had predicted that it would. (Marijuana, like same-sex marriage, will be legal in all 50 states one day; we just have to wait for a lot of old fucks to kick off and take their stodgy, outdated beliefs with them to their graves.)

I had expected Proposition 23, Big Oil’s attempt to hamstring the fight against climate change in California, to fail, and it did, enabling California to remain at the forefront of combatting climate change.

And last but not least, I had expected the Democrats to lose some seats in the U.S. Senate but to retain their majority, and I had expected the Democrats to lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The upshot of the Repugnicans winning control of the House is that (1) I’ll have plenty of blogging material for the next two years, as Repugnican Ohio Rep. John Boehner, to me, with those icy cold blue eyes of his (I have blue eyes also, but mine are warm blue eyes, thank you very much), is Evil Incarnate, and (2) the Repugnicans in the House certainly won’t be able to fix the nation’s economy, any more than the same surgeon who botched your operation is the one to fix the damage that he created, and therefore I expect that in 2012 the Democrats will regain the House after the fickle voters swing back to the Dems, and that the Dems will keep the White House, as well as make up for at least some of today’s losses in the Senate. 

In politics, you rarely get everything you want.

Today, in politics we got most of what I wanted — and, I daresay, now the Democrats will fare better in 2012 than they would have had they retained control of the House of Representatives today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I might not have to move to Canada

On March 25, 2010, I wrote:

So in November, I predict, not only will a majority of California’s voters put “Governor Moonbeam” [Democrat Jerry Brown] back into office, but they will make marijuana legal in the state…. 

It will be like the ’70s all over again….

Don’t get me wrong — Repugnican California guv wannabe Nutmeg Whitman, a billionaire former CEO who never has held public office but wants to buy the governorship of the nation’s most populous state, must be brought down. We can’t act as though Jerry Brown already has won the election. We have to fight (… for our right … to paartaaay!).

But when all is said and done, even if Nutmeg doesn’t make some major campaign-killing fuckup, I expect that the majority of California’s voters, hit hard by the economy brought to them by the Repugnican Party, aren’t going to vote for another fucking Repugnican to lead the state.

Megalomaniac wants us to believe that she’s great because she’s a billionaire. But a majority of Californians, I think, are much more resentful of what the super-rich have done to the nation and to the state than they want to emulate the plutocrats….

My guess is that at least 55 percent of the voters will vote “yes” on the marijuana measure — and that many, many of us Californians will discover a new love for gardening….

(My only concern is whether or not the feds will try to step in and block the legalization of marijuana in California like Cruella de Vil coming for the doobies — er, doggies. I haven’t researched that possibility yet.)

So I can envision a California with a Democratic governor again — and not just any Democratic governor, but Gov. Jerry Fucking Brown — and a state that has legalized marijuana, which should have been legalized long ago and which only those who decry a “nanny state” inconsistently hold should remain illegal….

So how is my crystal ball holding up six months later?

Well, the Los Angeles Times reports that Jerry Brown now leads Nutmeg Whitman by 5 percentage points when until very recently polls had showed them neck and neck for some time. I expect Brown’s lead over Megalomaniac Whitman to hold and to expand, and my prediction is that on November 2 he’ll beat Nutmeg, although probably only by a single-digit win. (If the Democrats weren’t so unenthused by the Obama administration’s broken promises of “hope” and “change,” Brown probably would break into the double digits, I surmise.)

The Times also reports that Democratic U.S. Sen. Barabara Boxer has broken ahead of her Repugnican rich bitch opponent, Carly Fiorina, by 8 percentage points when both of them also had been neck and neck for a while. I predict that Boxer will beat Fiorina, perhaps by double digits.

My take on all of this is that now that California’s voters are paying more attention to the November 2 election, they’re realizing that to return California to the Repugnican Party, which ran us into the ditch in the first fucking place (I mean, as forgettable as the still-amateurish, usurping Repugnican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, he has been a shitty governor, and he’s a moderate Repugnican whom Nutmeg promises to out-Repugnican), is a very, very poor idea.

There are Nutmeg and Crazy Carly in theory — and then there are Nutmeg and Crazy Carly in actuality. And that’s pretty fucking scary.

Finally, a Field Poll shows that California voters are poised to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, supporting the pro-pot Proposition 19 by 49 percent to 42 percent.

Not that this is an issue of huge importance to me, but it’s clear to me (as it is to lefty columnist David Sirota) that alcohol is responsible for far more damage and death than is marijuana, yet the former is legal and the latter is not. (Yes, our laws should be logical and rational.)

And to deny the masses the release of marijuana while our empire continues to crumble because of Repugnican Tea Party dipshittery and obstructionism — that’s just plain wrong.

Of course, the impending Democratic wins in California probably will lower Californians’ demand for marijuana, since the wins will improve Californians’ lives, but still, I don’t want to hear the “libertarians” and other wingnuts lecture the rest of us, those of us who are sane, about the guv’mint staying the fuck out of our lives while they still want to outlaw marijuana, abortion and same-sex marriage.

In any event, I’m just happy, at least for today, that California’s intelligent voters (those who at least know how to vote in their actual own best interests) as of right now outnumber California’s fucktarded voters (those who think that the members of the Repugnican Party are the ones to fix the mess that the Repugnican Party put us into — and that marijuana actually poses any significant threat to our society).

And that after November 2, I probably won’t have to move to Canada, as nice as I hear Canada is.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What’s the matter with California?

Updated below (on Sunday, March 21, 2010)

The Field Poll, California’s most prominent polling organization, released a series of fairly surprising polls this past week that got plenty of media attention here in the nation’s most populous state.

The first poll, released Wednesday, shows that Repugnican gubernatorial wannabe Megalomaniac Whitman, a billionaire former CEO who has pumped tens of millions of her own dollars into her ubiquitous television ads, not only trounces her closest Repugnican rival for her party’s gubernatorial nomination, but holds a three-point lead over Democrat Jerry Brown, the state’s current attorney general and former governor who has no (serious) competition for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

The poll puts Nutmeg Whitman at 46 percent to Jerry Brown’s 43 percent, with 11 percent undecided.

After the disaster that Repugnican Arnold Schwarzenegger has been as governor — the state that he promised to “save” from twice-elected Democratic former Gov. Gray Davis has only gotten worse under his watch since 2003 — are Californians really going to allow another Repugnican governor?

Moreoever, are they really going to allow someone to buy the governorship? That’s not an exaggeration — that is billionaire Nutmeg’s game plan. The Megalomaniac has never held any elective office before but wants the top elected office of the most populous state right off.

As governor she would be catastrophic. Already she wants to kill the state’s climate-change legislation that even Schwarzenegger supports and she wants to lay off 40,000 state workers in a state that already has enough unemployment problems and already has suffered enough damaging hits to government services.

As Brown has pointed out, as The Associated Press recently paraphrased him as having put it, “California needs an elder statesman who can broker deals to lead it out of its current fiscal morass, not an autocratic CEO who is used to giving orders.” Reports the AP:

[Brown] said CEOs are used to hand-picking their employees, but a governor must confront an independent and sometimes hostile state Legislature and deal with public employee unions and courts that are constantly second-guessing their decisions.

“The political process is about civic engagement, not autocratic executive decision-making in the corporate suite. The two have virtually nothing in common,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press at his campaign headquarters in a converted warehouse in Oakland.

Yup. The autocratic, spoiled rich bitch Nutmeg is not cut of the same cloth of which good governors are made. She’s much more like the Red Queen in Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” — “Off with their heads!” she already has said of 40K state workers — than she is anything like a stateswoman. 

If Californians think that Schwarzenegger is bad — and they do; his approval rating is around 30 percent and about six in 10 Californians believe, correctly, that the state is worse off now than it was in 2003, when he took 0ffice — then they should elect Nutmeg, who knows as much about being governor as Sarah Palin-Quayle knows about being president.

Speaking of stateswomen, Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California can claim that title, but her election to a fourth term in the U.S. Senate seems uncertain.

A second Field poll, released on Thursday, shows the top Repugnican challenger for the Repugnican Party nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that Boxer now holds, Tom Campbell, with 44 percent to Boxer’s 43 percent. When matched up against the No. 2 Repugnican contestant, the Nutmeg-like Carly Fiorina (who also is a former CEO who wants to buy high office), Boxer beats Fiorina by only one point, 45 percent to 44 percent.

Like we really need more Repugnican white men — or more Repugnicans, period — in the U.S. Senate. What the fuck?

It wasn’t that long ago that the stupid white men of and led by the unelected BushCheneyCorp ran the nation into the ground, a stupid white man continues to run the great state of California into the ground, and yet the voters of California are poised to replace Barbara Boxer with another stupid white man (or with a stupid white man in woman’s clothing, like Palin-Quayle is).

I recognize that a lot can change in the coming months before the November 2010 election, but I find these 40-something-percent matchups between the Democratic and Repugnican candidates in the blue state of California to be way too close for comfort.

The culprit, I think, is the same phenomenon that put Repugnican pretty boy Scott Brown into the U.S. Senate for Massachussetts in the wake of the death of Ted Kennedy: the dumbfuck vote, which consists mostly those who identify themselves as “independents” or “swing voters.” They get the bulk of their political “information” from the candidates’ television ads. Because TV commercials are a great source of complete and unbiased information. Every intellectual knows that.

So, if you are just filthy rich, like Nutmeg Whitman is, you can buy office, since your base consists of the dipshits who don’t know anyfuckingthing about politics but who vote anyway.

The third Field poll released this past week (yesterday) perhaps is the most encouraging of the three. It shows that Californians’ favorability rating of President Barack Obama has fallen since he took office, but still remains at a majority, with 52 percent of Californians approving of the job he’s doing. Obama’s highest point among Californians was a year ago this month, when he had a 65-percent job-approval rating.

The poll showed Californians evenly split over Obama’s handling of health care, with 45 percent favoring his handling of it thus far and 45 percent disfavoring it thus far.

Of course, I’m not sure how many of those Californians who disfavor Obama’s handling of health care are wingnuts who buy the health care = “socialism” crap that the wealth care weasels — whose only concern is to continue to profit obscenely from Americans’ pain and suffering — have been pushing and how many of them oppose his handling of health care because it’s not aggressive and/or progressive enough.

After health-care reform legislation finally fucking passes — which apparently will be as soon as tomorrow — we might see increases in the number of Californians who state that they approve of Obama’s job performance and his handling of health-care reform.

And a coattail effect of the Democratic Party actually having accomplished something, and having accomplished something pretty big, might help Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown in the polls, too.

Of course, it’s also important for long-time Democratic politicians like Boxer and Brown not to take their support by the fickle voters of California for granted. It is my impression that California’s voters will vote for a Repugnican in order to punish a Democrat whom they believe takes their vote for granted — even though voting Repugnican almost always is against the voter’s own best interests.

And those who don’t understand politics (those who get their political “information” from candidates’ TV commercials) really seem to believe that the solution always is to just change parties — even if the party they are thinking of switching to just recently trashed the nation and the state.

That problem — abject stupidity — I don’ t have a quick and easy solution for, unfortunately.

Update (Sunday, March 21, 2010):

Today the Field Poll has released yet another poll, this one showing that Repugnican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s approval rating has hit an all-time low of 23 percent.

“This is the poorest assessment that voters have ever given Schwarzenegger and is statistically equivalent to the all-time record low job appraisal that voters gave to [Democratic Gov.] Gray Davis shortly before he was recalled from office in 2003,” the Field Poll notes.

The Sacramento Bee quotes Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo as deeming this fact to be “ironic.”

Repugnicans are distancing themselves from Schwarzenegger, claiming that his low approval rating doesn’t really matter because he isn’t really a Repugnican — that is, he isn’t enough of a Nazi for them, even though his father was a Brownshirt

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized