Method to Musk's Madness?

Many observers assume that Elon Musk has been unraveling a bit lately, because that's what it looks like.

But we've got to remember that Musk has occasionally been pretty good at putting over a public perception. Remember, for example, when people thought he was a nice guy who invented all sorts of stuff and didn't care about money and just wanted to save the planet? That was because Musk wanted people to believe that.

Maybe Musk's recent announcement that he has switched from Democrat to Republican, claiming that the Democratic Party has become "the party of division and hate," is just more calculated shaping of his public image.

 

Maybe it's part of his exit strategy from Tesla. It would fit in with a time-honoured tradition of people moving from Left to Right politically, and then proclaiming that their younger selves meant well, but were hopelessly naive. In Musk's case, the stereotypical headshaking over his younger librul self could go something like: "Once I, too, believed that mankind could survive without oil. And I tried my best to make that hopelessly naive dream a reality [...]" And then he becomes a US Senator from Montana, taking some of Montana's wealthy Democrats with him into the GOP. 

Either that, or he really is going completely crazy. Because, Republican and the owner/Dear Leader of one of the world's largest EV manufacturers at the same time -- that's not a good fit.

It didn't occur to me until just this moment that perhaps Musk has announced that he's a Republican precisely because it's a bad fit with leading Tesla. And because he senses that he may have pumped about as much money out of Tesla as he can -- if he can sell his Tesla shares before they become relatively worthless.

The "Heartland" Vote

Democrats have been trying for a long time to take the "heartland" vote away from the GOP. But what exactly is the "heartland" vote? Is it anything more than just code for the racist vote, the xenophobic vote, the Islamophobic vote, the homophobic vote, the sexist vote, in short: the stupid vote? The GOP keeps winning that fight. Why wouldn't they? The stupid vote is their natural constituency. How about if we drop that fight and go hard 180 degrees away from it? Go openly and honestly for the anti-stupid vote: the anti-racist, anti-sexist, gay-friendly, xenophile, one-world, well-educated, eco, vegan, anti-conspiracy-theory vote -- in short: the anti-stupid vote? We could even call it that. Or we could call it something like, for example: Warren/Booker 2020.

Call the deplorables deplorable. Why are we trying to hide? Every single poll for 2 1/2 years, Trump's unfavorable rating has been over 50%. In other words: the anti-stupid vote is most of the people in the US. Go right straight for it. No more BS. And as for the dumb-asses, they'll benefit from rational policy just like everyone else, and some of them might actually learn things.

And how about if we stop making these drastic geographical over-simplifications such as speaking about "the heartland" as if it as if it were entirely Republican and urban America were entirely Democratic? Neither assertion is true. Geography might influence political orientation, but it doesn't determine it. People are free to be who they are. How about some respect for Democrats in places which have been mostly red lately? Oh, that's right: the Electoral College, that proud 18th-century institution. We have to deal with Trump first, then we can deal with other things like modernizing the Constitution, and in the meantime, Democrats in places like Wyoming, where it takes a bit more guts to be a Democrat than it does in NYC or LA, will continue to be unfairly boned in terms of national recognition. It's not fair at all. Oh well. Wyoming Democrats: hang in there. Not all of us have forgotten you!

And as for Joe Biden, the great "heartland vote" candidate: how about if we let him just join the GOP, toward which he's been drifting for over 40 years? He could be the new Joe Lieberman -- or is he already the new Joe Lieberman?

Because We Need Swing-Voters Too...

Trump BAD! Democrat stop Trump! Yay Democrat! Democrat BLUE! Blue GOOD! VOTE DEMOCRAT! VOTE DEMOCRAT! Yay Democrat! Yeah Blue! Yaaaaaaay!

Democratic Candidates For President in 2020

Gabriel Debendetti thinks that Democrats' chances in the 2020 Presidential election may be hampered by too many candidates.

I think Debendetti is a Republican.

I'm not worried about a bunch of Democrats in the primaries. Real Democrats know when it's time to drop out and support the nominee. I'm worried that Bernie, who pretended to be a Socialist for a long time before this brief period of pretending to be a Democrat, might screw us with his giant ego, again. Yes, Bernie is a fake Socialist: Socialism, by definition, means working well with colleagues, for the greater good, for the benefit of those most in need of help. Bernie is an Independent if there ever was one: the opposite of a Socialist. Anti-social. We Democrats are Socialists, and it's high time we stopped being afraid of the word, and afraid to read the European Socialists, from before Marx to the Frankfurt School to after Gregor Gysi, who have so much to teach us. And it is definitely way past time for us to be afraid of going negative on Bernie.

J Lincoln Hallowell Jr summed up Bernie's relationship to the Democratic Party very well during the 2016 campaign. The quote is often mistakenly attributed to Barney Frank. I mistakenly attributed it to Barney on this blog. Sorry, Barney. As Hallowell said:

"The Democratic Party. The party that gave this country its first African-American President; the party that is poised to give this country its first woman nominee of a major party, very likely its first woman President; a party chaired by a Jewish woman; a party which features the first openly gay member of the United States Congress on the party’s rules committee; isn’t 'progressive' enough, or inclusive enough, according to a 75 year old straight white male, who 'white flighted' his way out of the most ethnically diverse city in the country, to the whitest state in the northeast United States, and who just passed his 1 year anniversary of declaring himself a member of the party, that he thinks that he is the only fit candidate to be the party’s nominee for President. A nomination which if he can’t secure it by the ballot, has threatened to secure it by lawsuits, and more than just hinted at violence."

Here are some remarks about Bernie which, at least according to the Boston Globe, Barney actually did say:

“Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments, and that’s because of the role he stakes out.”

“I think he has unduly denigrated the {House of Representatives} and a lot of the members,” Frank told The New York Times in 1991. “It does not help leftist causes to make people think government is full of poltroons and charlatans.”

“Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.”

““But maybe [being effective] is not his goal. There are some people who seek to have a major effect inside, and others who opt to use the place as a platform.”

“I think when he first got here, Bernie underestimated the degree that Republicans had moved to the right … I get sick of people saying ‘a curse on both your houses.' When you point out to them that you agree with them on most things, they’ll say, ‘Yeah, well, I hold my friends up to a higher standard.’ Well, OK, but remember that we’re your friends.”

“I think it is a lack of information, to be honest,” Frank said, explaining Sanders’s appeal [in the 2016 primaries]. “You have people, I believe, who do not understand how hard it is to make change. [It is] the importance of not just being idealistic, but being sensibly pragmatic and keeping their ideals. Sanders is getting their support.”

“Is pragmatism the opposite of idealism? Or is pragmatism a necessary adjunct to idealism? I think Bernie Sanders tends to have the approach, ‘Don’t be pragmatic, state your ideals, state what you think is the right policy, and be very wary of compromise and of accepting less than you want.'”

Exactly: Sanders is a schmuck, and his supporters are uninformed idiots. Do not wait to go negative on Bernie.

"Urban Democratic Elitists" Don't Exist

(PS, Later the Same Day: Okay, I was a little angry when I wrote that and blamed the rural Democrats for their own problems. I felt I was being lashed out at, and in return I lashed out. Maybe the best approach would be if all Democrats try to appreciate and support other Democrats, and to always think about how they themselves can improve what they're doing. All of this time and energy Democrats spend blaming each other for this and that could be much better spent making the case for the entire party and against the Republicans.)

I am so sick of hearing about "urban Democratic elitists." The Republican Party is the elitist party in the US; they're the ones cutting taxes for the rich and cutting support for the poor. The Republicans, not the Democrats, are the ones who marginalize, exclude, exploit and otherwise eff over people who are not white, male, and heterosexual and do their best to look like they just stepped out of the 1950's.

It's one thing to hear the "urban elitist" charge from Fox News and their proletarian dupes. It's quite another to hear rural Democrats blaming things on the Democratic elitists who don't exist. Rural Democrats such as Terry Goodin, a Democrat who's been in the Indiana House of Representative since 2000, and the subject of this below-average analysis from POLITICO. Goodin describes the main planks of his political platform as "the importance of public education, affordable health care and a living wage, and the moral necessity of addressing the opioids scourge."

And with that platform, he couldn't sell Hillary Clinton to his constituents over Donald Trump.

And it doesn't seem to occur to Goodin and some other rural Democrats that their inability to get out the vote for Democrats might be their own damn fault.

That maybe the divisiveness in the Democratic Party might be partly their own damn fault. Goodin complains about "identity politics." What the Hell is identity politics except another Fox News talking point, another spoonful of Republican snake oil swallowed by a lot of dumb people, not all of whom are Republicans? Goodin claims that the Democratic "urban elites" are no longer "inclusive," because they don't understand him and his people. But when people complain about "identity politics," what are they complaining about? They're complaining that traditionally-oppressed demographics, such as African-Americans, Native Americans and LGBT's, are finally, gradually -- PARTIALLY -- getting more rights and more equality. Who's resisting inclusion here?

From the POLITICO article:

"Goodin’s Indiana District 66 went heavy for Trump. One reason: It used to have plenty of decent-paying, union-boosted jobs, anchored by the Morgan Packing plant."

Jesus H Christ: These people were too dumb to see which party is pro-union and which party is rabidly anti-union? And the fault with people misunderstanding something so basic and plain lays with -- urban Democrats hundreds or thousands of miles away?

You want party unity, Terry Goodin? You want all of us Democrats pulling on the same rope? How about you enjoy a nice steaming-hot mug of STFU about these "elitist urban Democrats" who supposedly don't care about you and your constituents, and take a good long look in the mirror instead? Yes, there is some divisiveness in the party. But when it comes to who's responsible for it and who needs to shape up to fix it, you got it exactly backwards, my friend. We urban Democrats are on the side of people who need help, just like you are. You need to do a much better job of explaining to your friends and neighbors who we are.

When Lyndon Johnson was an up-and-coming politician -- you don't get a whole lot more Democratic and rural than Lyndon Johnson -- did he complain about that God-damned urban elitist FDR? No! He was known as a "110% FDR man." To the many people in the Hill Country outside Johnson City, Texas, who were suspicious of "that Commy" FDR, he explained to them who FDR really was. And that he was on their side.

Worked pretty well. Among many other things, it brought rural electrification to the Hill Country for the very first time, and it started a politician on his way to the White House, who signed the major civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965. Food for thought, maybe.

Dream Log: A Piece of Urban Real Estate, Status Uncertain

I dreamed that I and a few other poor people were living in abandoned cars parked on a rectangular patch which was about fifty yards wide and jutted out about twenty yards, like a cliff, from the middle of the downtown of a city with many tall buildings. One of the fifty-yard-long sides of the area was level with the developed city around it; off of the other three sides, there was a fifty-foot drop to another relatively-flat area covered with limited-access roads.

At the beginning of the dream there were three abandoned vehicles on this patch of ground, and five of us living in them. But more people kept moving in, some bringing vehicles or tents with them.

It was entirely unclear how much the ground we were living on was man-made and built up from the lower level, and how much had been there, with the upper level of ground, before humans built anything there. The mix of concrete and earth, and of jumbles of pipes and trees sticking out from the concrete and earth, made it very hard to tell which was more primary, and which had been added on.

At some point it started to seem to me like a good idea to encourage the homeless people who were passing through to stay and to build up actual homes here, and to invite other people to do the same. There was a vague feeling that developers were going to come and claim the -- the land? the building? whatever it was -- and have us all kicked out. They hadn't tried to do that so far, but it seemed to me that the more of us there were, and the more we had done to make the place a real home, the harder it would be to remove us, when and if someone tried.

Someone donated some solar panels and batteries to us, and soon that led to our having electrical heat on cold nights, and cold for storing food, and heat for cooking it without having to build a campfire. Some lawyers started working building a case for our right to stay, when and if someone challenged that right. We started to hold free classes on engineering, architecture and law, and used what we learned in those classes to strengthen our hold on the area, physically and legally.

Television news crews stopped in now and then to film and to talk to us. Republicans sometimes yelled and threw rocks or beer cans at us out of the windows of their trucks as they drove past on the street adjacent to and level with us. Democrats walked past and were much friendlier. Often they waved and flashed peace signs or held up clenched fists. Sometimes they stopped to talk.

No one was charged any money to stay there as long as they wanted, or to eat some of our food, or to take something else if they needed or wanted it: clothes, or books, or a phone, or what have you. It got to the point where the thing which most frequently made people want to move on was overcrowding. Ordinarily, I'm one of the first to feel crowded. But in this place, my fascination with everything that was going on outweighed my discomfort over the crowding.

A lot of what was going on was high-level education. It had started out with engineering, architecture, law and medicine, for purposes of the self-preservation of the community, and although classes quickly branched out into many other subjects, those four areas remained prominent among the things we taught. It had started out with people coming and helping us, but soon we were going out into the city to help people install solar power or repair their dwellings, or to represent them in court, or to check on their physical health, or to volunteer in other ways.

One area of the law in which we soon became well-known was advocating in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Some of the people who lived with us began to complain about the pot smoke, and so we agreed to smoke pot only in one designated area, which was designed to ventilate and blow the smoke away from the rest of the community, puffing merrily out through a smokestack and carried by the prevailing winds safely away from those who chose not to partake. If you wanted to get high, and you went to the designated smoking area, at some times it wasn't necessary to puff on anything, because enough people were in there going to town on bongs and joints, and the smoke was so thick, that if you just stood or sat there for a few minutes, you'd definitely get high.

Vegans were very prominent in our community. Some of them, unfortunately, were intolerant in their rhetoric about non-vegans. It was very tiresome. On the other hand, they made vegan food which, everyone agreed, was amazingly delicious.

I had begun there as a homeless person who'd crawled into an abandoned car to try to keep from freezing to death. But soon -- despite the overcrowding, which was definitely an issue for me -- it became the best home I had ever had.

And then I woke up.

You Can't Compromise With Extremists

I'm so sick of all these dodos saying, "Both parties need to sit down and compromise and work things out," as if the Democrats and Republicans were equally to blame for Everything. This seems to be more of the damage done by so-called objective journalism, making people unwilling or unable to see that one party may actually be more to blame for some things than the other.

In reaction to the latest Republican health-care proposal, the one they put together in a completely unprecedented secretive manner and apparently hoped to slip past the Democrats and parts of their own party into law while no one was watching, just what exactly would it mean for the Democrats to "come together" with the Republicans and "work together"? Only causing 11 million people to lose their health insurance instead of 22 million? Something like that?

"Working together" with them -- would that mean re-allowing only some of the toxins going back into our air and water since the Trump administration took over? Deporting only some of the people the Republicans want to deport based on ethnicity or religion? Acting as if only some of the things Trump pulls out of his ass are facts? Saying that maximum sentences are okay in only some drug-related cases? Allowing only some of their anti-LGBT legislation? Acting as if it's only sort of the 1950's?

What the Democrats need to is tell the truth and get out the vote. Not just every 4 years, and not just every 2 years, although even that, sadly, would be a great improvement. No, Democrats need to turn out for every election. Republicans do this better than we Democrats do, and that is why they keep kicking our asses even though there are more of us than of them. We need to vote for President, Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, City Council, School Board, Judge, Sheriff, Comptroller, EVERYTHING. There are more of us than there are of them! If we ACTED like it, their right-wing evil bullshit would be left in the past where it belongs.

Aaron Sorkin's Alternate Universe

Lots of times a post on Facebook gets me all worked up, and I start a comment which gets longer and longer until I realize that what I have here, once again, is not a Facebook comment but a blog post. This time it was a Facebook post consisting of a video plugging some sort of class in which Aaron Sorkin teaches you how to be a genius just like him. The video starts off with Sorkin talking about how to be a genius of dialogue just like he is, and saying that in real life, no one ever starts a sentence with "dammit."

I constantly start both spoken and written sentences with "dammit." I guess I suspected all along that I am not a part of life. Thank you, Aaron Sorkin, for opening my eyes!

Sorkin is like Reese's peanut-butter cups: I like him, but I know he's bad for me.

The Democrats in Sorkin's TV shows and movies are better than the Democrats in real life. I'm a Democrat. After "The West Wing" had been on the air for a while, W beat Gore, and I stopped watching "The West Wing." And I blame Sorkin for Gore achieving less than a landslide, because "The West Wing" put us Democrats into a dream-world of wish-fulfillment which distracted us from the real world (where people constantly start sentences with "dammit," but Sorkin somehow doesn't notice). Sorkin has real big-time Democrats as creative consultants. Sorkin's shows consist to a great degree of Democrats flattering themselves unrealistically. Look at how much taller Rob Lowe is than George Stephanopoulos, that says a lot. (Google says that Stephanopoulos is 5'7". I think I've uncovered another case of someone fleeing from reality.) Look at how often in Sorkin's shows it is implied or explicitly said that Washington Democrats are the smartest people in the world. Oh, if only they were!

Do I need to say it? The smartest people in the world wouldn't get beaten by idiots like W and Trump. They wouldn't be outmanouvered again and again by dull plodding beasts like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. The smartest people in the world aren't nearly smart enough yet that we've all been able to find one another, let alone all working together cohesively in one political unit. We're working on finding each other and working together, but we're not nearly there yet, not nearly. Also, duh, 97% or so of the smartest people in the world live and work and play outside of the US, as they should.

Yes, many leading Democrats are wicked smart -- Bill, Hillary, Barack and Michelle are just 4 obvious examples -- but there's a lot of mediocrity mixed in there, too, even at the highest levels. If there weren't, Democrats in real life would be as crushingly triumphant as the Democrats in Aaron Sorkin's fictional alternate universe.

There is a lot of actual nonfictional American history. If you want to be a more effective Democrat, drop Sorkin and read the real stuff. Learning a bunch of languages and reading philosophy and history and poetry from all over the world, untranslated, wouldn't hurt either. (C'mon -- all the smartest people in the world are doin' it!) And it's all not only much more useful than Sorkin, it's all actually much more interesting too. Push the bowl of peanut-butter cups away.

Good For Sarah Silverman!

Last night, Sarah Silverman -- who had campaigned for Bernie -- interrupted a bit she was doing with Al Franken, long in the tank for Hillary, a bit about party unity, about coming together. She interrupted that bit to talk directly to the booing, heckling Sanders delegates; she said, "You're being ridiculous!" And she got a great big cheer for that.

Sarah is so awesome in so many ways. She was right. Of course she was right. The awesome part is that she said it right to their faces from the Convention stage. The Sanders die-hards were being ridiculous, and they probably still are being ridiculous at this very minute, and I'm quite sure, unfortunately, that they will be very ridiculous at the Convention tonight. I wish more Democrats would speak up like Sarah, instead of continuing to do everything they can to appease Bernie's diehards in the hope that they will eventually come around -- when?

And Bernie. Yes, he endorsed Hillary again last night -- sort of -- but he began his speech by reminding his delegates that they could vote for him tonight, Tuesday night. He's endorsing Hillary but he still hasn't conceded. That's not rational. Thank God this egotistical, low-information demagogue will never be President.

Bernie is being ridiculous. The ridiculous fish which is -- is, God help us all! Not was! Is! -- his campaign stinks from the head. The irrationality, inconsistency, petulance of the diehards, all come directly from Bernie.

The great majority of the people who voted for him in the primaries are better than he is. They moved on and started supporting Hillary a long time ago. Bernie is going to insist on a roll call tonight, when the delegates officially elect the nominee for President. Ordinarily, in a situation like this, when the candidates supposedly have come together and the also-rans supposedly are behind the winner, someone in Bernie's situation would have officially dropped out and would call for nomination by acclamation. For the sake of party unity. For the sake of the best possible result in November. But Bernie isn't doing that. He's not quite irrational enough to think he still might be elected, but he's too egotistical to really get behind anybody else politically. Little wonder he was in a so-called Socialist party of one for so long.

And, of course, Bernie's ego is feeding into the irrationality of his die-hards who still think he can be elected. And a lot of those die-hards will be voting for him at the Convention tonight, and screaming about how they were robbed when Hillary wins. Bernie keeps this craziness going. He says his number-one priority is defeating Trump, but that's obvious nonsense. His number-one priority is always Bernie, Bernie, hooray for Bernie! His die-hards didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere, heckling the rest of the world and constantly screaming that they're being cheated, for no reason, with nothing having caused them.

You think the die-hards are going to come around as long as everybody keeps acting as if they were making perfect sense? You think that if Bernie makes a speech the week before Election Day which is supposed to be a campaign speech for Hillary and other Democrats, he's going to deliver a speech which isn't almost all about himself? If so, I don't know what world you've been paying attention to.

Some talking head last night asked how long the patience of Hillary's supporters will last in the face of the infantile behavior of the die-hard Sanders supporters. Obviously, my own patience with them ran out a long time ago, right away, as soon as I saw and heard them.

Supposedly, we're more rational, more fact-based than the GOP. So let's be that way. Let's not be so accommodating to irrationality and tantrums from within our ranks. Let's tell people when they're being ridiculous.

Bernie -- you're being ridiculous! You've been ridiculous for decades!

Let's have some standards.

A Modest Suggestion For Democrats About Tactics

I don't know if there's actually much that Democrats could learn from the GOP, but one thing is the way that Republicans brush off things much more heinous than the things they manage to get to stick to Democrats -- which often enough aren't true to begin with. In cases where the allegations against Democrats actually are true, instead of saying, "Yes, I've been caught, and I'm deeply ashamed of this email/dick pic/yacht trip/yelling 'WHOOO!' after I won a primary/whatever. I've let the people down, and I'll immediately resign in disgrace, of course," how about: "Are you kidding me?! Have you got any questions about any REAL issues? Things that affect people's lives? You want to talk about the emails? Ask Donald! He'll talk to you all day about the emails! He's not the slightest bit distracted by real political issues!" ?

Just a suggestion. Just food for thought. And of course: when the allegations are false, Democratic politicians could be even more dismissive than that.

All I'm saying is: stay focused on the important things. Don't ALLOW ridiculous meaningless little things to be blown up into scandals. Play like you actually want to win!

(I've been using the word "actually" very frequently recently, you're absolutely right about that. I have no excuses. I offer my humble apologies to all of my readers over this egregious overuse of one adverb, and, in the tradition of great Democratic wimps like Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore, I am withdrawing my candidacy from this election in order to spend more time with my family. Someone, please tape this "Kick Me" sign to my back as I turn around and walk away.)

US Congressional Interns, Photographed This Summer

Please help make these photographs go viral. They're amazing.

First, the Democratic Congressional interns:

Now here's the Speaker of the House in front of the Republican Congressional interns:

It's evidence such as these two photos which hardens my suspicion that the full-time job description of every single non-White Republican in the United States -- all 12 of them -- is to constantly stay right in front of television cameras in order to strengthen the illusion that the GOP is diverse. But every now and then, like right now, they really get caught with their lily-white pants down.

Yesterday I Was Upset With Bernie For Not Having Dropped Out

But then early yesterday evening I turned off my computer and turned on my TV and channel-surfed between news stations, and I relaxed somewhat, because, apart from clips of Bernie telling cheering crowds that it wasn't over (it's over) and Jeff Weaver, Bernie's campaign manager, doing his usual reality-challenged schtick with interviewers looking increasingly tired of him, it was as if he had dropped out: with very few, very short exceptions, nobody was talking about Bernie, everybody was talking about Hillary vs The Donald. Anderson Cooper asked Hillary if she was upset with Bernie for not having dropped out, she very calmly said no, and they went back to talking about more important things.

The die-hard Bernie supporters make a lot of noise. But you have to wonder how many of them there are. It would be nice if Bernie made nice with Hillary and called on all of his supporters to support her. But if he doesn't, you have to wonder how many people will still be paying attention to him.

Bernie's great at shouting about how things should be changed. Hillary's great at planning, step-by-step, how to actually change them. And the biggest part of those plans is about bringing as many Democrats into political office with her in November as she can. No matter who's in the White House, the majority party in the Senate and House is going to make all the difference about how much or little the President can actually do. Those 500+ superdelegates who've committed to Hillary, as against 40-something for Bernie, can see that Hillary is committed to helping them and as many other Democrats as possible take office. And they can see that Bernie, amazingly, doesn't seem to care much at all about their campaigns. This isn't rocket science, even if it actually is over Bernie's head: political parties work together. That's what they're there for. Hillary's raising money for other Democrats. Bernie isn't. Hillary's stumping for other Democrats. Bernie isn't. This is really, really simple.

It boggles the mind to think that Bernie actually can't see why all of those superdelegates are with Hillary and not with him, but it almost looks that way.

It's not rocket science. Even if Bernie never gets it, a lot of Democrats who've voted for him in the primaries will. The New York primary was 16 days ago -- do you remember it? Remember how so many people were exclaiming about how 25,000 people turned out for one of Bernie's rallies in Brooklyn? In the primary, 116,327 in Brooklyn voted for Bernie, and 174,236 for Hillary. For every person who came to that rally, about 4 1/2 voted for Bernie in the primary and about 7 for Hillary. Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx were even more lopsided for Hillary than that. If it was about the number of people who come to the rallies, Bernie would've wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. So far, 12,553,043 have voted in the primaries for Hillary so far, and 9,440,066 for Bernie. So, even leaving the superdelegates completely out of it, she's kicking his ass. Whether he notices it or not.

I think I've been unnecessarily upsetting myself, by paying more attention to hardcore feelers of the Bern than they have merited.

Politics And Idealism

There's that great scene in Wall Street where Lou Mannheim (Hal Holbrook) tells Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) that money "makes you do what you don't want to do." One of two great scenes with Holbrook and Sheen.



Well, politics also makes you do what you don't want to do. Even more so than money. There's no way to get anything done in politics without behaving in an un-idealistic manner, without compromising, without doing something you find odious in order to achieve something you consider noble -- if, that is, you're the type of politician who cares at all about doing good for other people. It seems that politicians who are not that type can thrive. And you have to deal with them.

I'm not saying this as a criticism of politics, but as a criticism of idealism. It's correct that idealism is portrayed as the opposite of realism, because idealism avoids dealing with reality.

In Germany, where the Green Party started and where it wields great power, there have long been two factions known as the Realos and the Fundis. "Realos" translates to "realists," or to "realpolitikers," and "Fundis" to "fundamentalists," or "idealists." Joschka Fischer is the most successful Realo in the history of Germany's Green Party. He was one of the 3 most powerful politicians in Germany during Gerard Schroeder's administration, from 1998 to 2005, and he has often been #1 in polls of Germany's best-liked politicians. Who are some of the leading Fundis? Screw them, I'm not going to even do them the courtesy of naming them, because, like all political idealists, they're just morons who are in the way, who never help anyone but the other side. They accused Fischer of selling out for starting to wear suits and ties when he became Germany's Foreign Minister in 1998. Namby-pamby bullshit like that. They're in the way. Joschka Fischer, Realo, realist, real politician, an effective player who gets all sorts of things done, getting Greens into a state administration for the first time in 1998 being just one of a long list of things he's gotten done, Fischer realized that if he continued, as Foreign Minister, to wear the traditional Green uniform of jeans and sneakers, the way he dressed would impair his effectiveness as he met with the most powerful politicians on Earth and brought the Green agenda of environmentalism, gay rights, military de-escalation, etc, etc, with him. Fischer continued to kick ass, and didn't seem too bothered by the Fundis wailing that wearing Armani constituted selling out.

The Green Party has been able to achieve and hold positions of power, political elected offices, because Germany, like most countries, has proportional representation. An individual doesn't have to win a majority or plurality of votes in order to take office: Germans vote for parties, and if a party has more than 5% they're in. (Germany instituted the so-called "5% hurdle" after WWII to stop the proliferation of whacko fringe parties.)

Unfortunately for us Amurrkins, we in the US have winner-takes-all elections of individuals instead of proportional elections of parties, which means that there are no Green Realos in the US. The US Green Party has only hopeless fools, Fundis, idealists, morons who are in the way. A vote for Green in the US is a vote for the GOP, because only the GOP or the Democrats are going to win any election, and if you like Green politics you should vote for the Democrats because they're much closer to to your positions than the Republicans. Yes, some Democrats are going to do things and vote for bills which offend you. But Republicans are much worse, and you are responsible for them and their racist, sexist, anti-science, pro-oil politics just as much as any Democrat if you vote Green. If you voted Green in the US you gave up the real power of your vote in favor of idealism, which is a dream world. Greens in the US like to think of themselves as fighting the Matrix,



but in the US, the Greens are a part of the Matrix.

The 2014 Mid-Terms And The Can't-Do Attitude Of Some Leftists

First of all, let's try to shake off this reluctance to call ourselves Leftists if we're left of center. Let's get a grip and speak plainly: yes, there are some Communists in the Democratic Party. And there are some Nazis in the Republican Party. And that's one of the long list of reasons why the Democratic Party is much better than the GOP.

It irks me so to hear people say that they "usually" vote Democratic, but they hate doing it, because Democrats and Republicans "are all pretty much the same," all "bought and paid for by corporations," and "things will never really change" because "those in power" don't want them to.

Things change all the time, so there's one of those premises I don't buy. You can read about some dramatic changes about to occur as a result of the mid-terms in this brief, accurate and depressing portrait of Jim Inhofe, who will probably be the next chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The stupidity of the readers' comments on the article are even more depressing, matching the stupidity of the US public's behavior this past Tuesday. There may be changes in Social Security and Disability checks received by the elderly and disabled. There will be changes in policy on women's rights, minority rights, affirmative action, voting rights, LGBT rights -- if you feel that Americans have entirely too many rights and that poor people have it too good and that it's time for billionaires to finally catch a break, the election returns should gladden your heart.

No, I don't buy the premise that Democrats and Republicans are the same. It astounds me that anybody could think they are.

Corporations aren't all the same either. Yes, they contribute heavily to the campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans, but they don't all contribute the same to both sides of the aisle. It'd be pretty stupid for oil companies to give as much to the party trying to take away their tax exemptions -- that'd be the Democratic Party, including that notorious wimpy centrist corporate stooge Barack Hussein Obama -- as they give to the party stamping at the bit to open up Keystone XL and remove restrictions on fracking -- yes, Sparky, that'd be the Republicans.

Also, one of the two big parties is trying to reverse the cynically-named Citizens United and VASTLY REDUCE the amount of money given to political campaigns, and no, Sparky, it ain't the GOP.

I don't buy that "those in power" all want the same things. I put the phrase in quotes because power constantly shifts, there isn't one clearly-defined Them running everything, that's a paranoid fantasy. In reality, individual human beings wield power, people who by no means always agree about everything, even when they're in one and the same of the 2 major parties. party. To those who feel powerless -- if you occasionally try to DO something to change the things which dissatisfy you, your chances of actually having more power yourself are better than if you just sit there and bitch and vote 3rd-party and stupidly, smugly believe yourselves to be morally superior to all of us who are actually trying to do something.

I'm talking to you, Greens. Yes, I blame you for Inhofe, and yes, I still blame you for W beating Gore, and no, I don't want to try to explain to you how the one individual most responsible for bringing global warming to the attention of the general public is different from the Republican POTUS whose administration shored up the near-unanimous Republican position that global warming isn't happening, if you really are too stupid to see the difference.

Oh well. About all we can do now is hold on for 2 years, dig in and try to keep the GOP from killing us all, and hope that the stupidest among us re-learn what they learned between 2010 and 2012 and then forgot again.

Yeah, I'm a little bit steamed. Just a tad.

There's No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans Except --

-- on women's health and freedom to choose, green energy, tax breaks for Big Oil, labor unions, whether one fears that the government has too much control over corporations or that corporations have too much control over the government, whether the best way to help all of us is to help the poorest and weakest or the richest and most powerful, whether or not everyone should have access to affordable health care, whether too many tax breaks are available to corporate CEO's making 8 figures a year or more or to teachers and firemen making $50,000 a year or less, whether GLBT's don't have enough rights or whether they have too many, whether or not it's time to revoke the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, whether or not drilling for oil and gas in national parks would be a good idea, whether it should be easier or more difficult for people in the US to obtain guns and ammo, whether or not Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Communist...

That's just off the top of my head. But yeah, if none of the above matters to you, you might as well vote Green. Or Libertarian. Or not at all, depending on what kind of stupid you are.

The Sky May Actually Not Be Falling

In a piece for the New York Times, Jonathan Weisman fears that the House may lurch even further to the Right in November:

"In districts where generally mild-mannered Republicans are exiting, their likely replacements may [bla bla bla doom, gloom, conventional 'wisdom,' bla bla bla]"

Weisman gives no consideration to the possibility that people who voted for those relatively centrist Republicans will vote against the extremist yahoos who beat the incumbents in the primaries, or simply not vote.

And it seems that just about every single "pundit" in Washington assumes that Democratic turnout will be low. "Well, Democratic turnout is ALWAYS low in the mid-terms." Well, before 2009 an African-American had never been President. Before 2011 no-one who occupied a seat in Congress ever said some of the stupid things Tea Partiers say. (Maybe if you go back to the 1830's or so.) Things CHANGE. A lot of the people who voted Democratic in 2012 were first-time voters. It makes no sense to simply assume that they will tend to sit out the mid-terms as Democratic voters have in the past.

Nor does it make sense to assume that a significant number of Democratic voters who've sat out previous mid-terms have not noticed the Republican extremists and become alarmed and politicized.

I'll tell you one thing which has happened over and over in previous elections and could happen again in November: a great many Washington political "wizards" could be proven completely wrong. Remember all the "geniuses" who were convinced that the race between Obama and Romney would be close, and that the Republicans would make huge gains in both houses of Congress in 2012? (Just in case you didn't notice: in 2012 the Democrats gained 2 seats in the Senate and 8 in the House. And the election between Obama and Romney wasn't close. Just the same way that the Earth wasn't destroyed the way that a lot of idiots said that a Mayan calendar said it would be.)

Get out and vote Democrat, and send all these scary rightwing yahoos home.

Texas Is Purple

I'm taking this opportunity to tell you that Texas is purple -- that is, neither overwhelmingly Republican nor overwhelmingly Democratic -- because I've heard so many Democrats, most of whom, I just betcha, haven't ever been in Texas, saying things like "Texas is just hopeless" and "Texans are all morons" and "Can Texas secede now? Please?" and so forth.

I have no problem with people saying that W and Tom DeLay and Rick Perry and Ted Cruz are all morons. They are. And unfortunately they're also the Texas politicians who have garnered the most nationwide attention since Ann Richards died. The thing is, though, neither Perry nor Cruz gained his current office by a landslide, and there are signs of buyer's remorse from some of the good folks who did vote for them, and furthermore, 12 out of Texas' 36 US Representatives are Democrats. That's exactly 1/3 of Texas' US House delegation, and 1/3 is more than Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

Purple.

And those 12 are mostly very liberal Democrats, too. And liberal Democrats aren't just a recent phenomenon in Texas. Take Henry B Gonzalez, who represented Texas's 20th congressional district from 1961 to by-God 1999. According to Wikipedia,

González became known for his liberal views. In 1963, Republican congressman Ed Foreman called González a "communist" and a "pinko" and González confronted him. González was referred to as a "communist" in 1986 by a man at Earl Abel's restaurant, a popular San Antonio eatery. The 70-year-old representative responded by punching him in the face. González was acquitted of assault for this incident.

Yessir, that's a Texas Democrat for you: liberal and mean, and well-loved by his fellow Texans for both. Can you say Lyndon B Johnson? I know that you can. Yes, currently the most well-known Texas politicians outside of Texas are some Republican yahoos, but it might not be long before the most prominent politician from Texas in the US is someone like 39-year-old Joaquin Castro, who is now the Congressman from the 20th district, the same 20th district earlier represented by the 70-year-old who punched a yahoo in the face for callin' him a Commie and was aquitted of charges for it, or maybe Joaquin's twin brother Julián, currently the mayor of San Antonio, a little over half of which is in the 20th district. Whether they go nationwide or not, I'd say it probably couldn't hurt to be on good terms with the Castro family if you want to be a big shot in San Antonio. I'm just guessing. I'm also guessing that Texas will get a lot more blue in the next few years, but that's not just me, that's also most folks who know something about Texas politics and aren't so unbelievably stupid that they consider Ted Cruz to be a hero. People who can count past 10 without takin' off their socks. So brace yrselves, America! This'll be good!

Let's USE This Vast Political Capital The Republicans Have Just Handed Us

Let's go after every single Republican office-holder -- unless you can think of a Republican currently holding public office who's stood up to the Tea Party since 2009. Yeah, I can't think of one either. Yes, some of them are critical of the Tea Party now, but look at the size of the clusterfuck it took for them to speak up. Look at what was acceptable to all of them until the writing was on the wall about the 2012 elections, and then to all but a tiny handful of them. The Tea Party belongs to the Republican Party. Let's make them own it. All of them. Let's not let this very recent turn toward bipartisanship make us forget the 5 years before the last 3 weeks.

And please, my fellow Democrats, let's stop this awful pathetic whining about how this or that Republican Senator or Representative or Governor or Councilman or judge or dog-catcher is untouchable. None of them are untouchable after this shutdown debacle. Let's not just win some seats in 2014 and 2016, let's crush the GOP as it now once and for all, so that what emerges is either a GOP as unrecognizably liberal by today's standards as today's is unrecognizably reactionary by the standards of several decades ago, or something like a political landscape where the Republican and Green Parties have swapped places in terms of relevance and clout, a US where it's Democrat against Green instead of Democrat against Republican. (Or better yet, of course, a change in the Constitution to base our government on proportional representation, but at this point the eradication of far-right political power looks like a nearer, more attainable goal.)

They're not untouchable. Let's find a brilliant, charismatic rainmaker in his or her early 20's and run him or her against John Boehner. That's a no-lose proposition for the Democrats because the whiz kid will either actually win, or win enough votes against the sitting Speaker of the House to brighten up any 25-year-old's resume.

Let's go after em all. You may say I'm a crazy wild-eyed dreamer. I say that the Republicans are in such a mess that it'd be crazy to consider any one of them to be invulnerable.

The 2014 Midterms

What's that you say? It's a tad early to be thinking about the midterms? No, it's not early at all. "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." Also, for a while the Republicans have been outdoing us in contributions, advertising and turnout in the midterms. Why not try to turn that around? A Republican would be less likely to say it's early yet. "Traditionally," anyway, as the "pundits" tend to say, who are better at reading returns from past elections than at gauging what's going on around them now, because the latter is hard, let's face it. The Dems have defied a few pieces of "conventional wisdom" lately -- ah, imagine if wisdom actually were conventional, wouldn't that be sweet -- and if we can manage a huge turnout in 2014, that could make for a truly tremendous change in the US. Imagine if Obama could spend his last 2 years in office with a Congress which co-operated with him, except for the occasions when it pulled him to the Left.

Contact your local Democratic Party. If you don't know where the local HQ is, look here. Volunteer. Educate yourself on health care, the environment, voting rights, civil rights, education itself and other issues. TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT POLITICS. (Although in the case of people who have voted Green in the past and intend to continue doing so, you may want to consider how much time you want to spend talking to them. It would be a waste of your time to spend too much time talking to people who are too stupid to grasp the difference between the US political system and systems employing proportional representation, in which voting Green is not worse than a complete waste, where Greens are actually elected to public office. Try to spend your time and energy to maximum effect.) Register new voters.

And since we all know that most of you will actually do none of that, at least GET UP OFF OF YOUR BUTTS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014, AND VOTE. Thanks.

We mustn't be overconfident. Overconfidence will ruin your game every time, in chess and in politics. Democrats were overconfident after the 2008 elections, and in 2010 the Tea Party happened. The Tea Party was overconfident after 2010, and in 2012 we handed their asses to them. It's time to stop the 2012 Snoopy happy dance NOW and put on our game faces.

The Tea Party Lost

Yes, what they did was huge and awful. But the debt ceiling raise extends to 2013. There's nothing more they can kidnap. And they've caught the attention of a lot of people and made them angry. And whoever you are, your political opponents are a lot like the Hulk: you wouldn't like them when they're angry. People who never bothered to vote before will not only be voting Democrat in 2012: some of them will be campaigning for the Democrats in 2012, thanks to the Tea Party. (Thanks!) Many people who sat out 2010 will be in line early on November 6, 2012. Let's do this thing.

In the meantime, many of the baggers' colleagues, who been waving their arms and shouting about compromise and co-operation, while the baggers smiled and leaned back with their arms crossed, not compromising and not co-operating, will show them how smoothly this co-operation thing works, every time a bill comes under consideration with funding for an Interstate overpass or some Internet infrastructure or a factory contract or a research grant or a fresh coat of paint on a National Park sign inside a baggers' district or state, and in the process the baggers' constituents will learn a lot about the impact of Federal spending, as well as the importance of co-operation and sharing. As we all know, a lot of cuts will be made. It's all about learning.