How Democracies Die

This is not just MAGA, it's the Republican Party's responsibility too

We all have our preferences, priorities and values. When it comes to public policy and electing representatives to lead the government, we can debate the issues. Reason and evidence should guide our important decisions. But before we have a conversation, we have to agree about the rules of logic, and evidence.

Likewise, if democracy is to survive, the major participants have to agree about the fundamentals of the game. One such rule is to accept the peaceful transition of government. The system has to have legitimacy, at least among those major players and teams that participate. There's no point having elections if the result is not respected by the participating major parties.

But, how about when there's cheating? Yeah, that would be very bad if it affected the end result of an election. The outcome of an election, wouldn't be legitimate then. However, false allegations, big lies, and unsubstantiated claims are equally harmful. There isn't a shred of evidence, for example, that the 2020 election was stolen, or fraud changed the outcome. 

When democracies die, there are many assassins, and most often among them are those established leaders that empower the murder of democracy. The Republican party [The RNC] has failed to condemn the Big Lie and the big liar. Actually, it has said that the Jan. 6th (2021) violent insurrection against the US Capitol was a "legitimate political discourse"!!!

That's why, in my view, anyone who agrees with this is dis-qualified from holding public office.

"During the first Republican debate of the 2024 presidential primary campaign last month, Donald Trump’s rivals were asked to raise their hands if they would support his candidacy, even if he were “convicted in a court of law.” Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election wasn’t just a potential criminal offense. It also violated the cardinal rule of democracy: Politicians must accept the results of elections, win or lose.

But that seemed to matter little on the debate stage..." [source: NYT 9/8/23]

How Democracies Die, by Levitsky and Zimblatt. A must-read book.

Yes, It DOES Reflect Who You Are, Donald! [just go away already, you disgusting bully]

While the "deplorables" is a recent tag, and H.Clinton has gotten lots of criticism about this, it's appropriate. The only question is the size of this dirt bag. The GOP should have realized that Trump was riding a wave that had those deplorables as its core. The ones filled with hate, prejudice, and utter ignorance. And, he encouraged this. No party should have promoted anyone who gets on stage and denigrates possible future presidents of the US by calling them, "ugly," "little ..." . "lyin'.. etc, and brags about the size of his penis.


But, he is the product of the seeds and cultivation the GOP employed in the last 10 years. That unless Republicans are in charge everything else is suspect, treasonous, foreign, anti-American, anti-Xtian, illegitimate, and worthy of not only disrespect, but hate too. Everybody knows how the Congressional GOP and its leaders have behaved. Same with others down the line to local levels. Trump rode this wave the GOP created, so the GOP, Tea party, etc, all OWN him. As he said last week, "I reflect you"... 


This pussy-scandal shouldn't surprise anyone. If anyone didn't know of or cared about Don's personality before this latest revelation confirms that they've rightly have earned the label of deplorables!

A juvenile, braggart, vile, dangerous ignoramus, who wants to run the United States as a gambling hole, while encouraging and employing a basket of deplorables. He has lead them by example! What more do you want to reject this disgusting bully?

Republicans Are Bad for Women, Unless...

Well, unless you want to live in the dark ages, when women knew their place and men decided what was good for them! Then vote for any of the leaders in this regressive Republican party, including the presidential candidates who presumably want to appeal to the majority of women in our country.

In the last several years, Republican governors and state legislatures are passing laws that restrict women's right to reproductive choice, shutting down health clinics, and defunding family-planning organizations. Gail Collins has an excellent op-ed piece in the NYT on this topic. Here's an excerpt:

One thing that all these guys have in common is a desire to put themselves in charge of the reproductive rights of the entire female half of the country. Trump used to be pro-choice, but he “evolved” at some undisclosed point in the 21st century. Ted Cruz opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. John Kasich is willing to allow a troubled teenager to get an abortion if she’s seduced by her father, but not if the seducer is the next-door neighbor. This is why Kasich’s the moderate.

 And, here's "an angel of destruction" who'll destroy the GOP and tear America (and the world?) apart--as per conservative columnist, David Brooks:

That’s where the Republican Party is right now. Everybody talks about being so depressed about Trump. But Republicans are passive and psychologically defeated. That’s because their conscious and unconscious mental frameworks have just stopped working. Trump has a monopoly on audacity, while everyone else is immobile.

But Trump has no actual ideas or policies. There is no army of Trumpists out there to carry on his legacy. He will almost certainly go down to a devastating defeat, either in the general election or — God help us — as the worst president in American history.

Brooks easily forgets the truly bad Republican presidents in the last 50 years. Hopefully, we won't experience a Trump presidency, so the title of the worst president in the last 100 years (at least) will remain with G.W. Bush 43.

What's Obama's Game with His Nomination to the Supreme Court?

Many progressives are aghast at the president's nomination to the Supreme Court, for two main reasons. One, judge Merrick Garland is in his 60s, and two, he's a centrist. This is not the best we hoped for. Yes, he is qualified, and under an ideal environment whereas the Republican party was a centrist, and a Republican president would also nominate a centrist, Garland would be acceptable. Those days are long gone though.

President Obama may be in his moderate self, trying to reach across to the other party, as he's tried to do all these years. He should have learned by now, that moderation ain't working. On the other hand, maybe the president calculated that the obstructionist GOP senators will not budge and thus his nominee is a sacrificial lamb to highlight how extreme these senators are by not accepting even a reasonable nominee.  

However, I would not have advised the president to do this. Things can happen, like public pressure that may make the Senate give in and consider this nominee, and, who knows, he may get confirmed if the conservatives realize they may lose the control of the Senate and get a more liberal nominee under president Clinton. So, again, not a good idea to nominate Garland.

No matter what the Republicans choose to do, this supreme court's annual session will end by June with no new justice being seated. Soon after that, the conventions will take place, and there will be lots of national polls about the strength of the two presidential candidates. It's possible that, if Trump is being blown out of the water by Clinton, the Republicans might reconsider their stance and re-examine Garland's nomination.

But, I'm also betting these Republicans aren't acute enough to realize the gamble they're undertaking by not holding hearings for this nomination. And, they may be stubborn enough to be willing to lose control of the Senate too. If I were advising them, I would have called Obama's bluff when he leaked that he was considering a former Republican governor of Nevada for the Supreme Court. The conservatives should have said, yes, if he's the nominee, we're most certainly interested! They should take Garland, because they can't be sure they'll get a better one even under president Trump. (OK, I fell off my chair as soon I put "president" and "Trump" together)

What should Hillary Clinton do in this matter? Well, we all hope she'll nominate a much more liberal and younger judge--one who can stay on the high court for 30 years, like Scalia. I'd also argue that she should nominate--and already begin to indicate--a very liberal judge, because the democratic base will demand it, the public would be disgusted by the obstructionist Republicans, and it'll be natural for her to nominate an exact opposite of Scalia.

I think Hillary will be more politically savvy than this president, who wasted 1,5 years when he took office by delegating to Congress two of his top agenda items, immigration reform and health care reform. He lost his momentum. Political capital--and he had plenty when he took office--must be spend quickly or it evaporates. He should have told Congress that he's the new boss in town, having won by a landslide, that he wanted this and that and no less. Instead he squandered precious time and a Democratic majority in both chambers in Congress.

If Hillary wins there should be no wasting time and no need to compromise with a broken, dysfunctional Republican party. It is that party that needs to move to the center to be a partner of reasonable politics. The GOP as it is caters to the extremes, like the Dems did to the KKK in the 1920s. That Dem party killed the moderates, like Al Smith from New York, and eventually had to be broken up, until a new winning coalition was put together by FDR.

I may never vote for a Republican but I do want a sensible, centrist GOP; it'll be good for our country. The way our system is designed, with power dispersed among the branches, and that the executive doesn't have control of the legislature, compromise is often necessary; that's how we get things done. But compromise has to be among reasonable people who at least agree about reality. 

It's natural to disagree about priorities and values, but facts are facts, science is science, etc. Sadly, this Republican party is divorced not only from modernity but also from reality. All modern advanced liberal-social-democracies have a parties that form a consensus on reality, like science, education, environment, and many social safety net features. No, not our Republican party.

As for the third "super Tuesday" Trump not only won most states but he was fortunate to lose Ohio to Kasich. The latter will stay in the game and in the next 17 winner-take-all states, Trump only needs the plurality to win all the delegates.  

Some other random thoughts

• Kasich is not a moderate, only appears so compared to the extremists of his party;
• I can't decide if I want Trump to win the majority of the delegates before the convention or watch hand to hand combat later at the GOP convention if he's a little short of the majority. I think of all the candidates of both parties, some 20 of them, only Trump puts himself above his party, which means he may break the party up if he's denied the nomination.  
• I used to believe that Cruz would be a more beatable Republican in the general election since he's so bat-crazy. I also thought that the GOP might change after suffering another crushing defeat with a true conservative as its nominee; they would own the defeat with Cruz  as the nominee, but not necessarily with Trump--who may be dismissed as not a true Republican. 
• I now think Trump spells bigger problems for the GOP, so I'm looking forward to an entertaining campaign season. However, I wish this charade didn't take place. We shouldn't have charlatans, con artists, and gutter politics in such prominence; they belong in the lunatic fringe.

The Summoning of Drumpf. The Cons(ervatives) Have A Monster of their Own Creation

I endured another Republican debate last night for some low-grade entertainment and since my expectations were very low on the IQ spectrum, I wasn't disappointed. A true spectacle starring "Little Marco", "Drumph" and "Lying Ted", oh, and another guy...you know, that governor whose opposition to recognizing death certificates of spouses in same-sex marriage led to the Supreme Court historic case (Obergefell v. Hodges).
 

Fox News anchors made an effort to challenge Trump's inconsistencies, generalities, and bogus economic arguments, but debates aren't meant to truly examine issues in depth. The court of public opinion relies on the judgment of the public to evaluate a candidate and his arguments. In a court of law, there is the legal structure, and a judge that instructs the jurors and oversees the debate, but in politics there's none of that. 

In a way, it can be argued that collectively we get what we deserve. This is the problem of democracy--it relies on the quality of the people involved, leaders and citizens. No, I am not advocating authoritarianism; I'm merely pointing out the obvious, which has occurred many, many times in the past.  Indeed, if Trump didn't have many millions of Americans behind him, he would have been in the lunatic fringe. 

Though, another argument can also be made that the lunatic fringe has been petted, entertained, and even cultivated by the Republican party in the last 30 years. The Trump phenomenon is not new; it just happens that an arrogant egomaniac has a megaphone through which he expresses what a significant size of Republicans already believe and say. Yeah, even the third-grade language (no complete sentences), insults, vulgarity, ignorance of issues, and prejudice of the ..angry base have found a loudmouth to be uttered in the political debates of the elites.  As I said before, this is not good for our country and the way we should conduct our political discourse. 

Now, how should the Democratic nominee deal with Trump? To begin with, he has to be taken seriously--a lesson the Dems are learning today by watching the GOP's contest unfolding. To rely on the news media to challenge Trump's inconsistencies and voodoo policies isn't enough judging from history. Ridiculous claims must be addressed; don't rely on the media or the public to dispel them.

I don't think it'd be hard to get under Drumpf's skin and then watch his go unhinged. But, his appeal should not be underestimated. He has a message. His logo--Make America Great Again--is the only one people can recite. I doubt most people know what the other candidates' logos are! He's simplistic but that's easily understood (it doesn't have to be an intellectual understanding) by anyone, especially the low-information voters.

A couple more observations. The country is moving in a progressive direction, despite the loud noises coming from the conservatives and reactionaries. The Supreme Court will soon take a more progressive path. What was radical 20 years ago, it's mainstream today. Even the world "liberal" is now adopted as one of their identifiers by the majority of Dems in all states, except Oklahoma, though it's strong there too. Back in 2008, the majority of Dems didn't want to identify themselves as liberals.

This election, like many others, will be decided by turnout. The more people vote the better for the Dems. We've heard that Trump has brought in millions of voters, which is probably true, but he carries very high negatives, which alienates many conservatives who may stay home on election day. Despite the low(er) numbers in the Dem primary, the groups normally supporting them will be energized next Fall, especially if Drumpf is the GOP nominee. He has alienated some of the Republican base, many of the so-called independents, the Hispanics/Latino, Asians, and women. 

Here's a view from the conservative elite discussing Romney's intervention against Trump and why some Republican don't like him. Or, "why this Republican party must die".... [link, CNBC]
 

The Dems are more united and generally happy with either Clinton or Sanders. The SCOTUS issue is big and will loom even bigger this year given the obstructionist Congressional Republicans. The battle for the Supreme Court can energize both parties' bases, but here the Dems have an advantage in numbers, especially among women. Did you hear that single adults are now the majority of Americans? Given that women are the majority in the US, then single women are a powerful political block. Why "political"? Because they're motivated by political issues of great concern to them, like health care, education, reproductive choice, etc. They are overwhelmingly pro-choice, for example, and they care about other issues liberals/progressives champion.

Paul Krugman's Observation is so ..Right: From Trump on Down, The Republicans Can't be Serious

Update, Aug. 11th: Those who thought Trump would implode after bullying everyone at the GOP debate and blowing lots of noisy hot air out of his.. orifices, new polls indicate the opposite, because, heck, the conservative base likes what Trump represents. The GOP leadership want to hide this ugly reality from the rest of America.

In the first contest state, Iowa, according to the latest poll, Trump leads the field at 19%, followed by Ben (who?) Carson at 12%.  In the second state contest and first primary, in New Hampshire, Trump jumped up by 7% to 32% [New Hampshire poll] after the debate. The second choice, Jeb Bush, dropped to 11%.

I think it's time for this blog to endorse Donald Trump for the Republican Party's nomination in 2016. I think Sarah Palin would be a great VP on the ticket with him. What? She's not running? OK, let's keep our eyes & ears open on this.....

---------------
Another excellent editorial by Paul K; it's worth reading it in its entirety. (see below)

The GOP strategists and party leaders aren't happy with the Donald because he's damaging and already damaged party with the mainstream (centrists and independents) voters. But, what Trump represents is the basis of the activist part of the Republican party. He's expressing views that, although deeply-held in GOP's heart, are not usually expressed when Republicans are seeking mainstream votes.  Don't believe me? Just read the national and state Republican parties' platforms. There, you find many abhorrent views that fly well with the conservative base but are sunk in the waters of where the rest of the country lives!

I often wonder how it's possible two people to see something in front of their eyes and form totally different conclusions. If it's about factual findings, then, I had believed, it'd be a simple matter of using logic and evidence to ascertain the facts. But, in reality this rarely happens, especially when something is deemed important by the individual!  People are greatly influenced by culture (including religion), ideology, and a personal sense of a comfort zone. The ideological part can numb the mind and make someone lazy to chew up and digest information. Conformity was rewarded. Venturing outside the comfort zone--into the discomfort of realizing you've made a mistake--wasn't/isn't desired either.

But, I think it may be a personality trait on how to approach life. Being a conservative is natural, or at least it's how the vast majority of humans lived and experienced their lives. Captured by culture and in time. Very few ventured outside the norm. It can be argued that such approach made sense too. At the very least, blaze makers were not rewarded but they were rather persecuted, tortured, and killed. Group think was the norm. Of course there were divisions and big conflicts. Recently, I've been pouring over the religious conflicts after the Protestant Reformation. Yes, Martin Luther, Kalvin, and others brought about tremendous change, but much of it--and it took many generations to be evident--was unintended. The bloody religious wars pitted one religious faction against another, but in essence all sides hadn't been that radical--as they all held different versions of the same flawed illusion of a divine creator who insisted upon how we dress, what we eat, how we screw, how we kill our enemies, etc.

Now, how is it that most of us think Trump is someone who uses empty (though appealing) rhetoric. He said he didn't prepare for the first GOP debate last week. I believe him, because he doesn't have to be specific as long as he appears to know and uses generalities specifically addressing the concerns of the conservative base. Instead of responding to Megyn Kelly's question about his paleolithic views on women, he responds by personally attacking her and ..Rosie O'Donnell. That debate broke all viewership records for such debates other than presidential ones. Trump was tramp. The GOP leadership may not want him but if the activist base--those who show up during the Republican primary selection process--this is exciting.

The 2016 election, was supposed to be a showcase of the "new" Republican party. There's no incumbent running this time, so both parties have a chance to re-define themselves by showcasing their candidates. They're indeed doing so....

 Paul Krugman's editorial [link] in its entirety

This was, according to many commentators, going to be the election cycle Republicans got to show off their “deep bench.” The race for the nomination would include experienced governors like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, fresh thinkers like Rand Paul, and attractive new players like Marco Rubio. Instead, however, Donald Trump leads the field by a wide margin. What happened?

The answer, according to many of those who didn’t see it coming, is gullibility: People can’t tell the difference between someone who sounds as if he knows what he’s talking about and someone who is actually serious about the issues. And for sure there’s a lot of gullibility out there. But if you ask me, the pundits have been at least as gullible as the public, and still are.

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

For example, Mr. Trump’s economic views, a sort of mishmash of standard conservative talking points and protectionism, are definitely confused. But is that any worse than Jeb Bush’s deep voodoo, his claim that he could double the underlying growth rate of the American economy? And Mr. Bush’s credibility isn’t helped by his evidence for that claim: the relatively rapid growth Florida experienced during the immense housing bubble that coincided with his time as governor.

Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?

Mr. Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.

And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line. (Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything, but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to believe.)

The point is that while media puff pieces have portrayed Mr. Trump’s rivals as serious men — Jeb the moderate, Rand the original thinker, Marco the face of a new generation — their supposed seriousness is all surface. Judge them by positions as opposed to image, and what you have is a lineup of cranks. And as I said, this is no accident.

It has long been obvious that the conventions of political reporting and political commentary make it almost impossible to say the obvious — namely, that one of our two major parties has gone off the deep end. Or as the political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it in their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become an “insurgent outlier … un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.” It’s a party that has no room for rational positions on many major issues.

Or to put it another way, modern Republican politicians can’t be serious — not if they want to win primaries and have any future within the party. Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary parts of a candidate’s resume.

Until now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a façade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?

Remember how Mr. Trump was supposed to implode after his attack on John McCain? Mr. McCain epitomizes the strategy of sounding moderate while taking extreme positions, and is much loved by the press corps, which puts him on TV all the time. But Republican voters, it turns out, couldn’t care less about him.

Can Mr. Trump actually win the nomination? I have no idea. But even if he is eventually pushed aside, pay no attention to all the analyses you will read declaring a return to normal politics. That’s not going to happen; normal politics left the G.O.P. a long time ago. At most, we’ll see a return to normal hypocrisy, the kind that cloaks radical policies and contempt for evidence in conventional-sounding rhetoric. And that won’t be an improvement.

Back to the Dark Ages--A Republican Motto.

So, in my opinion, Carthage must be destroyed--Roman senator Cato the elder used to end every speech he made. Carthage was an enemy of Rome, but every time it was defeated, it rose up quickly, armed itself and the war cycle began again. Now, I'm taking the side of the Roman empire, but we should take similar action to Cato's when it comes to religion. We've got to break the spell. We deserve better than to be bound to immaturity, superstition, and, yes, evil.

George Carlin, a god of comedy

Indiana and now Arkansas are promoting law that supposedly safeguard religious freedom, when, in fact, these laws mean to give immunity to businesses that want to discriminate against anybody their holy faith dictates! We've been through this before, since the early days of our republic. Much of the discrimination was done by private businesses, but since the civil rights era of the latter part of the 20th century it appeared we're putting this evil behind us. But, of course, modern day conservatives, and the Republican party, are reviving discrimination camouflaged as freedom of religion. 

If racism, homophobia, and intolerance were all but dead, we would be debating such issues today in the US. There would be a few clubs or private organizations that would cater to the ingrates who are stuck in the dark ages. But, if a business is open to the public, it cannot discriminate, even if the owner has a strong case of a virus of the mind--religion. My employer should be allowed to take out blood transfusion from my medical plan, simply because he has a crazy religious belief that deems such procedure as immoral. Same with other coverage that modern medicine deems necessary for good health. 

Likewise, a restaurant, a movie theater, a whatever that is open to the public, cannot deny admission or service to gays, atheists, racial, ethnic, religious groups/individuals. A pharmacist should not be able to deny women birth control options because that idiot thinks his religion makes it immoral for single women to have sex.

We have to break the spell of religion, we'll be better off. It may be true that some immature people need religion in order to behave decently, though there are strong arguments against this view. If someone needs the fear of punishment in order to behave well, there are other ways to provide this motivational force outside the spell of religion. It is very sad that religiosity in the US is so high--much higher than in other advanced western-type liberal democracies. I would have no problem if religion was a strictly private matter. This is when the principle of choice, freedom of religion, own conscience and choice applies. But, unfortunately, stone-age beliefs are still holding our society hostage since there is a critical mass that carries this virus of the mind. 

Sen. Inhofe: Republican Neanderthalism?

We are still debating reality in this country! Issues like evolution, all sorts of science, the age of the earth, climate change, civil & human rights, etc, are somehow controversial ! Did you hear about Senator Inhofe (R-OK), who chairs the Environment Committee and also thinks that global warming is the "greatest hoax" perpetrated on humanity by.... Total nonsense. But he brought a snowball to the Senate floor to prove his point that the US capitol was "unseasonably cold" hence no global warming! Yeah and heehaw.....  Oh, it got better.... In order to rebut the criticism following this stupid stunt, he came back the next day armed with a ..Bible in which he found a passage that as long as humans walk this earth, God has promised that the ..weather will be just fine. Yeah, if only he was the only crazed one, but he is not. 

Now let's watch to see how many presidential candidates on the Republican side are going to support discrimination, outdated social views, superstition, prejudice, willful ignorance, anti-liberal values, policies that favor the elites, and a path to the "good ol' days"--regressing to the dark ages that is.

Republicans Won Big. They Do When People Don't Vote!

Now that the dust has settled, we're looking at a bright couple of years of Republican leadership in Congress. Finally most of the gridlock will dissolve, because the Democrats must compromise now--as the American people demanded through this election. We may be witnessing a new conservative wave, a take-back-America from the clutches of the libruls. Sure.

Well, fear and anger won over hope and change. Most of the people who voted don't understand how our government works--or why it doesn't. The obstructionists were rewarded, because the president did not appear to deliver. The Democrats were in retreat; they didn't want to own even the good things, like improved economy (especially considering where it has been), and millions of citizens got health care coverage while medical costs are going down over all. If you don't own or explain the good things you've done, then the voters will not choose you because you claim your opponents are worse!

Republicans Win When People Don't Vote

It's very interesting to see where the votes came from. When fewer people vote, the GOP has the advantage. No wonder why they try to make it harder to vote. The charge of "voter fraud" (despite their efforts to prove it) is without evidence. But, millions of American citizens are barred from voting, because they may not have the required identification. In Texas, the state college ID isn't good enough, though a gun license is!

Where Democratic governors and legislatures have made voting more accessible, greater numbers show up. In Oregon some 70% did, even in this midterm election, whereas about half of that number is the norm in the country. Ideally elections should fall either on a Sunday or make them a federal holiday. Open up early voting, and same-day registration on election day. There's no fraud of people voting when they're not supposed to, or for others. There's election fraud though when citizens are disenfranchised.

In the last presidential election, about 120 million voted. In this one, about 70-80 million did. This makes for a different composition of the electorate. White men, especially over 45, prefer the GOP by big margins. Women over all prefer the Dems. Hispanics and younger people also prefer the Dems, but they don't vote in big numbers, not in off-presidential elections. 

Unfortunately, many Americans are either alienated by the complicated and gridlocked system, and they don't see how an election like this one matters to their life. Several of my friends and relatives failed to vote; most of my college students didn't either. They weren't even paying attention. Up until a couple weeks before the elections, polls indicated that perhaps most Americans didn't even know there was an election whereas the whole 435 House of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate, plus governors, and local officials were on the ballot!

We have a double-think condition in which we can hold two contradictory ideas in our heads as equally valid. We brag to the world that we have the best democracy, free press, abundant freedom, etc. But, we also admit that the system is broken, or that is not responsive to the average citizen, or that the game is fixed favoring the rich & powerful, or that our vote doesn't really mean anything. 

Progressive Direction

Despite the giddiness of conservatives, the country is on a progressive path. Of course there are/will be some bumps along the way, but just remember what has been happening in the last 20 years. Indeed, even in this election, where more Republicans showed up to vote, lots of progressive ballot initiatives passed easily--like increase in minimum wage, actions favorable for the environment, abortion rights (against embryonic personhood), legalization of marijuana, etc. There are clear majorities for sensible immigration reform (includes legalization of undocumented with a path to citizenship), health care, gender rights, same-sex marriage, homosexuals in the military, and many other progressive views are now are mainstream. No, America isn't going back to the dark ages. There's no taking it back, especially given the views of the younger Americans--those under 45.

On the other hand, I'm going to enjoy the show as more crazies joined the ranks of the Congressional Republicans. The incoming majority leader, McConnell, will now squirm because those who he really dislikes are going to poop in his party--Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Rand Paul, Joni Ernst, and a few other gems. I'd advise the Dems not to filibuster and let the Republicans expose themselves for the extremists they are. Why, they should begin impeachment proceedings too.

Government has been broken because of Republican obstructionism. No compromise was good enough for them to like the Dems or this president. The latter didn't understand this. There's isn't much the two sides can agree on, so even with the Dems retaining the Senate nothing major would have come out in the "lame duck" years of Obama's term. One notable would have been to confirm more judicial nominees; now they have to wait until the next president takes office in January of 2017.

If I had a secret hope it'd be that president Obama feels liberated after this. He won't be running for reelection and since he was an unwelcomed guest at the Democratic campaigns, he could do the right thing and fight for progress, and show some gaddam leadership. But, lip service won't do.

Robert Reich Explains the Bad Economics & Priorities of the Romney-Ryan Ticket

I received this video from MoveOn.org with my favorite Robert Reich explaining the five reasons the Romney-Ryan plan would further damage the middle class and worsen the US economy. 

My response with five reasons:

1. My friends believe they know everything so this video isn't necessary.
2. You wrongly assume that most people are motivated by reason, inquiry, evidence, and are willing to change their minds. Most people seek to confirm their biases.
3. Isn't Move On part of the liberal media? That fella seemed like he knew what he was talking about until the end.... if he works for Move On then he's biased. I want ..both sides. One the Earth is flat and the other it’s round. The truth maybe is in the middle…
4. Conservatives won't vote for Romney because they care or know much about Ryan; they'll vote against the black Muslim Kenyan and the unpatriotic Dems. USA # 1
5. The 5 ways R & R's plan would destroy the middle class can be interpreted that the people in the MC will move up to the rich class! We don't need a MC. I guess the poor will always be screwed, but we all know it's their fault

Seriously, there are very few people who will be moved by reason this election. Most of us already know how we'll vote. The people who will swing one way or another are either low-information voters or true independents. The latter, however, are likely to be leaners, that is, they hold specific and rather concrete views on many issues, thus it's a matter of a campaign making connections between the candidate and those voters. This, by the way, is one strategy of a campaign. Educating the voters means making those connections not changing minds--there's no time for that.

This is another reason why the extreme positions of this Republican party should be advertised as much as possible. It's not where most people are and not where they're headed. For example, Romney-Ryan view on birth control and abortion, tax policies, the environment, health care, etc. The Akin fiasco shows the true nature of the GOP. Once the real "mind" and will of the GOP is revealed people know it's crazy.

Take a look at the speakers appearing in the GOP national convention and what they've said and what they stand for. Appalling. From questioning Obama's birth certificate to conspiracy theories of the bizarre. 

The Romney-Ryan Party Needs to be Defeated for its Own Sake and for the US

It is said the the choice for VP is the first major decision impacting the administration-to-be a presidential candidate makes. Well, there are political calculations, like balancing the ticket, or getting extra votes in certain states, etc. Most times, it's do-no-harm. McCain's blunder was that he was old, had several bouts with cancer (couldn't change that obviously) but he chose a totally inadequate VP in Sarah Palin--who, by the way, was recently told to stay away from the GOP convention this summer. 

To pay for whatever we decide we need to, I'm happy to be taxed at a rate twice as high as Romney! It's fair, no?... Ryan thinks so!

Anyway, a tea party congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, was chosen by Romney. This made conservatives (not the moderate ones) happy; it also made Dems and progressives happier. What many conservatives don't see is that their core policy platforms are not popular, nor will they be.


Those who say Romney will be a centrist--as he probably is on social issues, but not economic ones--and therefore will be a consensus president are absolutely wrong. He can't and he won't because he needs the nuts that have control of the GOP, in and outside Congress. He chose an extremist for his VP. Why wouldn't he choose the same for the Supreme Court? No, the Dems may block one nominee, but the president can nominate another equally conservative and extremist. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are already on the high court! The Supreme Court is always on the ballot during a presidential election. [I think it's been only J. Carter who didn't appoint a justice to SCOTUS.]

Romney demonstrates that he has to cater to the conservative base. He has already changed his moderate positions from when he was governor of MA. Now he says wants to overturn a health care law he signed in MA. His new positions are more in line with those of Ryan today. I doubt there will be another flip anytime soon after (if) he takes office. Besides, he will have to run 4 years later and he won't be able to go against a party emboldened by the 2012 victory. 

Fortunately, this won't happen. I think it'll be a blowout in the Electoral College, at least. If the GOP can't win at least one of Ohio, Penn, and Florida, it won't win the presidency. Yes, Obama's win will be smaller than in 2008, but he has plenty of room this year. For Romney-Ryan to win they have to have an unbelievably straight streak, winning all the toss-up states, and reverse the trends in the three mentioned above. 

Strangely, I believe another trouncing at the polls may be the best medicine for the GOP. The tea partiers, and the extremists need to be cut loose and lose big while they're controlling the agenda of the party. Yes, there are distinct visions for the future, policies, and approach to politics that have turned this GOP into a regressive party unfit for a modern country. Just look at the British or other modern conservative parties today. We progressives may not agree with them on many issues, but at least they are far more pragmatic! They accept science and the scientific way for goodness sake!

Newt Gingrich is A Big Fat Idiot... and, a Socialist Revolutionary!

As of now, it seems that the Republicans are still not convinced about Romney, but they may prove me wrong and pick him as the eventual nominee. I had argued that the former Massachusetts governor would not appeal to the majority of the very conservative, religious activist base. Well, he still isn't all that popular, since the majority of primary/caucus participants have voted for someone else. If you remove his supposed "electability" then his core support falls below Ron Paul's! The latter is a marginal candidate who doesn't have any chance of success.

There's a scenario whereas Grinch further implodes and Santorum becomes the one to capture all the anti-Romney conservative votes. This scenario will be tested when the race moves to the Midwest. In 2008, the Dems went through a similar phase, pitting the favorite, Hilary Clinton, and the rest. Once Obama became the only one standing he became also stronger as he captured the anti-Clinton votes.  However, there's a huge difference between those contests in the Dem race and today in the GOP race. The Dems had proportional allocation of delegates, whereas the loser(s) still got something out of a state contest.

The winner-takes-all system, many state Republican parties have, gives a huge amount to the candidate who crosses the line first. There's no majority principle here, just a plurality one. Romney is polling ahead of Newt right now and that may just be enough.  I assumed that the GOP would come up with a strong traditional conservative in which case Mittens would lose despite his organization and tons of money. Well, we've seen that the party wanted this to happen. Any announced candidate, an "anti-Romney"  candidate who appeared remotely competitive had his/her poll numbers spike well above Romney's initially. Every single one of them--Bachmann, Santorum, Grinch, Caine, Perry, Paul--were beating Romney at some point before the process began and even afterward. This is significant, because Mittens was a well-known candidate as the second runner up 4 years ago. The GOP usually selects "the next in line" to hold its flag. Yearning for the anti-Romney may just remain an unfulfilled urge in conservative politics.

All the non-Romney candidates self-imploded for various reasons. This field is looney because the Republican base that's active in the selection process has lots of loons--people who are way out of the country's mainstream.

Newt Gingrich is a Big Fat Idiot

If he can slander others by misrepresenting the truth, promote ignorance, and employ the politics of fear, I think I can safely use the big fat idiot term to describe his "intellectual" abyss. Actually I had (I still do) endorsed Grinch for the GOP nomination!  Why, you ask?

It's time that this Republican party becomes a modern, rational, pragmatic party--as much a conservative party is able, and we all know the limitations of this. With Grinch as the one holding the party banner, the GOP would suffer major defeats. Through this experience, perhaps, some reasonable Republicans would try to wrest control from the loons and turn the party around from heading back to the Dark Ages. Maybe after serious defeats, the GOP would realize that what it represents today, what its leaders pronounce, what the stated policy is,  it has left mainstream America.

Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

I have frequent discussions with Republicans and I ask them if they think whether the core principles beliefs and public policy of this GOP reflect the majority of Americans...  And, if not so, whether the country is moving toward or away from those... I think the answer is clear. Any reasonable Republican (endangered species) know it.

It's time we had this discussion. Let's hope that Obama can point out the gap between the GOP and the public. Leadership matters, especially when people take things on faith or they look to leadership for clues. Most of the public, especially the conservatives don't know what social democracy is, yet they hate anything about it because they're told so by their leaders. Who the hell knows or has heard the name Alinski ?! But, Grinch tells his followers to hate Alinski and his "radicalism."  They're supposed to love Ronnie, though if he was alive today and insisted upon some of his policies, he would find himself outside this GOP!

 The president has the loudest megaphone, so let's hope he uses it not only for re-election but also for destroys the politics of fear, prejudice, and ignorance.  You know, like FDR did. Is this too much to ask from the president nowadays?...

Obama Delivers a SOTU Speech Outlining His Campaign Themes. [But, will he revert back to a soft, compromising, and ineffectual style?]

Good speech by the president in the SOTU address, which revealed the main themes of his re-election campaign. Obama is a centrist and will play to the so-called independents and the "floaters"--which, for now, have left but many can be convinced to return, especially given the Republican challengers this year.

There are many reasons why we progressives can't stand the conservatives and this loony, extremist Republican party. Yes, that party whose ideology and public policy proposals go against the vast majority of Americans, in spirit and as public policy.

Obama talked about those American values that unite us. Well, let's see, what are those values, besides nationalism, patriotism, American exceptionalism-center of the universe, "support the troops," motherhood and apple pie?

I'll take them in order as Obama mentioned them, without the president being blunt and drawing his highlight pen to expose the Republicans as the ones against those American values.

1. Tuition assistance and generally the cost of education. Access to opportunity, and, of course, having an educated population is good for the US. The Republicans are against grants, tuition assistance, and want the ..marketplace to price education.

2. Immigration. Well, need I say more? OK, I will. The GOP is hostage to a shrinking but still xenophobic base that is more concerned with "border security" and arresting and expelling anyone who lacks documentation (heck, anyone who can't produce papers on demand). Giving amnesty to all those who have benefited from a hard-working, low-paid labor pool is fine with the Republicans, but giving a path to citizenship to those who have been here more many years, are productive, have paid taxes, and have stayed out of trouble, well, this is a no-no for the Republicans.

3. Public funds for scientific research. What is science anyway? It's just some theories who have gaps and the ..liberal scientists are conjuring up hoaxes on the American people... according to many Republicans. We have no money for science, we must balance the budget... unless we have to pay for another war against Iran. The Republicans are against funding for science and exploration, and research for alternative energy, etc.

4. Public projects. We built them even during the Great Depression and under sensible Republicans like Eisenhower. Not any more according to Republicans today. Infrastructure, communications, the internet, national parks, and even electrification were some of the deeds the GOP has opposed.

5. Regulations about consumer protection, conservation, environment, reckless Wall Street practices, etc, are all opposed by the Republicans.


6. Extending the payroll tax breaks to the middle class workers is opposed by the Republicans. Yet the GOP is in favor of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires!

7. The super rich like Romney pay a lower percentage of taxes than the middle class. I don't see why the millionaires (and anyone who earns over that amount) couldn't pay more. The Republicans oppose that, even when the country was about to default in paying its bills (many expenses a Repub prez and a Repub Congress authorized), because the GOP wanted to shove it to anyone (98% of Americans) but the rich.

What I find fascinating is that a major political party can advocate for policies that go against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, and even against what the public wants right now [ie, spend to create jobs as opposed to balancing the budget], and yet this party is allowed to have so mach political power. The Republicans should not be allowed to govern, because they don't believe the government can do anything well or any good--unless it's about fighting the evil doers. Oh, and tell us how not to fuck.

It's going to be an interesting campaign season. Have I mentioned that I endorsed Newt for the Repub nomination?  I could go with Mittens but I think the campaign for the general election might be too much about style and personalities. However, with Newt being the GOPer, we may finally have the debate about the kind of conservatism inappropriate for in America of the 21st century and beyond. It's about time the conservative vision and policy proposals are clearly defeated and dismissed for good. Maybe then a more modern Republican party can emerge. That would be good for the country.