Do you ever watch Hacks? In that series, the fictional late night show was ON FIRE when the team decided to ditch the focus groups and let Debra Vance's true voice shine through..
Living queer here in SF, I've had a front-row seat to this slick-haired, opportunistic SOB from the beginning of this career. I've always hated him. Not just because of the hair, which is hateful, but because is the groomed toady of the SF liberal establishment--Feinstein, Pelosi, Brown--the establishment that Harvey Milk had to fight to get us a seat at the table. His cynical gay marriage stunt was merely a way to curry favor with the queer community without actually doing the work and showing up and supporting our issues. He pulled the rug out from a grassroots movement led by my hero (subject of a podcast I did a couple years ago), Harry Britt, to win domestic partnership. It took nearly a decade, but it was won AT THE BALLOT BOX. And people forget that the backlash to his cynical move was a statewide proposition that banned same-sex marriage in a constitutional amendment. Thanks for nothin'. Now we see just our sniveling he is. There aren't enough buses in the state for all the people he's throwing under them--trans, homeless, immigrants et al. Hey, hey, ho, ho, this phony has got to go!
Newsom has managed to burn his Democratic support without gaining any Republicans. Running for President without any support on either side is a unique strategy.
Right Now , Shumer and the Dem leaders should have a marked-up alternate budget. Base it off the last sane budget we had under Sleepy Joe, (add more taxes etc for uber corps and wealthy), and sell it ! as good for everybody AND wont need a debt ceiling increase! Have Pete B. go on Fox News with the benefits for red states.
Then blitz airwaves with it as the “people’s budget” before the republicans can deliver theirs gift to donor class tax bill.
We talk about lack of republican spine, where is the dems? Have a fucking strategy please. Democracy is drowning.
Very well said. Another problem with Newsom is that he walks and talks like a member of the "elite political class" for whom all these policy issues are basically a game they play to keep climbing the status-ladder. Newsom is a well-educated, slick politician. There are worse things (Trump, for a big orange instance), but there are better, and that's why Senator Sanders has a large part of the country's respect. He's a straight-up FDR-style Democrat, truth be told. Too bad we don't have more of them. Sanders doesn't try to wheedle hateful, stupid bigots into voting for a miserable doubletalking Dem or two, pretty please with sugar on it.
OK....Is. the Democratic party a progressive party of the respect for law and order, social justice, and equitable treatment of all people under the law regardless of status? Or is it a corporate entity parceling out social programs to keep most of the people content with the status quo?
Here is the score as I see it:
Number one: The health and safety to all pregnant women must be guaranteed by statute across the board for pre natal care, abortion access, and maternal care after birth. The life of the mother is paramount.
Children are the future. Care for, provide for, and educate every child in this nation in a public education complete with civics. An educated population is the best guarantee of providing self-governance and the continued life of this nation.
(2) We have a lot of disparity in this country with a growing number of homeless and disenfranchised people. (3) Wall street is infesting the real estate market driving up prices and pricing people out of shelter. (4) Private equity firms are bankrupting hospitals and long term assisted living and rehabilitation homes. (5) The Republican party is attacking voting rights on all fronts. (6) For profit prisons are killing inmates. (7) We have an administration by a known criminal who is trying do dismantle the democracy, remove all protections for the environment, health and safety, and god knows whatever the federal government provides for all people.
We have ten or more Democratic representatives in Congress who are outspoken and unafraid to speak the truth to power in the face of total inaction by any Republican congressperson whatsoever - not a peep - an a direct refusal to pass any legislation helpful to all of us. There are Democratic governors who also are on board for protecting their states from the predations of Republican retrograde laws attacking social issues instead of life affirming issues.
We must be able to call out and punish the corrupt behavior in the government at our highest levels. Other countries put us to shame in removing elected officials for their crimes and replacing them. The fact that we cannot do that tells the world and our own that we are not serious about our values, and it perpetuates the problem because it gives the very real message that money talks louder than the law and that needs to change. We need people in office who will actually effectuate the change in the face of obstinate refusal to get off the donor's gravy train.
And that is just the beginning.
We need the whole and complete three branches of government as was established in the beginning of this nation to guarantee both the federal sharing of power and national responsibilities, or why do we have a government at all?
So, are we going to address these issues head on, or continue to equivocate about who's on first and get down to taking care of the health and safety and equitable treatment of everyone in this country? If the old guard needs to retire (except for Bernie Sanders!) so be it!
It's been said that government is "a conspiracy by the rich against the poor." I wish that were more of an overstatement, but it's pretty much correct, especially when the people are dumb enough to put an evil, corrupt wretch like Donald Trump in charge.
Bingo. Y'all might recall yrs. trly was excoriated round these parts when making a similar observation during the campaign (although I was dead wrong thinking Plouffe & co. would set the ship right--it just got worse).
Finally, in defense of the 'Never Trump' crowd, go hang out at the Bulwark--Longwell, JVL, et al are right with ya.
Focus groups have show that when you tell them exactly what the Republican party is planning to do; they don't believe than anyone could be that cruel. While polls have consistently found that the majority of people favor a lot of "leftist" ideas, from gun control, freedom of choice, raising taxes on the wealthy. etc.
Trump & Co. are so goddamned evil, sexist, and racist that when you describe precisely what they are doing, it sounds like shameless hyperbole or mindless ranting. I've often pointed out that ordinary, "nice" people have quite a problem in confronting the kind of malignant, evil bully we have in Trump. The tendency is always to bend over backwards to accommodate the rotten S.O.B. in hopes that -- what? -- he will somehow like them or at least avoid battering them into even more abject submission? Hint to ordinary people: he will never "like" you, or really even take notice that you exist. And he most certainly doesn't give a tinker's damn about your concerns, problems, or hopes. Nope. He thinks you're pathetic losers because you don't know how to game the system and gain enormous wealth and high status like he did.
I'm so old I can remember all the way back to 2004 when Karl Rove got Defense of Marriage bills on the ballot to bring out the Christian conservatives who would then vote for the rest of the Republican candidates.
Democratic consultants screamed at the top of their lungs that the Democratic Party had to abandon gay rights, or they'd never win another election.
Spot-on post Robyn. I tend to get all seethed-up when I hear the Hoggs and the Newoms of the world criticizing Dems for "being mean" to Republicans, or asking RW assholes how to win elections.
Someone said to me once "Oh I don't vote for the Party I vote for the person", and I'm like "yes you absolutely DO vote for the party!" I bet lots of American voters think they vote for the person. It's no wonder since we have election campaigns between two people. But it's the Parties that get things done.
I think we need to couch all campaigns in the terminology of the Democratic platform. Dun dun dunnnnn.... Means we need a platform, and we're not always clear who we are. It's been clear to ME since high school that the two main issues I care about, Human rights, and the environment, tend to be more protected when Democrats are in charge. This is all I really need to know. It turns out there are a lot of other reasons I am glad I am a "Proud Liberal" (as stated on the tailgate sticker on my Tundra).
At any rate, I always hear that... devoid of party labels, "we all want mostly the same stuff". We need to let people know we know what it is, and that we know how to give it to them.
Am I delusional in thinking that it really is that simple?
This would mean we need to build a solid Platform, 2x6 by 2x6, and hammer it into people's heads All. The. Time. Hm. As per Bernie.
We are the party that is okay with a big-ass government because we have a big-ass country. The Republicans are pretty much Libertarian Lite. It's everyone for themselves man, and you can sink or swim on your own. As far as they are concerned government is about the military, and law enforcement. Period.
Complete tangent, feel free to ignore. It is not meant as a critique of your post or your opinions. It is also more focussed on international patterns, not specifically to the USA (your political right is largely insane if you ask me.)
I sometimes like to describe the left/right political concept thusly:
There are three groups in conflict in any society: People, business, and government.
The right can't tell the difference between people and business so they move power from government to business, thinking they''re protecting people but they end up only strengthening business while the people suffer.
The left can't tell the difference between people and government so they move power from business to government, thinking they're protecting people but they end up only strengthening government while the people suffer.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of people who say "Uhm, guys? Can we maybe stop moving power from government to business and back again and maybe move some power back to the people? It's just that we notice that each time the power gets moved we the people lose a bit more power and it is getting a bit much."
As a description of tendencies, I'd say that's sound. But I also think that it isn't purely that these chaps "can't/don't recognize" who they're conflating, but rather that they have vested interests in conflating them. Trump & Co. know exactly what they are doing, and why. They're not confused, they're wicked and cruel. And as for the people, while I'm all for democracy, it's also true that too often, all a pretty good slice of the people want is to gain the "right" to oppress those they don't like. At times they can act nobly and finely, but sometimes they act like stupid, tyrannical brutes.
Sure, people can be assholes, but do you want those assholes to be exactly as powerful as their victims or do you want to create one position that has more power than the others and risk that position getting filled with one of the assholes?
i.e. do you want a high chance of low harm or a low chance of high harm? And remember that you're setting up a system that needs to be stable, it needs to keep working.
We all prefer (and should prefer) democracy in spite of its flaws, but are a majority of tyrannical, stupid, selfish brutes really "exactly as powerful" as their victims? I'd suggest that the tyranny of the majority (or even of an energized plurality) is very powerful. Terrifying, even: you can oppose a dictator to some extent and the people know he has little true support among them, but what appeal is there from the madness of a howling majority-mob?
Gavin Newsom looks like someone who was genetically engineered to be a focus group’s idea of the perfect democratic presidential candidate. Which is why he also looks like he doesn’t have a sincere bone in his body.
Rand Paul is an arrogant POS with nothing but contempt for anyone who didn’t have the good sense to be Rand Paul. But, he is consistent in his retrograde views. You know what he believes about any subject because he will tell you.
Democrats need to run a candidate who isn’t afraid to stand by what they believe in. Fuck the focus groups.
Do you ever watch Hacks? In that series, the fictional late night show was ON FIRE when the team decided to ditch the focus groups and let Debra Vance's true voice shine through..
Nature abhors a vacuum so Newson slide over to the right politically. That will never work in the rest of America.
Much as I agree with your point about focus groups, let's not discount how much racism and sexism played a role in getting Trump re-elected.
Living queer here in SF, I've had a front-row seat to this slick-haired, opportunistic SOB from the beginning of this career. I've always hated him. Not just because of the hair, which is hateful, but because is the groomed toady of the SF liberal establishment--Feinstein, Pelosi, Brown--the establishment that Harvey Milk had to fight to get us a seat at the table. His cynical gay marriage stunt was merely a way to curry favor with the queer community without actually doing the work and showing up and supporting our issues. He pulled the rug out from a grassroots movement led by my hero (subject of a podcast I did a couple years ago), Harry Britt, to win domestic partnership. It took nearly a decade, but it was won AT THE BALLOT BOX. And people forget that the backlash to his cynical move was a statewide proposition that banned same-sex marriage in a constitutional amendment. Thanks for nothin'. Now we see just our sniveling he is. There aren't enough buses in the state for all the people he's throwing under them--trans, homeless, immigrants et al. Hey, hey, ho, ho, this phony has got to go!
Newsom has managed to burn his Democratic support without gaining any Republicans. Running for President without any support on either side is a unique strategy.
Right Now , Shumer and the Dem leaders should have a marked-up alternate budget. Base it off the last sane budget we had under Sleepy Joe, (add more taxes etc for uber corps and wealthy), and sell it ! as good for everybody AND wont need a debt ceiling increase! Have Pete B. go on Fox News with the benefits for red states.
Then blitz airwaves with it as the “people’s budget” before the republicans can deliver theirs gift to donor class tax bill.
We talk about lack of republican spine, where is the dems? Have a fucking strategy please. Democracy is drowning.
I cannot up-vote this enough, Robyn Pennacchia. Thank you.
Very well said. Another problem with Newsom is that he walks and talks like a member of the "elite political class" for whom all these policy issues are basically a game they play to keep climbing the status-ladder. Newsom is a well-educated, slick politician. There are worse things (Trump, for a big orange instance), but there are better, and that's why Senator Sanders has a large part of the country's respect. He's a straight-up FDR-style Democrat, truth be told. Too bad we don't have more of them. Sanders doesn't try to wheedle hateful, stupid bigots into voting for a miserable doubletalking Dem or two, pretty please with sugar on it.
A-fucking-men. A-FUCKING-MEN.
OK....Is. the Democratic party a progressive party of the respect for law and order, social justice, and equitable treatment of all people under the law regardless of status? Or is it a corporate entity parceling out social programs to keep most of the people content with the status quo?
Here is the score as I see it:
Number one: The health and safety to all pregnant women must be guaranteed by statute across the board for pre natal care, abortion access, and maternal care after birth. The life of the mother is paramount.
Children are the future. Care for, provide for, and educate every child in this nation in a public education complete with civics. An educated population is the best guarantee of providing self-governance and the continued life of this nation.
(2) We have a lot of disparity in this country with a growing number of homeless and disenfranchised people. (3) Wall street is infesting the real estate market driving up prices and pricing people out of shelter. (4) Private equity firms are bankrupting hospitals and long term assisted living and rehabilitation homes. (5) The Republican party is attacking voting rights on all fronts. (6) For profit prisons are killing inmates. (7) We have an administration by a known criminal who is trying do dismantle the democracy, remove all protections for the environment, health and safety, and god knows whatever the federal government provides for all people.
We have ten or more Democratic representatives in Congress who are outspoken and unafraid to speak the truth to power in the face of total inaction by any Republican congressperson whatsoever - not a peep - an a direct refusal to pass any legislation helpful to all of us. There are Democratic governors who also are on board for protecting their states from the predations of Republican retrograde laws attacking social issues instead of life affirming issues.
We must be able to call out and punish the corrupt behavior in the government at our highest levels. Other countries put us to shame in removing elected officials for their crimes and replacing them. The fact that we cannot do that tells the world and our own that we are not serious about our values, and it perpetuates the problem because it gives the very real message that money talks louder than the law and that needs to change. We need people in office who will actually effectuate the change in the face of obstinate refusal to get off the donor's gravy train.
And that is just the beginning.
We need the whole and complete three branches of government as was established in the beginning of this nation to guarantee both the federal sharing of power and national responsibilities, or why do we have a government at all?
So, are we going to address these issues head on, or continue to equivocate about who's on first and get down to taking care of the health and safety and equitable treatment of everyone in this country? If the old guard needs to retire (except for Bernie Sanders!) so be it!
It's been said that government is "a conspiracy by the rich against the poor." I wish that were more of an overstatement, but it's pretty much correct, especially when the people are dumb enough to put an evil, corrupt wretch like Donald Trump in charge.
Bingo. Y'all might recall yrs. trly was excoriated round these parts when making a similar observation during the campaign (although I was dead wrong thinking Plouffe & co. would set the ship right--it just got worse).
Finally, in defense of the 'Never Trump' crowd, go hang out at the Bulwark--Longwell, JVL, et al are right with ya.
Focus groups have show that when you tell them exactly what the Republican party is planning to do; they don't believe than anyone could be that cruel. While polls have consistently found that the majority of people favor a lot of "leftist" ideas, from gun control, freedom of choice, raising taxes on the wealthy. etc.
Trump & Co. are so goddamned evil, sexist, and racist that when you describe precisely what they are doing, it sounds like shameless hyperbole or mindless ranting. I've often pointed out that ordinary, "nice" people have quite a problem in confronting the kind of malignant, evil bully we have in Trump. The tendency is always to bend over backwards to accommodate the rotten S.O.B. in hopes that -- what? -- he will somehow like them or at least avoid battering them into even more abject submission? Hint to ordinary people: he will never "like" you, or really even take notice that you exist. And he most certainly doesn't give a tinker's damn about your concerns, problems, or hopes. Nope. He thinks you're pathetic losers because you don't know how to game the system and gain enormous wealth and high status like he did.
I'm so old I can remember all the way back to 2004 when Karl Rove got Defense of Marriage bills on the ballot to bring out the Christian conservatives who would then vote for the rest of the Republican candidates.
Democratic consultants screamed at the top of their lungs that the Democratic Party had to abandon gay rights, or they'd never win another election.
Spot-on post Robyn. I tend to get all seethed-up when I hear the Hoggs and the Newoms of the world criticizing Dems for "being mean" to Republicans, or asking RW assholes how to win elections.
Someone said to me once "Oh I don't vote for the Party I vote for the person", and I'm like "yes you absolutely DO vote for the party!" I bet lots of American voters think they vote for the person. It's no wonder since we have election campaigns between two people. But it's the Parties that get things done.
I think we need to couch all campaigns in the terminology of the Democratic platform. Dun dun dunnnnn.... Means we need a platform, and we're not always clear who we are. It's been clear to ME since high school that the two main issues I care about, Human rights, and the environment, tend to be more protected when Democrats are in charge. This is all I really need to know. It turns out there are a lot of other reasons I am glad I am a "Proud Liberal" (as stated on the tailgate sticker on my Tundra).
At any rate, I always hear that... devoid of party labels, "we all want mostly the same stuff". We need to let people know we know what it is, and that we know how to give it to them.
Am I delusional in thinking that it really is that simple?
This would mean we need to build a solid Platform, 2x6 by 2x6, and hammer it into people's heads All. The. Time. Hm. As per Bernie.
We are the party that is okay with a big-ass government because we have a big-ass country. The Republicans are pretty much Libertarian Lite. It's everyone for themselves man, and you can sink or swim on your own. As far as they are concerned government is about the military, and law enforcement. Period.
Someone needs to start saying this out-loud.
Complete tangent, feel free to ignore. It is not meant as a critique of your post or your opinions. It is also more focussed on international patterns, not specifically to the USA (your political right is largely insane if you ask me.)
I sometimes like to describe the left/right political concept thusly:
There are three groups in conflict in any society: People, business, and government.
The right can't tell the difference between people and business so they move power from government to business, thinking they''re protecting people but they end up only strengthening business while the people suffer.
The left can't tell the difference between people and government so they move power from business to government, thinking they're protecting people but they end up only strengthening government while the people suffer.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of people who say "Uhm, guys? Can we maybe stop moving power from government to business and back again and maybe move some power back to the people? It's just that we notice that each time the power gets moved we the people lose a bit more power and it is getting a bit much."
As a description of tendencies, I'd say that's sound. But I also think that it isn't purely that these chaps "can't/don't recognize" who they're conflating, but rather that they have vested interests in conflating them. Trump & Co. know exactly what they are doing, and why. They're not confused, they're wicked and cruel. And as for the people, while I'm all for democracy, it's also true that too often, all a pretty good slice of the people want is to gain the "right" to oppress those they don't like. At times they can act nobly and finely, but sometimes they act like stupid, tyrannical brutes.
Sure, people can be assholes, but do you want those assholes to be exactly as powerful as their victims or do you want to create one position that has more power than the others and risk that position getting filled with one of the assholes?
i.e. do you want a high chance of low harm or a low chance of high harm? And remember that you're setting up a system that needs to be stable, it needs to keep working.
We all prefer (and should prefer) democracy in spite of its flaws, but are a majority of tyrannical, stupid, selfish brutes really "exactly as powerful" as their victims? I'd suggest that the tyranny of the majority (or even of an energized plurality) is very powerful. Terrifying, even: you can oppose a dictator to some extent and the people know he has little true support among them, but what appeal is there from the madness of a howling majority-mob?
Also a massive Left-wing media empire needs to be created and tons of DNC $$ thrown at it to facilitate reliable dissemination of the above. tyvm.
Praising Rand Paul and pro-Hamas zealots while chastising moderates! Fun!
Gavin Newsom looks like someone who was genetically engineered to be a focus group’s idea of the perfect democratic presidential candidate. Which is why he also looks like he doesn’t have a sincere bone in his body.
Rand Paul is an arrogant POS with nothing but contempt for anyone who didn’t have the good sense to be Rand Paul. But, he is consistent in his retrograde views. You know what he believes about any subject because he will tell you.
Democrats need to run a candidate who isn’t afraid to stand by what they believe in. Fuck the focus groups.
Spot-on.
Democrats have spent the last fifty years trying to find another JFK.
Ah, yes. The arc of the dream of Camelot. It starts in glamour and soaring rhetoric and ends with RFK, Jr.
62 but who’s counting.