Two Parties

Existential threat Donald "Rump" Trump was in "rat and rodent- infested" Baltimore yesterday dishing up a typically rambling, self- aggrandizing word salad to a gathering of adoring/ craven House Republicans.  Aaron Rupar has memorialized the lowest points of Rump's babbling here, but this is just one example:

... He began by bragging about the move his administration made earlier in the day to repeal an Obama-era rule meant to limit pollution in America’s rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. But a short time later, he seemed to accidentally admit that rules of that sort have helped the country’s water remain relatively clean.

“The Clean Waters act didn’t give you clean waters — by the way, today we have the cleanest air, we have the cleanest water that we’ve ever had in the history of our country,” Trump said, falsely, combining two statements that directly contradict each other.

He also claimed that energy efficient light bulbs... well, read on:

President Donald Trump on Thursday defended his administration’s recent reversal of requirements for more energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Speaking at an event in Baltimore, Trump said the “number one” reason for his rollback of the rules (that were scheduled to come into force on Jan. 1, 2020) was because “the light’s no good” under more efficient bulbs.

“I always look orange,” he complained. “And so do you, the light is the worst.”

The assembled spineless Republican bootlicks laughed and applauded, having melded themselves to the most unfit, bigoted, moronic, amoral, un- American slug ever to occupy the space in front of the television in the Oval Office.  Remember.

If you watched the Democratic debate going on almost simultaneously, you would have had a clear distinction between the values and worth of the two parties.  As Rupar continues:

... Meanwhile, in Houston, Democratic presidential candidates took a few potshots at each other and, of course, at Trump — but they also got deep into the weeds of policy and outlined their respective visions of an America where immigrants are treated with respect, the climate crisis is taken seriously, and claims about health care proposals are backed up with actual plans.

Democrats will be advancing a vision for the emerging New America, regardless of who the eventual nominee turns out to be.  A serious party, with serious ideas and serious candidates for a serious time in our history.  Republicans will continue to hitch their wagon to the Orange Weather Balloon and offer up their reactionary plans to own the libs by polluting the waters and burning more fossil fuels so that everyone looks less orange (but most importantly the Orange Weather Balloon!).

Again, remember.

(Photo:  Trump rat balloon in Baltimore yesterday. Nick Wass/AP)

The Ocasio-Cortez Win: It's Generational

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's surprisingly large victory last night over high- ranking House Dem Joseph Crowley may have been due to several factors, but one lesson must be learned by Democratic leaders:

What to make of that lightning bolt that struck the Democratic Party Tuesday night when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley in their primary—and I mean crushed him, by 16 percentage points? Most people are going to see it as a left vs. establishment story, and sure, that’s legit. 

But I see it in another context, too, one that I fear will be overlooked. It’s a generational story, and a story about how to be in touch with younger Democratic voters, which Democratic leadership [Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Schumer] did a horrible job of demonstrating this week in its responses to RedHenGate. And those Democratic leaders better be aware of this and change their game accordingly, or they will fail to communicate to their voters that they understand what’s at stake in this election. (our emphasis)

We're far, far closer to Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's age than Ocasio-Cortez, so we feel liberated to say that having 70- somethings Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer, Rep. James Clyburn and Schumer as the face of the Democratic Party (especially as a timid, cluck- clucking face) is the closest thing to a gift that existential threat Donald "Rump" Trump has in the opposition.  They may be savvy legislators, but they seem to be missing the import of the times rather badly;  too many collegial club happy hours with the nihilists, perhaps.

On Pelosi, in particular:

As it happens, Pelosi seized an opportunity earlier in the week to demonstrate just how shockingly out of touch she is in how she rebuked Maxine Waters for her controversial remarks about the Sarah Huckabee Sanders restaurant matter. Waters went too far, as she sometimes does. So it wasn’t crazy for Pelosi to decide to put a little space between herself and Waters. 

But get the language of Pelosi’s tweet: “In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea.” [snip]

Democrats need to keep their eyes on the prize here. They are not going to win this fall playing a game of defensive caution. They need young voters and women voters of the sort who carried both Ocasio-Cortez and [Conor] Lamb to victory. If the spirit of that Pelosi tweet is the spirit that’s getting through to those voters come October, they’re doomed. 

Infidel 753 makes the related point that the leadership (in the form of the DCCC, but could also be DSCC or DNC) needs to understand the energy candidates like Ocasio-Cortez bring and harness rather than resist it:

... It's true that NY-14 is so solidly Democratic that Ocasio-Cortez will almost certainly win even without DCCC support, but that's not the point -- the leadership needs to demonstrate that it supports the "big tent" and recognizes that winning as many seats as possible is more important than getting exactly the candidates it wants.  She represents the wave of the future and the kind of candidate that enthuses the party's real base, which is critical to its success, especially in an off-year election. (our emphasis)

Here in the Maryland gubernatorial primary, the Democratic establishment went all in on respected party fixture County Executive Rushern Baker (58), who lost big to charismatic Ben Jealous (45), the former head of the NAACP.  Jealous ran passionately on an unabashedly progressive agenda versus Baker's more "pragmatist" moderate stance.  Beyond an almost one generation age difference, Jealous' grasp of the base of the party's activist zeitgeist seems to have been the deciding factor.

In 2018 and beyond, we need all Democrats to be pulling in the same direction, which is to take the House and possibly the Senate back, and as many State gubernatorial and legislative races as possible.  The leadership issues will sort themselves out accordingly after November, but in the meantime, be assured that "the times they are a-changin'."

Don't Assume Elected Dems "Get It"

Just watched a short clip of passionless Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dutifully peering over his glasses and reading from a piece of paper in a monotone about how bad the Republican wealthfare tax bill is.  It quickly brought to mind several pronouncements in recent days by Virginia Democratic Gov.- elect Ralph Northam and Alabama Senator- elect Doug Jones. If you're not sure what this is about, here's some background:

Political conditions are looking extremely favorable for Democrats. In special and off-year elections across the country, they have drastically improved on Hillary Clinton's margin almost everywhere — most astoundingly in Virginia, where Ralph Northam won the governorship by a comfortable 9 points, and in Alabama, where Doug Jones knocked off Roy Moore for the open Senate seat. 

But over the weekend, both victors revealed the danger of milquetoast centrist liberalism at this moment in history. In an interview with The Washington Post, Northam seemingly discarded his campaign promises to push for the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion, suggesting that it needs to have Republican-style means tests and work requirements instead. Jones, meanwhile, suggested that he might vote with the GOP, and said that it was time to put President Trump's numerous sexual harassment and assault allegations behind us.  [snip]

Northam justified this by vapid knee-jerk centrism. "Virginians deserve civility," he told the Post. "They're looking for a moral compass." Actually, what they're looking for is the Medicaid expansion, which is supported in the state by 69 percent of voters, according to a recent poll. Health care was rated as the most important issue by a 39-percent plurality of voters in exit polls — and that group broke 77-23 for Northam. As for a "moral compass," one could do worse than an all-out attack on the party that just finished running a viciously racist, conspiracy-mongering campaign for governor. 

We need to keep an eye on this, and Virginia Democrats -- whose energy propelled Northam into office in a landslide -- apparently need to keep him from going squishy right off the bat.

Ed Burmila at Rolling Stone sees the same pattern:

... Democrats have developed a habit over the last four decades of trying to get their voting base fired up during elections without delivering a whole lot once in power. They think Americans, and liberals in particular, want to see bipartisanship – lots of hand-holding and playing nice. By the time they wake up from that fantasy, it may be too late.

After dispensing with Northam's self- inflicted wound, Burmila has this to say about Jones:

Doug Jones, meanwhile, flubbed a softball question by saying it's time to "move on" regarding accusations of sexual assault and misconduct against Trump. A more forceful, even if noncommittal, answer would have been so simple: I look forward to hearing what these women have to say. Donald Trump is remarkably unpopular right now. What could Jones gain by being gentle? If ever there is a time to score points by taking a whack at Trump, this is it. 

Democrats like Jones depend heavily on the support of women, especially African-American and Hispanic women. It's not fair to make too much of a single comment, but we can forgive some of the people who worked hard to elect him if they take it as a bad sign. 

This pretty well sums up our thoughts in this time when our country is threatened as at no other time since the Civil War, and one party is hellbent on holding onto power at any cosrt:

The Democrats, of course, have accomplished some things while in power; health care reform in 2009 is an obvious example. But they are maddeningly stuck on the idea that taking the high road and extending an olive branch to Republicans – who have no intention of compromising – is what voters want. 

What Democratic voters would like to see from their party are results. A lot of Americans are working their asses off to fight back against Trump. If it's too much to ask for elected officials who will do the same, the Democratic Party in 2020 will once again be scratching its head and wondering why the voters it relies on most heavily didn't show up. 

Once more, elected Democrats: these are not normal times. The opposition went around the bend and over the cliff a long time ago.  They're now well underway in the process of deconstructing America and obstructing justice. If you can't wake up and find your footing even at this late stage, we're all in for a sh*tload of trouble.  That's why it's so important for us to not assume the fight is over when Democrats win.  In these instances, the fight's only begun.

"It Takes A Party"

Betty Cracker at Balloon Juice saw the Harvard Institute polling referenced below on millennial voters' movement leftwards, and says:

I don’t know about you, but for me, reading that is a tonic after a week of hearing comments that echoed the disastrous run-up to Nadergeddon 2000, e.g., “duopoly” and “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference,” etc.

The Democratic Party isn’t perfect, but it is the vehicle we have to effect change. Secretary Clinton, who will be our nominee, understands this better than most. That may make her the perfect woman for this particular time in history.

Here’s hoping Senator Sanders’ younger supporters won’t wait for Secretary Clinton to court them but rather will roll up their sleeves and take on the hard tasks of party building to create the political future they want to see. Because it takes a party.

Kos:

Fact is, the party ails, and we need all the reinforcements we can to force change. That’s why party affiliation matters. If you want to ditch the (D) label to become an independent, reconsider. If you are a left-leaning independent, consider switching to (D). You want to influence the party and move it to where we all want it to go, you do it from the inside. Become or remain an independent, and you no longer have a say in the direction the party is going. Why would you surrender that chance? You prove nothing by being independent, other than that you don’t want to fight for your party. Of course you want to fight for it, your involvement in the Sanders campaign proved it! So if you really are part of a long-term movement, then do what real movements do, and fight to win!

Michael Cohen in the Boston Globe, in an open letter to Sen. Sanders:

Rather than raising money to run more ads that likely aren’t going to move the polling needle, start raising money for liberal Democrats in swing districts, Democrats who, with that little extra boost from your supporters, might be able to win in November. After all, if you want a political revolution, don’t you need to elect a few more like-minded Democrats to Congress? And with Trump as the likely GOP nominee, the chances of a Democratic wave in the House and the Senate are that much greater. Maybe focus on local races in places like Florida or Ohio or North Carolina, where Republican-dominated state legislatures are putting up restrictions on abortion rights, voting rights, and LGBT rights. You have the megaphone and the money to get your supporters involved in the nitty-gritty of local politics that Democrats have ignored for far too long. You want to beat the Democratic establishment? Become the Democratic establishment. 

This period in American politics presents an imperative opportunity for us to build on President Obama's progressive legacy; to turn back the reactionary tide that has overwhelmed state and local politics in the United States, particularly in the last 6 years;  to show that government can work for people and that "Trumpism" does not represent America or true American values.  But, it takes people organized, with a clear sense of the stakes involved and moving in a common direction to prevail.  It takes a party -- the Democratic Party.

Keeping Bernie Sanders In Perspective

For those of you not engaged in Fourth of July preparations here and abroad, we have some reading with caveats about one of our favorite Senators- who- isn't- a- Democrat, Bernie Sanders (I-VT).  First, Martin Longman (BooMan) warns against "irrational exuberance" (no-pologies to Alan Greenspan) for Sanders' supporters:

I’m apprehensive about any effort to temper the enthusiasm of Bernie’s supporters, because all the goals I just mentioned are worthwhile and perhaps within reach, but a few larger-than-expected rallies and a lot of small donors shouldn’t get anyone irrationally exuberant. By the only metrics we have, Bernie is exceeding expectations and doing great. If you want to get onboard the Bernie train, do it so this can mean something and have a lasting positive effect. But don’t get thinking that Bernie is going to slay all the lions arrayed against him and win the nomination or the presidency. That’s not what his campaign is about.

What Sanders' campaign is about is to bring progressive issues to the fore (you know, ones the majority of the public agree on, like campaign finance reform, single-payer health insurance, raising the minimum wage, and tax reform) and to establish an effective, sustained progressive campaign apparatus that will outlast this election cycle.  He's rousting the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" and has already had a far greater impact than many would have expected when he began his campaign.  He'll continue to influence the direction of the Democratic Party in a positive way for as long as he's in the race.  But.  He's not going to be the nominee.  That he will shape the party and the party's message perhaps more than the person who will be the nominee will be a source of lasting satisfaction to him and to progressives generally.

Meanwhile, Joan Walsh discusses why the media has a stake in Sanders' campaign (cough= horse race =cough= Clinton-haters =cough=), and how Sanders isn't someone to be shunned, unlike the wig-stand running second in the polls in the Republican Party:

But the rise of Sanders, alongside that of the GOP’s surging star, blustering racist Donald Trump, also shows the media the difference between the ideological moorings of the folks who make up the Democratic and Republican base. The Democrats have a lot of lefties, FDR Democrats, folks who want single payer health insurance, people who think we can learn from Western Europe not stigmatize it — and yes, Sanders excites them. On the GOP side, there is a loud, large, angry segment of the GOP base that’s frankly xenophobic, nativist, even racist. Trump speaks to them.

Sanders and Trump thus offer different kinds of challenges to their party rivals. [snip]

By contrast, Hillary Clinton can afford to welcome Sanders’ candidacy, and even endorse a lot of his platform. As Jim Newell points out here, she’s enormously popular even among Sanders supporters in Iowa. And Sanders isn’t the polarizing figure that Trump is. He’s good for the Democratic Party — and for socialism too. He explains it in simple terms. He points to the strong, social democratic economies of Western Europe, not the USSR. And his rising popularity shows that millennials and other voters too young to remember the Cold War aren’t going to be red-scared away from Sanders because of the socialist label.

As Walsh points out, the media's sudden love for Bernie will dissipate once Hillary is nominated, and what the media loved or glossed over in his message they will find dangerous (socialist!) and questionable as Hillary adopts virtually the same platform.  Why?  Because as Walsh puts it, they're "lazy and apolitical political reporters who love horse races and hate the Clintons."

Morning Reading

On the cusp of passing (we fervently hope) the health care reform bill this week with zero Rethug support, Robert Kuttner has today's perspective on the end (again we fervently hope) of the illusion that bipartisanship is possible, or is even an end to be desired.

Peter Beinart also chimes in on "the decision that changed the Democratic Party" - i.e., Obama's decision to ditch bipartisanship in favor of passing health care reform.

(Oh, yeah, and beware the Ides of March!)

The Party of Maybe, Maybe Not

It's hard to escape the lingering foreboding that the Obama Administration just doesn't get it when it comes to sizing up their opposition and how to win the health reform struggle. For all the savvy of people like David Axelrod (whom we admire greatly) and Rahmbo (not so much), much of what has occurred over the past few months can be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as the Administration not having its message and act together. A Plan B? We're not sure there was a Plan A.

And trusting the Rethugs as good-faith negotiating partners? Rethug Sen.Kyl is all but pleading with the Administration to stop negotiating with his fellow Rethugs, saying he doubts "a single Republican" will vote for reform. Not one! Now that's party purpose and unity, however evil it may be.

Paul Krugman thinks its time for Obama to win back progressives' trust and change his high-Broder "bipartisan" strategy:

"It's hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can't be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled."

Eugene Robinson is in a similar quandry:

"Here's the least surprising news of the week: Americans are souring on the Democratic Party. The wonder is that it's taken so long for public opinion to curdle. There's nothing agreeable about watching a determined attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

So, perhaps we're seeing the two parties aligned thusly: the "Party of No" Rethugs full of conviction and passion, against the "Party of Maybe, Maybe Not" Dems not sure they have the conviction to fight for anything.

The Rump is Smaller Than We Thought

According to a new Gallup Poll, there are now 29 States plus DC with a "sizable" Democratic registration advantage, as opposed to only 4 with a sizable Rethug registration advantage. Note this is only registration, but it continues to highlight the problem Rethugs have with identification with their rump party -- even a number of Southern states they typically carry show sizable registration advantages for Dems. Now if we can only get those Dems to vote Democrat and get to the polls on Election Day...

(h/t to Germantown correspondent Brian)

Dem Registration Up, Rethugs... Not So Much

Karl "Turdblossom" Rove's grand dream (nightmare?) of a permanent Rethug majority is slipping away fast. According to recent statistics, Democratic registration is up nationwide, and Rethug registration is down significantly. Now, if we can just get those new Democrats to the polls in November...

On the Eve of the DNC Rules Committee Meeting

This Saturday is when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee will meet to determine what to do with the Florida and Michigan delegations. That, and the outcome of next week's final (at last) primaries should provide the final pieces for the as-yet undeclared "superdelegates." If, as expected, the steady trickle of these supers toward Obama becomes more of a stream now that "all the votes have been counted," Obama should shortly thereafter be able to claim a majority of ALL delegates (he already has a majority of pledged delegates, and will continue to, no matter how Florida and Michigan are decided). Then, what ephemeral new rationale will HRC have to remain in the race? We shudder to think, since it's becoming clear that magical (apocalyptic?) thinking is all she has to fall back on.

In the meantime, check out Harold Meyerson's op/ed in today's WaPo on Clinton's posture toward the seating of the two miscreant delegations.

Not Connecting the Dots

The most recent NBC/WSJ poll illustrates how so many Americans fail to connect the dots:

43% say they're worse off than in 2004;

50% to 37% is the generic Democrat to Rethug party preference margin;

Obama 47%, McSame 44% (Clinton 47%, McSame 45%);

Clinton 47%, Obama 43%, the choice of Democrats only;

45% to 38% is the margin by which Democrats think Obama would be the strongest candidate against McSame.

You see what's curious about these numbers. Aside from the oddity of some Clinton Democrats supporting her while at the same time thinking Obama would do better against McSame, you have the larger conundrum of a certain slice of the electorate willing to give the Rethugs another 4 years. Four more years of pounding trillions of dollars down the wrong rat hole (Iraq); four more years of torture; four more years of the growing income disparity between the wealthiest and the rest of us; four more years of stagflation; four more years where we have to hold our breath that a vacancy doesn't pop up on the Supreme Court; four more years of neglect on global warming; four more.. oh, you can fill in the rest.

This has to be a "change" election, where the question is simply put, "Do you want four more years of reckless incompetence and diversions?" First, the Democrats have to pay attention (no thanks to HRC, who is framing the election on McSame's terms), then they need to get the message across to others in the electorate who are still having trouble connecting the dots.

To Texas and Ohio: This Needs to End

We fervently hope that tomorrow's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont will deal a knockout punch to the increasingly desperate, scorched-earth campaign of Hillary Clinton. The damage already done to the Democratic Party's prospects in November by Clinton and her reptilian aides (Howard Wolfson is particularly egregious) will only be amplified if she continues to run following Tuesday's voting. The latest polls, by the way, show Obama slightly ahead in both Texas and Ohio for the first time. She would have to win both states by over 60% to catch up with Obama's lead in pledged delegates. It's time for the magical thinking that has characterized the Clinton campaign to end. It's time to come to grips with reality.

If reality doesn't immediately dawn on the Clintonistas, we can picture a group of senior Democratic Party leaders doing an "intervention" (h/t to Tokyo Bureau Chief Brian) with Clinton if Tuesday's results turn out roughly as expected. Don't be surprised if Gov. Bill Richardson, John Edwards and others take part in the "intervention," or at least endorse Obama.

Meanwhile, the latest newspaper to endorse Sen. Obama, the Dallas Morning News, said yesterday, "In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's antics mocking his optimism, Mr. Obama has shown that it is possible to have both hope and intellectual heft." That sums it up for us, too.

On "Experience"

Mossback/ Tory columnist George "I Have Four Powdered Wigs" Will occasionally has his minions (one seen here, at left) stop researching Bartlett's for pithy quotes to do some "historical" research. In today's WaPo, his minions have come up with the following nugget relating to the "experience" argument Hillary Clinton has been using, unsuccessfully, against Barack Obama:

"The President who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state...then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

Now, we're not saying a Hillary Clinton presidency would be tantamount to a James Buchanan restoration, but it does point out that judgment and character should also weigh heavily in the equation.