Tag Archives: debates

Political Rants

Joe’s Lunch.

Leave a comment

China ate Joe Biden’s lunch – that’s one of the many incoherent things Trump said during Tuesday night’s debate. The fact is, though, that Biden kind of ate his own lunch in Cleveland this past week, and it probably didn’t taste all that good. I don’t claim to be an expert on debates … and I don’t think anyone is an expert on whatever that Tuesday night clusterfuck was supposed to be … but Joe left a whole lot on the table in that exchange. Like most mainstream Democrats with their heads stuck in the “I’m not a liberal” nineties, he gave away the store to Trump on a number of points, particularly having to do with police conduct, health care, and so-called law and order.

So, okay, I’m not affiliated with the Biden/Harris campaign, but here are a few suggestions for the team on what Big Joe might say in response to some crazy shit coming from our president:

Health Care – At one point, Trump bragged about killing the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. That was a great opportunity for Biden to point out exactly how the administration is trying to kill the whole bill in a case that will come before the Supreme Court right after the election. That’s when Joe should look at the camera and say, “Folks, Trump’s using that to get the Supreme Court to strike down all of Obamacare. He’s trying to cancel your health insurance and take away your protections for pre-existing conditions!”

COVID-19 – Trump was happily calling COVID the “China Virus”. Biden’s rejoinder (again, to the television audience) should be, “Look, folks. More than 200,000 people died while he was saying the virus would just go away, or that it was just a hoax. For that reason alone, it should always be referred to as the Trump Virus. He likes to put his name on things, so he should be fine with that!”

Extremism – Trump was accusing Biden of not being in favor of law and order, talking about how dangerous movements like ANTIFA are in his imagination. At that point, Biden should have talked about the posse of heavily armed right-wing thugs that took over the streets of Louisville, KY, in recent days, or the right-wing teen who killed two protesters in Kenosha, WI a few weeks ago. Joe should say something like, “How is it law and order when your followers start intimidating and killing people with semi-automatic weapons? Why do you defend killers and thugs?”

The Environment – As he often does, Trump claims to want “clean air and clean water.” There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, and Biden shouuld be loaded for bear on this. But he should also say to the audience, “Folks, this is how much he cares about clean air and clean water. He appointed a coal industry lobbyist to run the EPA. And as a result, [INSERT FACT HERE]”

Hey, Biden … dig in, man. No charge. (Who says there’s no such thing as a free lunch?) No, you don’t have to thank me. And there’s plenty more where that came from.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Political Rants

Ten in Georgia.

Leave a comment

It would be hard to overstate the sheer joy being felt by our corporate media over the last couple of weeks. It reminds me of those times when there’s three major stories and a hurricane. They are never so happy as when the news machine is firing on all cylinders, and that is certainly what’s happening now – impeachment hearings, international upheaval, Democratic debates. Lots and lots of content, and very little effort needed to push it out.

So here I am, sitting in front of the television on debate night, watching the long wind-up led by erstwhile nightly news anchor Brian Williams, basking in the lights, moderating a conversation between failed Senate re-elect candidate Claire McCaskill, former Howard Schultz vendor Steve Schmidt, perennial talk show host Joy Ann Reid, and Chris Hayes, smartest man on TV.

The ten candidates include a billionaire who basically bought his way onto this stage. Cautionary comments from Schmidt and McCaskill counseling centrism. Hoo boy.

First question from Rachel Maddow to Warren, about impeachment. She gives a strong, sharp answer. Klobuchar nervously harkens back to Walter Mondale. Bernie starts with focus on poor and working people – thank you, senator. Birthday Joe stumbles into his first response … hoo boy.

Still too big by half.

Cory Booker’s criticism of Warren’s wealth tax is as vacuous as Buttigieg’s criticism of Medicare for All. Biden thinks 160 million people are happy with their health insurance.  I suspect he’s including me in that count, and if so, he fucking bonkers.

Gabbard vs. Harris is, frankly, irritating. They are both deeply problematic people.

The billionaire speaks! He’s pushing power down to the American people. The other rich guy compliments him. Tom Steyer wants to build millions of new housing units. Sounds good, but … how? Amy Klobuchar, who happily votes for $750B military budgets, thinks we can’t afford more than 3 months of paid parental leave. Priorities, right?

Climate change question! But it’s put to Tulsi. Let’s start that one with someone who, I don’t know, might be president. Tom Steyer gets the second whack at it. Really? Pissing match between him and fellow white guy Biden. Bernie leaps in, like Lester (ask your jazz fan mother).

Harris defends confrontation with North Korea. Joe doubles down on that, and gets the stand off between Russia and NATO backwards. I’m no fan of Putin, but NATO expansion is a legitimate concern for any Russian government, given their history of being invaded from the west.

Kudos to Booker for raising the war in Yemen. Double kudos to Bernie for his comments on Israel-Palestine and Saudi. He’s way out ahead on that. Commercials. Someone has to pay for that expensive stage set, including, apparently, a California based anti-immigration group.

Joe responds to a question about #metoo and resorts to an unfortunate metaphor for his fight against partner violence. “Keep punching at it” is a poor choice of words.

Finally an immigration question! That’s what happens when Castro and Beto aren’t invited.

Halfway decent (and congenial) conversation on abortion rights, though I wish to hell they would raise the judiciary in this context.

That’s about it. Cue commercial.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

No half measures.

Leave a comment

Yes, I watched the Democratic presidential debate on CNN this past week, god help me. The best thing I can say about it is that CNN dropped the dramatic WWF candidate intro segment and went straight into the questions. That said, the fact that there were twelve candidates on stage made the event a ridiculous parody of an actual debate. Candidates are given 75 seconds to respond to a question, and 45 seconds for rebuttals. It is simply impossible to grapple with the complex issues facing our nation in any meaningful way within those time constraints. The format drives a kind of Twitter-like approach to discourse, complete with the trolling. Seventy-five seconds is something like 125 words. Try talking a nation out of decades of for-profit healthcare or a century of oil dependence in that little time. It’s a format that greatly favors the status quo.

About seven too many.

And the status quo had many defenders last night. As was predicted the previous week by talking heads and broadcast journalists, undoubtedly briefed by opposing campaigns, Elizabeth Warren was targeted repeatedly throughout the proceedings, with the most pointed attacks coming from “Mayor Pete”, Amy Klobuchar, Kamela Harris, and of course, Joe Biden. Buttigieg came after her on single payer health insurance, claiming that she was being disingenuous by not providing her opponents with sound bites of her saying taxes will go up on middle class families. I will say that Warren needs to come up with a better way of talking about the funding mechanism for single payer. She stuck to her position, but it was kind of the same phrases over and over, and though true, they lose their salience on repetition.

The most ridiculous attack came from Kamela Harris, who was trying to get Warren to take a position on compelling Twitter to delete Donald Trump’s account. Mind you, this was in the section of the debate that focused on holding social media and other big tech companies accountable through anti-trust measures, etc. Warren has proposed breaking Facebook up, and I can’t say as I disagree. But somehow Harris thought it might be politically advantageous to reduce this entire conversation to a simple question of whether or not the President should be allowed to tweet like your drunk racist uncle.  As if deleting Trump’s Twitter profile would address the antitrust issue … or, really, accomplish anything substantive. Just strange.

Bernie was set up in advance to fail, the media constantly harping on his heart trouble. He put in a very strong performance, I thought, but again … the format is so limiting it just barely makes a difference. Klobuchar, Buttigieg and the half-measure chorus were crowed about by the talking heads, but will this debate move the needle at all? I doubt it. This party’s just getting started.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

What’d they say?

Leave a comment

All right, so, I watched most of the debate last week, and the thing I came away with was something like what Anand Giridharadas said the weekend after – that I had watched what should amount to Joe Biden’s retirement party. The odd thing about that phenomenon is that almost no one on mainstream television appears to agree with that. In fact, some of the usual pundits were saying that this was Biden’s best night of the three debates. I have to scratch my head when I hear this stuff – did they see the same show I saw? Or is it just that they have lowered the performance bar for Biden to such an extent that he basically can do no wrong. That is not the Biden I saw.

His worst moment, namely his response to the question about the legacy of slavery in America, was aptly dissected by the Majority Report crew, who I think nailed it on the head. In his halting way, Biden began his response by talking about his fight against segregation, then pivoted quickly, recalling that this was a trouble area for him. He then talked about education, specifically poor kids in inner city schools, and once again he equated black kids with being poor. His solution sounded positively draconian: let’s send social workers into these kids’ homes, because their parent(s) don’t know how to handle them. What? Kind of astonishing, but that’s where the guy is coming from, so he was doing a public service of sorts.

Get off my lawnism.

The health care debate was probably the most contentious that forum got. This is probably where the usual pundits got the notion that Biden did better than usual. He was old man-splaining Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as to why Medicare for All can’t work and is too expensive. The questioning, of course, sought to support Biden’s case – It will raise taxes, right? Right?? The ABC team, like their predecessors at CNN and MSNBC, are trying their best to generate a soundbite of Warren saying “Yes, I’m going to raise your taxes!” If they ever succeed, they’ll probably blow some kind of ship horn. Biden seemed to think that $1,000 out of pocket was no big deal. Not surprised that that wasn’t the headline.

I think the biggest threat on that stage is the possibility of Biden becoming the nominee. I don’t know how to tell centrist Democrats this, but nominating him would be like rewinding to 2016 and running it again. We’ve already seen that show – let’s get someone on that ticket who will inspire the masses, not grab a couple of centrists here and there. That didn’t work out real well in the last election, and it won’t this time either.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

The line up.

Leave a comment

Bolton’s gone. We survived Bolton. That’s something to celebrate, at least. When Trump hired him, I honestly didn’t see how we would avoid a precipitous war with Iran, but thus far it hasn’t happened and now Johnny Mustache has died and gone to Fox. Good riddance.

Now that I’ve got THAT out of my system, just a head’s up that I’m going to do another debate night notebook this week. The major Democratic presidential candidates will all be on one stage this time around, and I’ll be tapping random stuff into my tablet as they spar. It’s either going to be really interesting or the usual bland corporate show we’ve gotten previously. Really a much stronger chance of the latter, but we’ll see.

First comment: What the hell corporate network is this debate on? This is the problem with this model of campaign debates. They become proprietary content, and as such, none of the other networks will talk about the details until the program’s over.

Next, health care. This exchange reveals what tremendous douchebags the so-called moderates are.  They roll out the same tired conservative arguments about people loving their health insurance. I can tell you, I’ve had what was described as a “cadillac” plan, and it was no great shakes. Why anyone would love their policy is beyond me. All I can say about the centrist plans is this: a public option is going to end up being an insurer of last resort, which is essentially what we have now. The only justification for it is preservation of profit.

Still too many ... but better.

Forty eight minutes in, I would say that Harris is doing herself some good. Bernie sounds hoarse, unfortunately – probably a lot of rallies. I haven’t heard a lot of Warren in the last half hour, which is annoying. Booker has gotten a few good comments in.

Lots of praise for Beto on stage for his time with victims in El Paso. Kind of a competition. O’Rourke gave a good speech on assault weapons, credit where credit is due.

Bernie and Warren have their hands up. Finally, another question for Warren, more than an hour in. Both she and Bernie make impassioned arguments against gun violence from a systemic perspective.

Some short takes:

  • Andrew Yang on immigration: “The water’s great.” What
  • Someone should elect Mayor Pete the next Bayer aspirin man.
  • Beto is speaking Spanish again. He’s makes some sense on immigration.

First foreign policy question is a trade question: tariffs on China. They seem to be attacking Trump more this time around. Warren is asked about trade policy, and she tilts against corporations. Good answer. Bernie takes a shot at both Biden and Trump on trade. Booker takes a shot at Trudeau’s hair. Harris makes a short joke to Stefanopolis. Warren argues for leaving Afghanistan, pretty eloquently. Mayor Pete argues for a 3 year sunset on every AUMF. Booker talks about veterans.

Bernie swats back a cheap shot about socialism and Venezuela. Climate change question: Warren gets specific and concise. Yang asked about education, gets some cheers. (Still no tie. Good on him for that.) Warren talks about universal pre-K.

Bernie makes an argument for more investment in education, debt cancellation via a tax on Wall Street speculation. Biden grinds out a response, muddled as hell.

Where was climate change? In the margins … again. I’ll post more on the reactions next week.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Muddle in the middle.

Leave a comment

If you’re as obsessive about politics as I am, you probably watched the “CNN Democratic Debates” this week, brought to you by CNN, hosted by CNN, and did I mention CNN was somehow involved? What the hell ever happened to the League of Women Voters, anyway? This notion of presidential debates being treated like commercial media properties is beyond ridiculous. Debates should not be some pre-packaged product served up by powerful corporations who benefit from the free-for-all media environment our bought politicians have built for them over the years. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the three purported journalists moderating the event were hell-bent on getting the various candidates to mix it up, posing questions that were, at worst, the equivalent of “Are you just going to stand there and let her say that about you?” and, at best, cheap rehashes of Republican party talking points. (Jake Tapper is such a freaking waste of space.)

Night one had the two progressive candidates plus what seemed like a legion of also-rans and never-heard-of-ems. Bernie and Warren both did fine, given the full-on frontal attack both were subjected to from the Frackenlooper chorus and the “moderators” (they kind of gave that term a new meaning, come to think of it). I thought Warren was, once again, particularly sharp, agile. Delaney appeared to be the main foil, and he got roasted once or twice, despite Tapper and company’s best efforts to cue him up as the reasonable alternative to what they consider to be radicalism, but which is no more radical in the main than the types of policies Eisenhower was comfortable supporting. Night two was cast as a re-match, in essence, between Harris and Biden – I saw CNN’s run-up to the main event, and it was a cross between reality show and prize fight promo. Ridiculous.

Never-Trump windbags attempt to school dems

The whole spectacle told us more about our prevailing media culture than it did about the candidates’ positions. One small example – in a brief discussion of the Green New Deal and related legislation, one question centered on the idea that the bill would entail guaranteed government jobs with benefits. As the candidates responded, the super showed the question as something like: “Should the Green New Deal include guaranteed government jobs with paid vacations?” These people are so steeped in the neoliberal myth of our current “prosperity” (based on millions of crappy jobs) that the very concept of stable work with benefits seems bat-shit crazy to them.

Speaking of bat-shit crazy, the CNN shills were outdone by their counterparts on Morning Joe on Thursday morning. Joe, Mika, and the whole crew were appalled by the previous night’s performance, saying the candidates were attacking Obama all night. Not sure they saw the same debate as I did, but this is the type of input Democrats should expect from never-Trump Republicans like Scarborough: We should rewind back to 2008 and stay right there, folks. Take that from someone who endlessly criticized Obama from one end of his presidency to the other. Oh … and here comes uber-moderate Claire McCaskle (sp) to tell us how to win in swing states like Missouri, which she lost only last year.

What an enormous pile of shit.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Debatable.

Leave a comment

I’m starting this post while watching the first Democratic debate.  Too many candidates, of course – I think that’s obvious. It’s kind of dizzying, frankly. John Delaney wants to double the earned income tax credit … whoopdee doo, right? What the hell is that fucker doing there? He wants to keep what’s working, like … private health care? What the fuck. This is like some kind of game show.

Highlights? Well, on night one, Elizabeth Warren put in a strong performance, but with nine colleagues to compete with on time – and sixty second answers – it’s hard to get to a substantive level on any issue. Foreign policy was, as always, a rough spot, with questions about “red lines” and “duty to protect”. In my mind, this points to one of the biggest drawbacks of these corporate-sponsored, major network hosted candidate forums. The questions strongly reflect what the mainstream media considers the broadly held political consensus on major issues.

With respect to foreign policy, when Lester Holt asks candidates where they would draw a “red line”, he’s drawing on the Syrian war debate during the Obama administration, when hawks backed the president into a corner of his “red line” comment, hoping to get another American invasion of the middle east out of it. Obama disappointed them, but has been called out for “fecklessness” ever since by the Joe Scarboroughs of the world. The idea that there should be some “red line” beyond which we plunge ourselves into a murderous, costly, and self-destructive conflict is simply ludicrous. I’m not a huge fan of Tulsi Gabbard, but she was the only one on that stage that seriously pushed back on that and on the “humanitarian intervention” question.

Probably six too many.

Then there was the question, again from Holt, to Elizabeth Warren about whether she would agree to any restrictions on abortion. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out the premise for that question. Trump has been running around the country, describing with glee his fairy stories about newborn infant executions at the hands of craven women and their nefarious abortion doctors.  This question was an attempt to get the candidates to weigh in on mythical late-term abortions, and thankfully no one took the bait, though I wish one of these candidates would just swat that bullshit down, once and for all.

The second debate was kind of a crap show. I will return to that in next week’s installment.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Stays in Vegas.

Leave a comment

We were treated to the third and final presidential debate this week, moderated by Chris Wallace of FoxNews. I can’t decide which I found more annoying – the ridiculous utterances by the candidates themselves or the clueless pundit commentary on what a great moderator Wallace was. Maybe MSNBC is planning on hiring Wallace, I’m not sure – it seems like they were blowing him pretty hard the morning after, even though he apparently cribbed questions from the Peterson Institute and Operation Rescue. “Partial birth abortion,” really? And no questions about climate change, of course. What a great news man.

Real sense of proportion.I could sit here an write about the obviously outrageous statements made by Trump over the 90 minute program, but you’ve probably heard enough of that. Suffice to say that the guy proves his unsuitability for the office of the presidency every time he opens his big yap. No one should need additional convincing, but alas … this is America. No, what astonishes me is some of what gets discussed (and what doesn’t get discussed) in the wake of these debates. That in itself is enough to make you want to rip your own head off. Take Syria. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, it’s pretty much a consensus that the Syrian conflict is a failure of the Obama administration on the scale of Bush’s Iraq invasion. Scarborough himself regularly refers to the conflict with terms like “holocaust” and “genocide”, which is frankly offensive.

I have never been a fan of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, but the comparison with Iraq doesn’t pass the laugh test. For one thing, more people were killed in the Iraq conflict than thus far in Syria, and that was entirely down to us. Syria is a civil war stoked by extremist remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq (thank you, Bush and Cheney) and other elements covertly supported by the US (thank you, Obama), facing off with an ossified authoritarian regime that knows only one thing: crush dissent. The Morning Joe crew is apparently disappointed that we didn’t roll into Syria in 2013 and turn it into an even broader international conflict, which would have resulted in open war with Iran, probably Lebanon, and maybe Russia. Would Scarborough want one of his sons to fight that war? Doubt it.

Nothing out of either candidate last night gave me any confidence that we wouldn’t get more deeply involved in this wretched civil war after January 21.  It’s up to us as a nation to make certain that the war fever we heard last night stays in Vegas and doesn’t guide American policy moving forward.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Round nine.

Leave a comment

Just watching the ninth Democratic debate. Debate, so called, though of course there is no proposition that’s being debated aside from who should be president. I’ve been watching it for a few moments, and I have to say … it’s kind of shrill. Lots of shouting, yes. Lots of finger pointing, accusations, counter-accusations. Lots of nasty looks, back and forth. Bad hairdos. You know the drill. Hoo boy. Our elections are way too freaking long. The process goes on for two years, pretty much. The debates are not very illuminating. It’s more like political speed dating – no particular depth.

Presidential debates: Shriller in vanillaThis is a media driven process. The horse-race coverage of the primary campaigns has pretty much swallowed up MSNBC, for instance. They basically pushed Melissa Harris-Perry out the door because she didn’t particularly want to be a campaign correspondent. Hard to blame her for that. Horse-race politics coverage is basically like sports journalism. The marketing approach is practically indistinguishable from that of sporting events – same kinds of music, graphics, etc. And this debate is a bit like Pacquio vs. Bradley. Except that it’s shrill white people.

I will be honest. I support Sanders, but I am not overly concerned with who wins the nomination. I am more concerned with the movement that supports his campaign – the broad public sentiment revealed by the strength of his primary and caucus performances, not to mention the attendance at his public events. The popularity of the Sanders campaign is based on issues, not on personality, likable as Bernie may be. The fact that these issues reflect the sentiments of the upcoming generation of young people, kids who have faced substantial economic headwinds from day one, gives me some hope for the future. My primary concern is that young people see some results from progressive policies in the near term, should a Democrat win this fall. If the left fails this generation, they are likely to turn right for answers.

So, this is a kind of race, but not the kind MSNBC wants to cover. It’s a race against time with respect to climate change, with respect to economic justice, with respect to social justice. Young people can bring about a more progressive future, if they get a chance.

Oh, boy. Hillary just said some pretty awful stuff about foreign policy. Dubya Bush in drag, frankly. I’ve heard enough.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Another country heard from.

Leave a comment

New Hampshire has refocused the race for president a bit, and now we’re bracing for the contests to come. As I write, another Democratic debate is scheduled for this evening. My hope is that Senator Sanders will have worked out a way of speaking about foreign policy that will make him less of a target on that score. I’m not suggesting that he adopt more hawkish positions – quite the opposite. He just needs to articulate some of the quite nuanced views that he has held for many years. If ever we needed an alternative take on foreign policy, that time is now.

{Later that evening … }

Really, Hillary? I mean, really?Okay, I did hear some encouraging words from Senator Sanders on war and peace. Not enough, in my opinion, but certainly better than last time. I am glad that he gave some historical perspective to a position that is just as relevant today as it was in the 1950s: the conviction that the United States should not be acting like an empire, overthrowing disobedient regimes whenever we feel like it, bombing wherever we please, always opting early for the sword. Clinton did what she always does – offer a set of proposals that extend the bad policy we are currently implementing. Could Sanders have disagreed more with the underlying premises of her positions? Oh, yes … but you have to pick your fights in a television debate.

It was heartening to hear Sanders call Clinton out on her bragging about being endorsed, in a sense, by Henry Kissinger. I’m very glad he addressed that, because it counteracts Clinton’s attempt at arguing that political fights of previous decades have no bearing on the current policy debate. Kissinger is still a player and continues to undergo a kind of rehabilitation promoted by both Republicans and – shamefully – Democrats. Sanders was right to denounce him as in essence a war criminal, with the blood of many thousands on his hands. Maybe I was in the minority in being gobsmacked by Clinton’s invocation of Kissinger at the last debate – she tried to minimize it a bit during the PBS debate somewhat, but that fell kind of flat.

It’s incumbent upon us, the other America, to push Sanders and, yes, Clinton to the left on these and other issues. We cannot afford to continue these bankrupt policies overseas; if we just accept the comforting lies, we can look forward to another decade or more of pointless war.

luv u,

jp