Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,072 profile views
  1. Yes, Carville does not appear to be happy with Biden, Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Tom Perez. I'm no psychologist, but perhaps the root of his unhappiness is really because he was prognosticating that Bennet was going to "surprise people": Jan14, 2020 - Carville Endorses Bennet: "He'll Surprise People" In Iowa, Bennet (along with Bloomberg, Gabbard, Delaney, & Patrick), received exactly 0% of the vote count, and 0 delegates. The categories of "Uncommitted", and "Other Candidates" received a higher vote count than Bennet. Did that surprise anyone? Not me. And if Carville was surprised, (or unhappy), then his advice is not worth what it used to be. I have nothing against Bennet, but last place is last place, and the election is only 9 months away. There are still officially twelve candidates, but only 6 candidates are viable. Four viable moderate (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg), and two viable progressive (Warren, Sanders).
  2. NYT Book Review.. <snip> Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can unite to Save Our Country shows how much E.J. Dionne Jr.'s (Centrist/ Moderate) view of politics has changed. The right barely factors into his new bridge-building project. Conservatives are, for all intents and purposes, a lost cause. This means “Code Red” is not yet another call for bipartisanship (thank goodness). Nor is it a plea for centrism, which in an earlier era had been a defining feature of Dionne’s work. Here he has abandoned the idea of a center poised between left and right. “The political center cannot be defined as a halfway point between Democrats and a Republican Party that has veered far to the right,” Dionne writes. Instead it is something to be negotiated within the Democratic Party. As a result, Dionne pleads with moderates and progressives to see one another as allies who have far more in common than they might think. And yet, it’s not at all clear moderates and progressives need to be reconciled. To be sure, there are real divisions among Democrats, perhaps even more now that independents have drifted away from the Republican Party and into the Democratic fold. <end snip>
  3. To recap:... The Iowa Dem Party has been giving us the data as it comes - 62%, 71%, 85% ,.... After satellite caucuses, 97% of the votes are counted. Bernie surges and is about to take the lead in delegates. As everyone eagerly awaits the final 100% results.... Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough..... I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass." WTF?? The Iowa Democratic Party was not given advance notice of Perez's demand for a recount. Recanvass requests can only be accepted from the candidates themselves, not by DNC edict. Tom Perez has failed miserably.. and continues to fail.
  4. I don't know if this guy ever experimented, but he has 1,000 klein bottles under his house.
  5. The lizard represents man, emerging from pure concept in two dimensions, becoming a three dimensional being, groping through life acquiring knowledge and wisdom, arriving at deep understanding of science and sacred geometric principals and the nature of reality and existence, and finally descending to reunion. In this theory the objects around the edge of the drawing are signals of the stages of emergence (cactus, biological life), the beginning of the fire-quest for knowledge (rolling papers), contemplation and distillation (a jug and partially consumed glass of spirits), deep study, understanding and wisdom (the open well-used notebook), and re-integration (matches and cigarettes symbolizing controlled/civilized fire that nonetheless consumes and returns the physical to the abstract). That's one interpretation: However, I have to say, it does bear a striking resemblance to this Dutchman's coffee table on a Saturday morning.//
  6. Voters have no vote on running mates. This is all fantasy league for pol junkies... Sounds like me, so I'll play along.... First, the job requirements for VP: Nominees typically select running mates that will support their policies, but at the same time, bring in potential voters from other geographic, or ideological areas. (think JFK / LBJ). Being an 'attack dog' is a useful trait. As VP, one of the main duties (besides attending funerals, etc) is to push the president's policies through Congress. Again LBJ, is a good example. This was Biden's role in the Obama admin. Considering this, my pick is Warren / Steyer. These are my reasons: First, I like the idea of having a billionaire as a running mate for Warren. It breaks her image as anti- wealth, and would make certain pundits heads explode. Steyer has an established network of support, and has built an impressive, and powerful organizational infrastructure to advocate issues like impeachment. Steyor has 'street cred' among climate change activists, having founded NextGen, an environmental PAC, which has registered 1.3 million new voters. Being a former hedge fund manager, he has also 'street cred' along a certain boulevard in Manhattan. He knows how Wall St. works, and can help fend off the inevitable attacks on Warren from the wealthy demographic. He is a political animal, and knows all the players: 1983, Steyer worked on Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign, raised money for Bill Bradley in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Hillary Clinton in 2008,Terry McAuliffe (Va. Gov) in 2013. He became Barack Obama’ s most prolific fundraiser, and served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 2004 and 2008. One example: In helping elect Ed Markey of Massachusetts, hespent $1.8 million attacking Lynch, including paying for a plane to fly over a Red Sox game with a banner that read, "Steve Lynch for Oil Evil Empire" Steyer has supported Democrats in Senate races in Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Michigan and in Gubernatorial races in Pennsylvania, Maine, and Florida. Steyer cited Florida's pivotal role in the 2016 presidential election and its geographic position, which makes it highly vulnerable to climate change, as reasons for his focus on the state. Did I mention he is a billionaire? Who better to push Warren's economic proposals regarding wealthy. There are only three things that influence how members of congress vote. Fear, Money, and Fear of Money going to another candidate. Nothing will get a congressman off the golf course faster than his secretary calling, saying "There's a billionaire donor waiting in your office, who would like to talk to you".
  7. Nice strawman. I am unaware of anyone advocating dictatorship, other than Trump. I absolutely agree with the principle of compromise. Within the Democratic party. I believe that the highly instigated chasm between the moderate wing, and progressive wing is by no means unbridgeable. Despite the many outside forces, and special interests that wish to divide, one can easily imagine a single-payer system that has an eventual transition to M4A, or a modification to the tax codes that would eliminate the 0% tax bracket for corporations. Both moderates, and progressives can easily find common ground on many, many issues. I support that, and even believe it is absolutely necessary. But that's as far as I am willing to go at this point on the issue of political compromise. When it comes to Trump, and the current crop of Republicans, it's a fools errand to continue this charade. With Mitch McConnell actively throwing mustard gas into our foxhole, then it is indeed disheartening to discuss the issue of working with them. I would argue that we are currently very close to authoritarian-ism with Trump. To me, the idea of continuing to compromise with the party of Trump is abhorrent, perhaps closer to appeasement. We certainly should not yield or concede to belligerent demands of the right wing at the expense of justice, or other principles.
  8. Biden has said some interesting things over the years on Social Security, that's for sure. In 1984, Biden teamed up with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to call for a freeze on federal spending, and insisted on including Social Security in that freeze, even as the Reagan administration fought to protect the program from cuts. It was part of the Democratic approach at the time not just to match Republicans, but to get to their right at times as well, as Biden also did on criminal justice policy. “So, when those of my friends in the Democratic and Republican Party say to me, ‘How do you expect me to vote for your proposal? Does it not freeze Social Security COLAs for one year? Are we not saying there will be no cost-of-living increases for one year?’ The answer to that is ‘Yes, that is what I am saying,’” Biden said in a Senate floor speech in April 1984, referring to the adjustment that millions of seniors look for every year. ‘When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,’ [Biden] told the Senate in 1995. ‘I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.’ (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.) In his 2007 “Meet the Press” interview (as a presidential candidate): Russert: “Senator, we have a deficit. We have Social Security and Medicare looming. The number of people on Social Security and Medicare is now 40 million people. It’s going to be 80 million in 15 years. Would you consider looking at those programs, age of eligibility…” Biden: “Absolutely, … cost of living, put it all on the table.” “The answer is absolutely,” Biden said, reminding Russert that earlier in his career, he had been part of the small number of senators who had come up with the deal that raised the retirement age, and promised to protect each other from voters outraged at the cuts: "I was one of five people — I was the junior guy in the meeting with Bob Dole and George Mitchell when we put Social Security on the right path for 60 years. I’ll never forget what Bob Dole said. After we reached an agreement about gradually raising the retirement age, etc., he said, ‘Look, here’s the deal, we all put our foot in the boat one at a time.’ And he kicked — he stepped like he was stepping into a boat. ‘And we all make the following deal. If any one of the challengers running against the incumbent Democrat or Republicans attack us on this point, we’ll all stay together.’ That’s the kind of leadership that is needed. Social Security’s not the hard one to solve. Medicare, that is the gorilla in the room, and you’ve got to put all of it on the table." That political approach — that by ceding to Republicans, they will respond by compromising in return — has been thoroughly discredited by the last 40 years of events.
  9. I have decided to vote progressive in the primary, no matter what. A small concern of Warren, (not ideologically, but tactically):.... She does have a tendency to respond to every critique leveled at her, or her plans by her political opponents. I cite 3 very similar examples of self inflicted injury: Trump’s Pocahontas taunt, Pete Buttigieg’s M4A critique, and recently responding to taunts from overzealous Sanders supporters. In all three of these cases, she elevated the status of her critics, and ended up in a worse position (politically speaking). I don’t know who her campaign strategist is, but all she needs to do to win the primary is to say over, and over: I will work tirelessly to excite, and bring every part of the Democratic Party together. I will not take big chunks of the Democratic Coalition for granted. I hope to be a President that every Democrat can believe in. ...until the DNC Convention. We all know where this is heading. After the Convention, the party will either declare itself moderately progressive, or progressively moderate, depending on who wins the nomination.
  10. Yes, taking a principled stand is both a virtue, and a liability. What I found interesting was how far down the article you have to go before Biden was even mentioned. (Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, Buttigieg, Yang, Bloomberg, … then Biden). And, how they slammed Bloomberg: "Mr. Bloomberg’s current campaign approach reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it. Rather than build support through his ideas and experience, Mr. Bloomberg has spent at least $217 million to date to circumvent the hard, uncomfortable work of actual campaigning. He’s also avoided difficult questions — going so far as to bar his own news organization from investigating him, and declining to meet with The Times’s editorial board under the pretext that he didn’t yet have positions on enough issues. What’s worse, Mr. Bloomberg refuses to allow several women with whom he has nondisclosure settlements to speak freely." * This post is the opinion of the ExPDXer, and may or may not be backed by sound data. It is not endorsed by anyone, and should not be used for making political, (or life and death) decisions. Always consult your own conscience. The opinions expressed are solely his own, (and even that is highly suspect).
  11. Very surprising. I was fully expecting them to go with Biden..... The Democrats’ Best Choice for President <snip> Ms. Warren’s path to the nomination is challenging, but not hard to envision. The four front-runners are bunched together both in national polls and surveys in states holding the first votes, so small shifts in voter sentiment can have an outsize influence this early in the campaign. There are plenty of progressives who are hungry for major change but may harbor lingering concerns about a messenger as divisive as Mr. Sanders. At the same time, some moderate Democratic primary voters see Ms. Warren as someone who speaks to their concerns about inequality and corruption.
  12. Dylan’s reference to purple haze is one of the more humorous lines in rock history. I saw a werewolf drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic's And his hair was perfect He was big and bent and gray and old And I looked at him and my blood ran cold And I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!? All apologies (again) for the wild tangent. Stop doing this to me. You may realize by now, I suffer from hyperfocus My family says it’s OCD, but after intensive, extensive, and exhaustive research into the matter I have concluded it’s maldistribution of attention. I blame C++.... oh well, time to mow the lawn
  13. I'll see that quote, and raise you this one: "Maybe somewhere down the road aways" (end of the line) "You'll think of me, wonder where I am these days" (end of the line) "Maybe somewhere down the road when somebody plays" (end of the line) "Purple haze" Well it's all right, even if you're old and grey Well it's all right, you still got something to say Well it's all right, remember to live and let live Well it's all right, the best you can do is forgive Well it's all right, riding around in the breeze Well it's all right, if you live the life you please Well it's all right, even if the sun don't shine Well it's all right, we're going to the end of the line - T. Wilbury's
  14. I take it you disagree with that particular super delegate. Maybe they are not so smart after all. Yes, that private organization has decided new rules were needed regarding super delegates.... That is why almost all members of the Democratic National Convention curtailed the ability of the super delegates to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominee. And who were these people that approved this decision? The people you acknowledge have 'experience and seriousness'. Super delegates. The rule change was necessary, IMHO, and agreed to by almost all of the Democratic apparatus. (super delegates, caucus members, DNC leadership). Of course, you have the right to join it, not join it, vote for or against it, or not at all. So the new rules are the new rules, like it or not. I am just attempting to highlight what is most likely to happen:........ This scenario is almost a sure bet, at this point... I underlined this likely event. My prediction is that before the 1st ballot, second tier moderate candidates (Buttigieg, Bloomberg) may release their pledged delegates vote their preference. Maybe. If so, Biden would receive the bulk of these pledged delegates. At the same time, (in order to avoid a 2nd ballot), one of the leading progressive candidates (Warren, or Sanders) would also release their pledged delegates. Warren would receive Sander's pledged delegates, or vice versa. It would not surprise me if Sen. Warren, and Sen Sanders have gamed this out long ago, and have some type of standing agreement in place. Most progressive voters, and organizations see them as fungible candidates.
  • Create New...