Let the Sellouts Begin!

Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats are already partying like it’s 1998: selling out to the Republicans by talking about working in a bipartisan manner. Here is some free advice: it’s not 1998. The Democratic Party is 72% progressive now. Progressives are out for blood. The last thing they want to see is a party that promised to hold Donald Trump to account work with him.

I know they’re not going to take my advice. They can’t. Because they have the same donors as the Republicans. They are owned.

For the many many left-leaning Americans reading this who still see value in the Democratic Party — voting for it, contributing to it, volunteering for it — I urge you to carefully study what the Democrats do during the coming year.

Are they going to try to impeach Donald Trump? After all, that’s something you probably want.

Are they going to subpoena embarrassing documents and witness testimony for public hearings that make the Republicans look bad? That’s probably something you want too.

Are they going to vote against every piece of Republican-sponsored legislation, including budget bills, and be willing to shut down the federal government? Probably not — but they should.

Are they going to get the Republicans on record as being opposed to important legislation? In other words, will they propose House legislation that will create a public option or single-payer healthcare? A $25-an-hour minimum wage? Free college tuition? It doesn’t matter that the Senate and the president can block that legislation. What matters is being able to get Republican senators on record so that they can be destroyed in future attack ads.

Obviously I don’t think they will do any of these things. They haven’t done it in the past. The leadership hasn’t changed. History suggests no reason to expect different behavior.

But never mind what I think. Watch for yourself. Pay attention to them. See what they do and what they don’t do. Then, a year from now, you can intelligently decide whether that party is worth supporting or giving upon.

This entry was posted in Blog on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

38 thoughts on “Let the Sellouts Begin!

  1. Are they going to try to impeach Donald Trump? After all, that’s something you probably want.

    What’s the point, Ted, of impeaching Mr Trump in the US House of Representatives – which, were all the Democrats who are going to take their seats there on 3 January next year to vote in favour (which seem unlikely) – would be a done deal, given that only a simple majority is required, if, as is the case, a two-thirds majority in the US Senate, where Democrats are in a minority, is required to actually remove him from office ? If the Democrats in the House want to be «progressive», how about instead passing a bill to reduce the US military budget by some 500 thousand million USD annually, and using the funds thus saved to improve education, health care, and the dilapidated physical infrastructure of the country ? Would that not be a far more progressive use ot their power and something more meaningful to take to the country when such a bill is stopped dead in the Senate ? Or am I naive, and the «progressivism» of Democratic voters stops short of paring back bloated military budgets and putting an end to the country’s interminable wars of aggression abroad ?…

    Henri

    • Henri,

      I mentioned a post or two back, we never, ever, not ever, criticize those (hang on, I’m having to hold back a sob of gratitude; I’m overcome with emotion) brave heroes of the military. Whether it’s dropping bombs on children before heading back to the officer’s club for a couple of post-mission drinks or clicking a mouse button to blow up a terrorist (the No. 2 guy in al-Qaeda, I hear) — and everyone in the immediate vicinity, too, but don’t wait for David Muir to mention that — our military is the best, the bravest, the best, in the whole world. How DARE you suggest we should cut the money going to these heroes who allow you to sleep safely at night without fear of a 60-year-old goatherd trying to slit your throat!

      Why do you hate ‘Merica, Henri?

      • @Alex “the no. 2 guy in al-Qaeda, I hear”

        heh. heh-heh. I’d like to see an org chart for AQ.

        Level one: one box, labelled “Mr. Big du jour”

        Level two: a hunnert thousand boxes, all labelled “#2 guy”

        Level three: Four boxes labelled ‘suicide bomber’ …

        :: KA ibn BOOM ::

        … okay, make that three boxes.

      • Henri,

        I can only pray to the White Jesus (the only “real” god, although we all pretend the rest count too) that Nancy Pelosi, that millionaire who used illegal aliens at her winery and who built a golf course for only the richest — I mean only the bestest — can rise above your vicious onslaught of insane misogyny and, once again, take what could be a victory for the people and turn it into a disaster.

        What do we want?
        Bipartisanship that results in 99% of the people losing 99% of the benefits while 1% of the people get those benefits transferred to them.
        When do we want it?
        Whenever it’s convenient for the 1%. We wouldn’t want to be difficult. Gotta reach across the aisle. You know, meet them half-way. They want to fuck us over a million ways from Sunday, so here’s hoping Nancy Pelosi can kinda/sorta fight like hell to make sure we only get fucked over 500,000 times. Maybe 600,000. Definitely no more than 900,000, unless a bailout occurs, in which case, hey, she did her best.

  2. I don’t know if “Free college tuition” is broad enough. How do we reach out more to the…, I mean, our brothers?

    How do we let them know that the construction trades, truck driving, fishing, farming, should be free to learn as well?

    • Ok. Finish the thought…

      Celebrate the trades. Truck drivers, auto-mechanics, electricians, plumbers, they are American Heros, and they deserve to be recognized as such.
      Everything you have ever bought in a store was brought there on an 18-wheeler. Do you realize that? Not only that, the raw materials used to create the thing that you bought also made a trip on a truck. In fact, you can figure at least three 18-wheeler trips for any product.
      1. Raw material plant to factory.
      2. Factory to distribution center.
      3. Distribution center to store.
      You’ve been wrapped in a cocoon of 24-hour 18-wheeler service your whole life. Right now, 18-wheelers are out there carrying the things that you will buy tomorrow.
      Understand that. Recognize that. Celebrate that.
      Take care of those guys.

      • @Aaron – Absolutely. (I wouldn’t use the word “hero” but still …)

        Here’s a thought experiment. Wave your magic wand and disappear all the truck drivers – 95% of US sheeple would starve to death within a week.

        Now, wave your magic wand and disappear all the Vice Presidents. Not only would sheeple not starve, but they probably wouldn’t even notice.

        So, why is it that VPs are far better paid than the truck drivers?

  3. “Are they going to try to impeach Donald Trump?”

    If there were any emails, or audio, or other such evidence of Trump’s collusion with Putin, the Democrats would have made them public by now, unless, that is, that evidence was acquired through the commission of crimes by partisan Democrats, and they failed to provide a credible alternate construction with which to conceal the illegal provenance of the evidence.

    So, the Democrats are using Russia-gate to gain access to fish for other wrong doings that they can make public for their personal political advantage.

    The Democrats will not impeach Trump, nor will the Democratic Party old guard pursue legislation that will displease their funders-in-common with the Republicans.

    The majority Republican Senate will not vote to remove Trump from office based on communications that the Democrats do not have legal possession of, or that they have not found to be useful possibly because the Democrats would incriminate themselves for it being illegally leaked (such as perhaps by Brennan’s CIA) if they do in fact exist.

    Once again, the Democratic old guard wants to win elections without doing anything for the common people, but only by attacking Republicans.

    • Hey, didja notice that Komrade Trumpinov fired Jeff Sessions the day after the elections?

      Didja notice it was the same Jeff Sessions that Trump lambasted for recusing himself from the DastardlyRussiansGate investigation? The same Jeff Sessions that declined to fire the DastardlyRussiansGate investigator at Trumpinksi’s request?

      Didja notice that Trumpilov appointed a crony who has publicly denounced the DastardlyRussiansGate investigation as his replacement?

      Didja notice that Vladimir Putrumptin waited until after the election to make that move? Didja notice that it was just as soon after as humanly possible? (allowing time for Twitter and McGriddles.)

      Didja ever wonder why Trump would work so hard at stopping an investigation which could only prove him innocent?

      I did.

      • Maybe I missed it but, did you ever read any emails, documents, or hear any audio, or other such evidence in Trump’s own actual spoken or written words revealing his alleged criminal conspiracy with Putin?

        Maybe you can show me what you read or heard in Trumps own written or spoken words that have Democrats totally convinced that he spoke or wrote them in commission of his alleged criminal conspiracy with Putin?

        I find it hard to believe that the very inept Democrats would fail to make these words public and confront Trump with his very own damning spoken or written words before the recent election if they had existed.

        I know there are all sorts of people talking about the evidence as if they had seen it and that it that proves Trump’s guilt, but when are they going to make this evidence public? One would think that they could have sprung the evidence as an October surprise, yet nothing was forthcoming.

        Maybe the Democrats were too stupid to comprehend the political advantage they would have gained if they had revealed the evidence before the election.

        I’m beginning to believe the Democrats were just bluffing the whole time.

        How do you maintain your certainty in the absence of evidence other than the unsworn testimony or hearsay of Democrats and their affiliates who say they have witnessed Trumps crimes?

        It’s time to put up or shut up.

      • Didja ever wonder why Trump would work so hard at stopping an investigation which could only prove him innocent?

        That question was answered in the original posting:

        So, the Democrats are using Russia-gate to gain access to fish for other wrong doings that they can make public for their personal political advantage.

        Plus, Trump cares a lot more about optics than about actual facts that could be uncovered. Mueller is publicly seen pissing on him and that in itself necessitates escalation to save face (and increase ratings).

        Finally, the fact that we are even talking about that is by itself reason enough.Trump requires the media to do nothing except follow his every move: Media cover the election in Mexico? Heeeeere, media media media: Trump publicly and repeatedly asks the military for invasion plans into Venezuela. Recount in Florida? Jeff, you’re fired!

        EDIT: Bernie Sanders agrees:
        My impression is that, given the fact that Trump fired [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions today in order to remove media coverage from [Tuesday] night tells me we had a pretty good night.

      • The Democrats would be better off making friends with working people than trying to con a conman.

        Good Rolling Stone article.

        The Democrats screwed up royally when they picked Hillary over Bernie Sanders.

      • Hi there, Glenn & A5 –

        As usual, neither of you have actually addressed the [admittedly sarcastic] substance of my post.: Sessions / Whitaker / interesting timing / obstructing an investigation which can only prove Der Dumbf innocent. Interesting, that. Not surprising in the least, but interesting nonetheless.

        Seriously, guys … do Der Drumpf’s actions not seem just a little tiny bit suspicious to you? How may smoking guns do you need?

        Of course I don’t have any emails, but it is public knowledge that DJT JR met with a Russian Spy to Peddle Influence to an Unfriendly Foreign Power.

        Surprise me: Acknowledge the previous statement.

        Surprise me even further: Demonstrate that you understand that it is A Bad thing.

        Surprise me unto apoplexy: Demonstrate that you realize it constitutes ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ if not ‘treason’ when aided and abetted by The Highest Executive In the Land.

      • But how do you maintain your certainty in the absence of evidence other than the unsworn testimony or hearsay of Democrats and their affiliates such as Bernie Sanders who say they have witnessed Trumps crimes?

        Please come back with some evidence.

        Opinion is not evidence.

        You know the trial in the Senate is going to need more than the opinion of Democrats to find Trump guilty of conspiracy with Putin.

        Opinion may be magical for Dems, but not for Repubs.

      • > Please come back with some evidence.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

        I have done as you asked, now if you would would be so kind would you address the quandaries I posed earlier? (second time asking) (today)

        DJT JR met with a Russian Spy to Peddle Influence to an Unfriendly Foreign Power.

        Surprise me: Acknowledge the previous statement.

        Surprise me even further: Demonstrate that you understand that it is A Bad thing.

        Surprise me unto apoplexy: Demonstrate that you realize it constitutes ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ if not ‘treason’ when aided and abetted by The Highest Executive In the Land.

    • The question of Russian involvement reminds me of Plato’s Republic and the dialogues within. The debate shouldn’t be about Russian influence. We can just assume that such influence occurred (if only for the sake of the argument) and then move on to the bigger, more important, more fundamental issues.
      Why was the dNC server so poorly protected?
      What other countries are, similarly, spying on U.S. political (and business) interests, and where’s the coverage on those shenanigans?
      What countries is the U.S. doing this to?
      If the democrats had anything with legs on it, they would have released it (as others have observed). But we’re back to my example of the Ceksi/Coksi wars: once you back a certain strategy past a certain point, you can’t admit you made a mistake without it costing you your job.
      Frankly, though, I think Putin played both sides (Clinton and Trump) against each other. Why do I think that?
      Trump (and his fawning sycophants) repeatedly say that he is a genius. Boyoboy, no one gets anything past Donald Trump. He’s forgotten more than you’ll ever know. Etc. Funnily enough, HRC’s fawning sycophants say the same thing about her: she is smart as can be, she is the sharpest knife in the drawer, she is just terrific. Etc.

      Bullshit. On both sides.

      Trump’s a tiresome rich man who was handed so much money and so many advisers that even he couldn’t lose it all, despite numerous bad decisions (Trump steaks, Trump university, etc.).
      HRC is a tiresome rich woman who has been associated with power and wealth for so long that I can barely recall a time when she wasn’t a major player in politics and American culture. And, if a gun was pointed at my head, I couldn’t name a single goddamn thing she’s done that really made a difference. Can you?
      Healthcare? Don’t get me started on the Romneycare system she helped file the serial numbers off of. She had to carpetbag into New York, the bluest damned state she could find, and still almost lost to Rick Lazio. (Ted covered this in a column a while back.) Then, she had to get her friends at the dNC to (metaphorically) help her jump an old Jewish socialist who she couldn’t overcome even after the whole game was rigged in her favor.
      Trump denies factual evidence when it is inconvenient, HRC simply changes her core personal beliefs when it is inconvenient.
      Do you honestly think either one of them is craftier than Putin?

      • @alex – I think you’ve missed the point. It’s not about Hillary, it’s not about health care, and it’s not about Romney, Putin, Lazio, Democrats, Republicans, Plato or Flying Purple People Eaters.

        It’s about whether a sitting President conspired with an unfriendly foreign power to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.

        Personally, I think that’s A Very Bad Thing. I seem to be in the minority around here, but that’s okay – it’s never stopped me before.

      • @Alex

        “What other countries are, similarly, spying on U.S. political (and business) interests…?”

        My guess, all of them.

        “What countries is the U.S. doing this to?”

        Without a doubt, all of them. I would assume that the US captures everything. Every phone call, every email, every text message: worldwide.

        They can’t release the evidence because that reveals where they got it from. If they’re cracking Putin’s email, they can’t talk about it, or he’ll change procedure.

        Of course, that always gives intelligence-types a ready excuse and opportunity to lie. Oh well, no way around it. Secrets gotta stay secret.

      • CrazyH,
        Did the president collude? If he did, and if there’s evidence, the Dems would have released it. If there’s evidence and Putin has it – a certainty if there was collusion – Putin would have released it. Why? Pence is certainly no smarter or craftier than Donald or HRC.

        Your question, your restatement of what everyone is up in arms about, is already answered. If Trump did collude, it can’t or, more likely must not, be proved. If it were ever to be shown, the corruption would reveal systemic corruption. Not just a few bad actors but an entire Tammany Hall kind of thing. Both parties would be run out of town on a rail.

        A check of history reveals that lots of things go on at the behest of multinationals in which the POTUS serves more as a waiter than anything else. “Yes sir, I’ll go declare war on Iraq, Mr. Halliburton sir. That will increase your profits handily. Ronnie? He no longer works here. Yes, he often spoke about the guns for hostages special. Nothing collusion-like to that either. Certainly nothing that showed a president wiping his ass on the Constitution or our democracy by doing an end run around the system. I’ll just get your table some more bread.”

      • @Alex –

        > if there’s evidence, the Dems would have released it

        There’s already a ton of evidence publicly available.

        DJT Jr. Trump Tower. Peddling influence. Straight from the horse’s … uh … mouth. He already publicly confessed. That right there is an impeachable offense (and I’m not even going to entertain the ludicrous notion that he solicited a bribe without daddy’s explicit approval.)

        Just looking at this most recent development:

        Nixon was guilty and he tried to fire Cox. Clinton was not guilty (of Whitewater) and he did not try to fire Starr. Trump fired Comey and publicly confessed it was about DastardlyRussiansGate. He tried to pressure Sessions into stopping the investigation, he publicly castigated him for not stopping the investigation, then fired him the day after the election and replaced him with a crony who has publicly spoken out against the investigation.

        If Trump is innocent, then he has nothing to fear from the investigation: there is no “there” there. But if not he’s certainly acting guilty.

        As I asked above, “How many smoking guns to do you need?”

        > If it were ever to be shown, the corruption would reveal systemic corruption.

        Do I really need to provide proof of system corruption? I think not – but that’s beside the point. The question is about Trump, not the entire system.

        > Do you honestly think either one of them is craftier than Putin?

        Oh, hell no. Putin is much too smart to have his own son conspire with an unfriendly foreign power. Putin’s playing Trump as well as the US citizens. Trump’s too stupid to realize he’s being played. Is the US citizenry just as stupid?

        (my vote: yeah. Unfortunately …)

      • CrazyH,

        “There’s already a ton of evidence publicly available. DJT Jr. Trump Tower. Peddling influence. Straight from the horse’s … uh … mouth. He already publicly confessed. That right there is an impeachable offense (and I’m not even going to entertain the ludicrous notion that he solicited a bribe without daddy’s explicit approval.)”

        For an impeachment to fly — optically — it has to be Donald Trump “The Orange One” himself being caught, literally, committing the crime. And that means he has to have started it, done it, and covered it up.

        Why? “My son, who loves his old man, I’m a really wonderful father, not that the lying media — I mean you, Jim Acosta for lying CNN, I thank God I don’t have you for a father. I really have sympathy for your kids, Jim, you rotten bastard — ever reports how great a dad I am. My son, who I love, not as much as my daughter, but, hey, have you seen her? I’m surprised Acosta can keep his woman-beating, yeah, we all saw the video, his woman-beating hands off of my daughter. She loves me, too. Maybe I should have the kids fight it out in a cage match. It’d be a great show. Probably win an Emmy, except that lying Hillary and her liberal friends control the networks. (Let it run like this for about another ten minutes.) Anyway, if — and I stress that if — I did anything that might not have been absolutely aboveboard, it was only because my son, out of an abundance of love and respect for me, his dad, made a mistake.”

        Donald Trump, the president, has to be caught, from beginning to end, doing the illegal thing, and the illegal thing has to be something unforgivably illegal. Not some paperwork snafu, not something involving hotels being bought and sold, something illegal like Trump breaking into a house, or selling drugs (I mean, literally, selling packets of cocaine), or strangling a puppy on YouTube.

        None of this paragraph subsection 6 of sub-subsection 23 clearly implies that one of the possible interpretations is …

        I mean, I’m on your side on this CrazyH. I think an impeachment would bolster the dems chances for 2020, but it requires two things:
        1. The impeachment has to be legitimate
        2. The impeachment has to stand up all the way through. There has to be no wiggle room. And every Republican in the Senate will realize, “If I vote ‘no’ I can kiss my job goodbye. If I vote ‘yes’ I can get away with claiming that I was always on the side of law and order.” But that means you have to force the mothers. There has to be no way for them to claim, “Aw, c’mon. It’s his kid that arranged this. He was just doing what a dad does” or similar nonsense.

      • @Alex – we’re on the same side, that’s a good thing. 🙂

        You’re absolutely right about the realpolitik bit – Trump’s newest sycophant could conceivably bury The Investigation regardless of its findings.

        And even if Komrade Trumpinov is demonstrably guilty, that doesn’t guarantee a conviction, let alone punishment. Nixon walked, Bush is a free man, and Obama is still giving speeches in front of god and everybody.

        Still and all, the question of whether he *is* guilty is worth examining IMnsHO.

    • Hopefully this will help you clear up you confusion about what constitutes evidence:

      https://williamblum.org/aer/read/160

      Keep in mind that a statement from the CIA that Russia interfered in the election does not count as evidence. It’s merely a statement.

      Keep in mind that a statement from the FBI that Russia interfered in the election does not count as evidence. It’s merely a statement.

      Keep in mind that a statement from the NSA that Russia interfered in the election does not count as evidence. It’s merely a statement.

      Keep in mind that a statement from a dozen other US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election does not count as evidence. It’s merely a statement.

      Here’s James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence: “To me it stretches credulity to think that the Russians didn’t have profound impact” on the outcome of the election. Clearly if the man had any evidence to substantiate his statement he would have provided it at the time. He did not provide any. So all we get is another statement.

  4. While I appreciate where this is coming from, from a leftist perspective this is not about supporting the Ds but to take them over, at least to the extent that we can start forcing issues. Like Sanders already forced them to nominally support a normal medical system just by breathing down their neck with 40% of primary votes (including 80%+ of the younger generations).

    Selling out – co-optation, bribery, and betrayal – is to be expected, yes. Then again, the downsides of the alternative strategy – building up a proper left party essentially from scratch – initially include a media black out and difficulties to even get on the ballot. Subsequently splitting the anti-Trump vote in a winner-take-all system.

    The two strategies are not mutually exclusive but will complement each other: a viable independent party would keep progressives democrats honest and strengthen their hand internally by giving them the option to leave over the expected betrayals.

    Of the two strategies, the third party option hasn’t gotten off the ground yet while the take-over-the-Dems is in progress to a degree nobody would have foreseen 3 years ago. So by all means organize an independent party and be vigilant and uncompromising about the betrayals to come. I don’t get why we would bad-mouth the one strategy of the two that is starting to come to fruition…

  5. Like Ted, I was disappointed that more D’s didn’t run on a Dump Trump platform.

    In retrospect, I think that was the proper strategy*. We didn’t just get a Blue Wave, we also got a Red Wave. Righties turned out in record numbers when they should have stayed home. (It was a midterm with their side in overwhelming power, and Duh Donald himself promised that everything would be just fine.)

    The Red Wave was obviously a reaction to the highly-advertised Blue one. How much stronger would the reaction have been if every D was screaming about impeachment? We would have wound up with an R majority in the House as well, that’s what.

    Ted’s right: the thing to do now is to watch what happens in the next year, and especially with the Young Blood. So what if they downplayed their opposition: it’s not like politicians have any obligation to honor their campaign promises …

    * “proper strategy” – speaking strictly as one who considers politics a spectator sport. It is not meant as an endorsement of any one team. Or any other team.

  6. I agree totally with your analysis, Ted.

    But, please a) define “progressive” and b) offer the reasoning that leads to the assertion that “(t)he Democratic Party is 72% progressive now.”

    • Hey, falco –

      We do keep bumping into these problems with semantics.

      (b) I suspect that what Ted meant was “People who vote for Democratic politicians” rather than “Democratic politicians.” (but only his hair dresser knows for sure)

      It is an important distinction, and I’ve failed to make it myself.

      (a) This is why I stick to the dictionary definitions of Progressive, Liberal, Conservative and Reactionary. It’s hard to communicate when we use the same words to mean different things, our only choice is to default to an established authority.

  7. The time to walk away from the Democrats is, literally, NOT FIGURATIVELY, literally, right after Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House. She wants you back in the party? She will have to — excuse me, Ms. Pelosi, I have the gavel* — earn back your vote, and lady, that’s gonna be one hard sell for you.
    (* The asterisk is because Pelosi said “I have the gavel” or something to that effect, shortly after coming to power as the Speaker, and she then proceeded to be polite and cordial and “bipartisan.” She helped bail out the banks, she kept the war in Iraq going — why not, her kids aren’t there. She’s one of the 10 richest people in Congress, I think. She’s the second impression from the Hillary Clinton mold. A little more wooden, a little less subtle in praising herself, but Clintonian all the way down.)
    I was pleased with the results of the election in that anyone who could count realized the democrats couldn’t have won control of the Senate. Period. It would have required a near miracle. With control of the House sufficient momentum can be generated to ramp up the new, younger (physical age younger and political mindset younger) voters into a stronger force for 2020.
    1. Pelosi must not become Speaker. She will derail all progress toward a Progressive path. She should refuse if nominated, refuse if appointed. Refuse, refuse, refuse. If she doesn’t? Every Progressive in the Democratic Party should leave. Want us back? NMC — No More Clintonistas.
    2. The Progressives in the House and Senate must be actively supported, starting now. Phone banks, social media, all of it. Force their names into the conversations.
    3. ACTIVELY request that the Democratic 2020 candidates throw their support behind Sanders. Biden? Ol’ Delaware Joe? Trump will beat him into stuffing. Hillary? She already lost once, and Lena Dunham has gotten bored with politics, so say good-bye to the hipster millennials who now have bigger pennyfarthing bicycles to play with rising up in their dozens to, uh, support her as long as she’s a foregone conclusion.

    Regrettably, I am disappointed, greatly, at the generally inferior quality of so many of the democrats’ female members. These are NOT tough, resourceful women. They talk a good game, but not one of them fires up the spirit. Not one of them is quick and sharp and smart and sassy. I’m hoping for Wanda Sykes, and they’re presenting Bob Newhart.

    TL;DR? Here’s the super-condensed version: As soon as the dems make a mistake, walk the fuck away. These people are like drug addicts. They will ALWAYS promise they’re going to get better. And they never do. “Where’s the stereo? Did you go to that interview I arranged for you for that job?” “Oh, yeah, I kinda had to sell it. I really needed some money quick. I’ll make it up to you. I forgot about that interview. Anyway, it really didn’t sound like a job for me. I’m really hoping for something in upper management.”

  8. Yeah, let’s see. A lot of the flipped seats are young blood, maybe it’ll make a difference, maybe not, but at least the lefter-ish types have a chance to prevail whereas they had zero previously.

    But as I said earlier this election wasn’t about supporting Ds, it was about passing a referendum on Trump. (THIS election: 2018, not 2016 and not 2020. Not Hillary or Nancy: TRUMP.)

    The following post will probably be unpopular, but I’m making it anyway.

    As of this writing, the Senate has been declared 51% Republican, which pretty much means that Trump will get whatever he wants. Had it been anything less we would have had a chance of blocking Trump. A *chance* – not a certainty – but as it stands now it is impossible. I’ll take “slim” over “none” any day of the week.

    One of the incumbent victors is Ted Cruz, professional asshole. He took it 50.9% to 48.3%. I suppose you could call that a moral victory given that last time around it was 56% to 40%, but we’ve still got 6 more years of Cruz, assuming he doesn’t get the Oval Office in 2020. Defeating him yesterday would have made his presidential bid much less likely.

    Now, imagine a Senate without Cruz. Wouldn’t that be nice? We might go entire months without his name in the news. I don’t really know that much about O’Rourke, but hell, I’d take another mainstream dem over Cruz any day.

    The mainstream dems like to characterize Bernie Bros as spoiled brats, their team didn’t win last time so they don’t want to play any more. I think that’s unfair – not all Sanders supporters act that way, but enough do to change outcomes. Texas had record levels of turnouts, but still small enough that the outcome could have been changed if the spoiled brats quit sulking and started participating.

    They really need to reassess their values come 2020. Is making a non-statement really so important to them that they’re willing to put up with four more years of Trumpism? Another Supreme Court “Justice”? A shooting war with Canada? Really?

    DISCLAIMER: In 2016 I was perfectly willing to let Trump take it to make the public statement that Hillary was not acceptable. I don’t regret it to this day. I hope to dog that we don’t get another Blue-dog or Pink TuTu dem next time, I just might have to sulk.

    • To CrazyH,

      I’d rather Sanders himself had “sulked” after 2016 rather than applying so obscenely many big, wet kisses to the ample butts that that just violently shit on him.

      At this point who would among the Dems do you consider as making legitimate presidential nominees.

      I don’t see any. If the Dems nominate Biden, the man born with both feet in his mouth, I may just die
      of terminal uncontrollable laughter

      • > At this point who would among the Dems do you consider as making legitimate presidential nominees.

        Liz Warren for sure, some of the fiery new blood possibly – they’ve got a couple years to prove themselves. Sanders, of course (broad definition of “Dem” – he ran as one.) Patty Murray? I consider her to be better than most.

      • @falco – continuing my response after due consideration and an Irish Coffee for breakfast …

        I don’t actually have a list.

        We generally get our prez candidates from Senators, Representatives, and State Governors. That’s nearly six hundred people right there – I don’t know all their qualifications. (Contrary to popular opinion, I am willing to consider a Republican for office if they were more qualified than their Dem opponent. I just don’t think it’s very likely.)

        I’ll have to wait it out & see what the field looks like closer to the real race. But gosh, the last big winner was a TV Personality. Can I include them?

        Neil deGrasse Tyson? He’s got a better grasp of reality than most congress critters.

        Stephen Colbert? He’s got a better grasp of inter/national politics than most congress critters.

        George Carlin? Who cares if he’s dead – that didn’t stop Reagan!

        James T. Kirk? Who cares if he’s a fictional character – that didn’t stop Reagan either!

Leave a Reply