We keep hearing that Democratic officials are being polite and deferent to president-elect Donald Trump because they respect America’s tradition of smooth transitions of power. Given what Trump has said during the campaign, and the people he has appointed so far, however, that may not be appropriate.
Smooth Transition of Power
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
13 Comments. Leave new
Going to hell in a hand-basket…..
There’s nothing wrong with Democrats taking the “Speak softly and carry a big stick” approach, unless all they’ve got to ward off crony capitalist predators is a limp stick.
The only time Democrats show a stiff stick is when it’s on the side of big finance that funds their campaigns, by sticking it to working people with the likes of NAFTA, the TPP, and the Republican Romney designed Obamacare with its IRS penalties for those too poor to afford the crappy high deductable insurance.
How is it that the Wall Street cronies, the very people who crashed out the economy and then got bailed out, are now being rewarded with cabinet positions instead of prosecutions and jail?
Mr Rall wrote a book trashing Trump. It looked like St Hillary was sure to win, so Mr Rall pointed out that she, too had flaws.
FALSE! I read the comments on gocomics. St Hillary was the best candidate for president since George (Hanover), and anyone who didn’t reiterate, ‘Every American MUST vote for St Hillary!’ was unpatriotic at best and a heinous traitor at worst.
Of course, we’ll never know how bad St Hillary would have been. Trump is looking incredibly bad, of course. He gives speeches that global warming is a plot, and promises to revive the fossil fuel industry he says, that workers are overpaid, and that people who paid for their entitlements are not really entitled to them.
Obama and Hillary gave decent speeches, but didn’t deliver. Obama’s talk of peace and safety and freedom was only for the US/UK/EU gentry, not for the rabble or the ethnically challenged. Obama spoke of green energy, and fossil fuel production doubled while he was president. The good things Hillary promised, she would never have been able to deliver. She was almost certain to give great speeches about not persecuting Latinos, while deporting more than Obama, and continuing indefinite detention with no right to see a judge or have a hearing, a situation found illegal by a Federal judge, so Obama appealed: he has no intention of allowing undocumented people a hearing or a release from incarceration (but he only has 3 more weeks, then it seems certain the Trump administration will pursue the appeal and appoint the judge to hear it).
Frighteningly, the terrible things Trump is now promising, he CAN deliver. (Not that I think St Hillary would have been an iota better.)
Okay, so T-rump is going to be (?) a disaster. So, let us ask, IF he had lost, would Kankles Clinton have been any less of a disaster? Come-on people, was she really the “lesser” evil? Trump is selecting a vile crew. How would the crew of HC been any less vile? Trump is appointing the worst of the .01%ers. Hillary would only have appointed the shills of America’s .worst 01%ers. How is that really different?
Trump is a decidedly pompous asshat. In that America’s corporate media has maliciously failed to broadcast a great majority of Hillary’s asshat’dness, how are we really able to assess that Trump truly is the greater evil? It has been revealed by our MSM that DEMOCRATS are now massively going out to buy guns for the coming Tumpocalyse. EXCELLENT! The arming of all America is a good thing! Trump is already doing a good job!
DanD
David Stebenne at the Conversation has published an article entitled
How one political outsider picked a cabinet. Worth a read !…
My own hope is that the «Resist Trump» movements that, from what I read, appear to be coalescing all over the United States will also be able to «resist» being taken over by the Democratic Party that failed voters so singularly during the late election cycle, and that a new Phoenix will arise out of the ashes of the old. But as is widely known, if wishes were horses, beggars wouldn’t have to walk….
Henri
Let me here add Stefania Maurizi’s interview with Julian Paul Assange in la Repubblica (in English) to the recommended reading above….
Henri
“And the more secretively [most power structures work], the more incompetent [they are], because secrecy breeds incompetence…
“To keep up these appearances, institutional heads or political heads such as presidents spend most of the time trying to walk in front of the train and pretending that it is following them, but the direction is set by the tracks and by the engine of the train.”
Does it matter if the Dems fight the transition or not? We all know that once Pres. Trump takes office, the Dems are simply going to roll over. “Gosh, we couldn’t fight him. He was rude!”
Remember how the Dems couldn’t give us healthcare worth shit? “We didn’t have enough votes.”
That’s not the point–I can’t believe I have to give PolSci101 details. You fight for what you believe in. Why? Because that’s how a party coalesces. Would you trust your husband, wife, girlfriend (or all three) if they lied to you? Would you like them if they changed their stances on issues to advance their own agendas?
Point to a single Democratic candidate who actually said anything that didn’t sound coached. Sanders came the closest, and wow, did they put out all the stops to hobble his campaign.
Look at Obama. Go on. Someone. Anyone. Tell me one thing he fought for that you admire as a Democrat. Did you admit how he went after those whistleblowers? How about how Snowden got his passport revoked? How about those wars and all the brown people he blew into bloody little chunks? He sure showed Pres. Cheney that a black man can kill on a global level, didn’t he? Did you like how Snowden can’t even HOPE to get a fair trial if he ever ends up in a U.S. court?
Speaking of ever ending up in a U.S. court, remember all those inmates at Gitmo (some of whom have been in there for years without charges–check me on that, folks, because the media barely covers the story anymore, not while Obama’s golf game is doing better) who are still waiting for their chance to be tried? Go on. Tell me how patriotic and true to the ideals of this great land of ours that is.
Have you been through a TSA checkpoint yet? You might. But don’t worry. Obama never will. Nor will his wife and kids, but i guarantee you that if some blue-gloved high school dropout grabbed one of the Obamas by the pussy, holy hell, would that whole program be shut down in a heartbeat.
Trump came along and simply said what he was thinking. He might be completely nuts (I’m still not sure) but he’s blunt. I don’t have to stop and say “Hmm. What does he really think, though.” And the ONLY way the Dems have a chance of standing up to him is by standing up to him. Simple, blunt statements, phrased politely. No screaming, no frothing at the mouth. Just a sort of tired dismissiveness, like you’d have to a small child telling you that a monster broke all the dishes rather than ‘fessing up to having knocked over the sideboard himself.”
And Merry Christmas (or Happy Channukah or Festivus or Kwanzaa) to all. I’ve gotta check the bird in the oven. I think the vegetables have overcooked while I typed this.
What you just said made me happy, and to hear it a thousand times again from a thousand times a thousand voices would make me happier still.
I am partial to fFestivus, but a happy whatever to you too Alex.
«Tell me one thing he [i e, Barack Hussein Obama] fought for that you admire as a Democrat.» Now don’t be unkind, Alex ! After all, Mr Obama bestowed upon us a «vision» for a nuclear-free world, while later proposing an upgrade of the Unites States’ nuclear arsenal o the tune of a cool million million (10¹²) USD….
I just love «visions» ; there almost as good as «legacies»….
But say what one will about Mr Obama, but as a song-and-dance man, he has no parallel….
Henri
“But say what one will about Mr Obama, but as a song-and-dance man, he has no parallel….”
Obama deserves recognition for his ability to lie without looking stiff and calculating, like the two loser stiffs Gore and Kerry.
Gore was asked in an interview (I believe by Michael Moore) why he was so relaxed and personable in the interview, but couldn’t show himself that way during his campaign, but always appeared stiff and calculating, appearances that do not inspire trust.
Obama admired Reagan. It was said of Reagan that his campaign style was like a magic show; the people always want a fraud they can believe in.
Yes, there is so much of Reagan in Obama.
Rall, Trump, and the ACA?
When Obama gave a great speech about the ACA, presenting two young women with horrible diseases who had no insurance and could receive no medical treatment before the ACA, but could get full coverage, thanks to the ACA, for less than $100 a month, the roll-out was a disaster, and Mr Rall graphically portrayed that disastrous roll-out.
However, roll-outs are temporary. By December, the worst of the problems with enrolling had been fixed. The embedded problems were that a policy cost a lot and covered so little that the maximum pay-out was less than the total cost.
Prof Krugman keeps saying that the ACA gives great insurance to many Americans who could not get any, and at a very reasonable cost, and also that it greatly reduces the cost of healthcare in the US.
After complaining bitterly about the flawed roll-out of the ACA, Mr Rall stopped saying anything. What did he find out? Is it great? Is it affordable medical insurance for all the formerly uninsured Americans? Or is it a rip-off, a plan to force more people to buy worthless plans from the insurance companies and thereby increase the insurance company profits?
Is the ACA Obama’s great and benevolent legacy, or is it something else?
I wixh Mr Ralll would finish his coverage of the ACA.
michaelwme,
I would like to see Ted’s take on it too. But I’ll mention two things:
1. I oppose ACA because it doesn’t cover EVERYONE. It has all the hallmarks (to me) of one of those “this’ll shut ’em up, enough of ’em at least” gimmicks. An example from history comes to mind: the lifeboats on the Titanic. The real reason people had a fit about the Titanic? Rich people died. The real reason the laws were changed to make sure enough lifeboats were available for the whole complement of a ship? Rich people died. Apply the coverage standards of ACA to other government functions and tell me, what happens. Which regions of the U.S. don’t get high schools? Which cities don’t get clean drinking water? Apply it to the next Democratic fundraiser (minimum donation $100,000). If there’s 100 people and only 80 swag bags, how many checks will be cancelled?
When rich people get screwed, they bitch.
When rich people try to screw others, they make sure the narrative is “quit yer bitchin’.”
2. Paul Krugman keeps saying a lot of things. Here’s from a recent column: “In fact, as far as I can tell, no major Republican figure was even willing to criticize Mr. Trump when he directly asked Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.”
And here’s the Trump statement that Krugman is referencing: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
See the bait-and-switch? I’m shocked myself at how hamfisted it was on Krugman’s part. Trump, in the middle of continuing to hammer Clinton about her server (aka trying to win), simply kept twisting the screws. Krugman’s straining in righteous indignation over the gnat of Trump “directly” asking Russia to “hack” Clinton is risible. Clearly, Trump was being sarcastic. Krugman’s column contains other flaws beyond the scope of this already too long response.