Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Why Clinton/Warren will get the progressive motor ignited.

They are both known as formidable fighters
* They each have large, unwavering constituencies
* Their constituencies are different and therefore additive
- Although they're both liberal and very anti-Koch...  
.. their constituencies will be cumulative; a tremendous, ..
... focused force to fight for the American citizen.

  So why do I want to see this manifestation happen with both of these fighters?  Because, with their record for both being resolute in supporting the typical American citizen, and with their steadfastness in both standing up to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that we are encountering these days.  We will benefit from their two large, dedicated constituencies, which largely do not overlap and therefore may appropriately be added.

I believe we can count on Clinton's and Warren's 
Constituencies to be additive 

 For whatever reason, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren appeal to different types of liberals.  Hey, when I look at what we are up against with the damn Koch money and their nasty agenda, that doesn't concern me at all.  Those different types of liberals are absolutely united in their concern for the benefits to Americans and in their implacable opposition to the far-right skulduggeries of Koch-land.
  Their constituencies will mostly consist of different people, which means that our total force will be that much greater.  It is not only the size, it is the steadfastness of that total support.  The combined constituency from the most loyal supporters of Warren and Clinton will set an extremely high mark for relentlessness in their support for the everyday American citizen, and in their opposition to the machinations of the Koch-led right wing.  

American government could be going gangbusters
  Once we fight our way past the nasty blockades and road bombs being tossed in by the Koch-led right wingers, we can push the throttle on to "full speed ahead" and get going on making better things happen for America and for the American people.
  We know from the experience that we had with Eisenhower and Kennedy, that America, when the government is forward-looking and bold, can make tremendous things happen.  Those two presidents built our superhighways and got us to the moon.  I believe Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren can do the same kind of things for us.

  Clinton/Warren can re-ignite America's determination

  A government led by these two extremely articulate and courageous fighters can emphatically begin to replace the outrages of the last decade and a half with solid American solutions that are focused on the best living conditions for the people.
  We want to insure that our young people, not just the rich ones, are fully educated.  We want insure that the medical coverage is complete and does not cause American families to go bankrupt when they use it.  We want to insure that banks and investment houses do not just soak money from the people.  We want to insure that there are enough high paying jobs available for Americans who want to work.  We want to insure that our environment is safe and habitable for all of us.  We want to see our government leading the way on basic research to try to understand as much as we can about the universe that we live in.  Where appropriate, we want those discoveries from basic research to be channeled towards the benefit of all people.
  A Clinton/Warren partnership would go a very long way towards achieving those kinds of goals.  They will have the momentum that comes with being sure of what they believe and how they need to go about achieving the goals for the people.  They will be impervious to being deflected by any nasty little machinations by the Koch crowd.

OK, how do we make sure this can happen?

  To a very large extent, we get a running start by nominating the combined candidacy of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.  As noted earlier, such an occurrence where those two powerful forces work together, is far better than setting the two separate forces up to oppose each other.
  So we can ride the momentum of these two combined, liberal, unwavering constituencies together as they bring their benefits to the realization of having the American government be a strong and viable partner with the American people. 

Combining our strengths
  We have a long history on the liberal side of the equation, of asking our strengths to oppose each other instead of combining with each other to produce the strongest possible effect.

Let's stop asking Hillary and Elizabeth
to prevent each other from winning...

..Ask them instead to combine forces, and 
blow away the malicious Koch-led corps

Momentum from their two constituencies
  Both Ms Clinton and Ms Warren have large, extremely loyal followings.  Those followings are so loyal and steadfast that we can count on their unswerving momentum as we head into the political fray.  
[Did you note the little reference to how Ms Clinton's constituency hung in there (in the August 8 posting of this blog) against all expectations after Obama had jumped to a heavy lead in the 2008 Iowa primaries?  Her loyal following was just not going to go away.  That kind of rock-solid support will do us proud against far-righters as well.]


With Clinton and Warren we will have
 multiple advantages
     - We have, not just one, but two consummate candidates
     - Each will bring their superlative competence and savvy
     - Each will carry a large, extremely loyal, constituency
     - Each is one of the most articulate people in government
     - Each is courageous as hell 

Friday, August 22, 2014

Scott Brown ..... back to his irritating right-wing habits.

Running against women
Belaboring dead horses

  Remember when Brown was campaigning against 
Elizabeth Warren?  

  Somewhere along the way she told this little story about her family having some sort of Native American ancestry in her background.  She did not say that she was Native American, just that she had one or two such people in her family tree.   It was the kind of story that many Americans are familiar with, either their own family's or someone they know.  It's the kind of tidbit that most of us just hear, and then smile and go on to other things.

  Well when Brown heard that small little story from Elizabeth Warren, it was as if the right-wing god had dropped a gift upon Scottie.  For every time the two of them met to debate again, Brown could not keep himself from raising that story to imply that Ms. Warren was somehow conniving to get herself listed as  Native American in order to gain some kind of leverage over him on their campaign.

  Meanwhile, in every debate meeting that they had, Ms. Warren ran circles around Brown on anything of import, especially on matters of economics and finance.  In economics, the boy just couldn't cut it, finally falling back on claiming that we couldn't possibly fund any efforts to create replacement jobs for the victims of the Bush Recession "because it would be inflationary!"
   [Remember, inflation is mostly the rich man's bugaboo.  Nothing should stop us from repairing the stupidities of the George W. Bush mismanagement.  We must make sure that we have found replacement jobs for those good Americans who were severely hurt and left jobless by the Bush screw-ups.  That needs to take place regardless of Brown's misconception of the way economics really works.]

  That was bad enough, but Brown couldn't think of any other real issue of his own.  So again and again, at every debate meeting that the two of them had, all he could do was reach down into that same little trash bag of his and try to dust off his untrue story of Ms. Warren trying to pass herself off as being Native American.
  It was: "I can't really grasp what she's talking about enough to debate her logically or economically about that smart stuff.  But here, Tonto, get in there and see if you can do any damage with this old yarn."  And that's all that he had.  He just kept dragging up that tired old delusion again and again.

  Now he's carpetbagging by running for office in New Hampshire against Jeanne Shaheen.  After running the Elizabeth-Warren-as-Native-American deep into the ground in Massachusetts, Brown is now using one of his old friends, Fox News, to have a "documentary" televised railing against Obamacare for New Hampshire.   [How many times now has the gerrymandered Republican House of Representatives stupidly voted to rescind Obamacare after it was already a done deal? I only hope that Brown and Fox and the Koch brothers don't just continue to belabor this one into the ground the way that Scottie did with his "Native American" story against Elizabeth Warren. 

This guy is not even a New Hampshire resident.
What the hell is he doing running for office there?

The Times misses the point. It's control of Congress that matters.

Midterm Congressional election loss in 2014 
would not really help Clinton

   Losing Congressional seats is virtually always harmful.
So let's not lose them, let's gain them. 

  Mr. John Harwood of the Times thinks that  Hillary would benefit in her quest for the presidency if the Republicans were to take control of Congress in this year's 2014 elections.
  I beg to differ with Mr. Harwood.  While it might be slightly more productive of electoral votes if she were to be shown to be facing down the nasty, obstructive Republicans in 2016, I believe that in that case, she might be starting with a Congress that would initially just impede many of her beginning initiatives.  My heavy preference is for her to begin working with a Congress that will give her a head start to manifestly correct the decade and a half that we have been enduring from the Koch-backed regime.

  I really am concerned that we hit the ground running when Hillary is sworn in in 2017.  I would very much go for something like the first hundred days of the Roosevelt administration beginning in 1933.  However, in order to do such a thing, we need to win.  And we need to win big enough to make it possible to do the roll-over momentum that is characterized by a house-cleaning and a clear direction change, in order to be worthy of a Hundred Days tag.  Winning the 2014 mid-terms in just a couple of months could be very instrumental in that flying start for the Clinton presidency, to start with a very positive Congress.

  I think Ms. Clinton is going to win solidly in 2016.  I really believe that she will not need the momentum of appearing to battle against the "Know-Nothing" Congressional Republicans in order for her to pull out enough electoral votes to eke out a win, so I'm not buying into Mr. Harwood's premise.  
  One thing that we don't want to have is yet another Democratic president who is left high and dry with absolutely no Congressional support.  We have that now, dammit*, and it's pretty frustrating.  That is why I want us to proceed with normal vigor as though Clinton will win the presidency without our having to go into conniption fits; however we must, must, must begin building a forward-looking Congress that will be a strong partner with Ms. Clinton.  We've got a ton of work to do.  We need to get going on that right away in just a couple of months in this year of 2014.

   *Oh yes, a lot of the reason is that we were asleep at the wheel while the Koch-backed right wingers gerrymandered the House membership elections.  We just have to be aware of their methods, and we have to get angry enough to do something about it.  The gerrymandering, the filibustering, and the Roberts' knee-jerk Court are just some of their tactics.  We need to deal with those tactics, not get caught up obsessing over them. 
  One thing I'm going to ask everyone is that we stop being aghast at the latest dirty trick (like gerrymandering) that the right-wingers pull against good government.  We already know that they are nasty and dirty, so spending even a microsecond being aghast at what they are doing to impede anything positive is giving them way too much credit.

  Although I believe we have a fundamental majority of people who would benefit by stopping the Koch-backed polity and by retur
ning that clout to the people, we very often fail to engage that natural majority and let it fade into obstructive far-right actions.  Consequently we way too often wind up being channeled by the Koch money and loudspeaker into far-right stupidities.

I do believe Ms. Clinton's candidacy will 
spark a new positive movement.

Yes, in the votes, but even bigger
with the growing momentum  
of the liberal constituency itself. 

But, always, always go for 
 the Congressional majority

 The only way to maintain power in the U. S.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Laissez-Faire? - Did they mean the supposedly sanguine, "let it be?" or the more malicious "let us do?"

                  See what you think -

 Have they turned their pure greed into
this aggressive house religion that 
brazenly glorifies selfishness?

  A large percentage of America now dotes on that "me first" economic philosophy as if it's the second coming.  Indeed, the most obsessed of the true-blue believers in American laissez-faire now think even that public expenditures for anything (roads, bridges, schools, teachers, fire, police) are somehow anathema that must be avoided like the plague.
   It's as if we've gotten to the point where for them the only true money in their world is the money that comes out of the billionaires' fat pockets.  The money that we collect all together, working in concert, is somehow tainted because it's the result of all of us contributing to a common fund for the common good.

  How bleeping backwards that is!   

  When Eisenhower built the federal throughways, and when Kennedy launched us to go to the moon, those wonderful accomplishments were achieved using funds from our common tax-supplied reservoir to foster the good of all Americans.  
  Back then, Ike and Jack did not have to deal with a "know-nothing" contingent like the Tea Party that obstructed anything that made any sense whatsoever.  Of course the money had to be raised and budgeted, but Ike and Jack didn't have to constantly deal with a "fifth column," like our current day Tea-Partiers, in order to get anything positive accomplished for the people of America.  
   And they didn't have obsessive Tea-Party grinds pawing through every comma and semi-colon of the laws (such as the debt-limit routine), with the insane purpose of disabling our country while Ike was building those throughways and Jack was launching us to the moon. 

They're a lot worse than the usual historical political opposition,
They are pernicious and harmful fifth columnists, not the normal "loyal opposition" of politics.
  No, the true-believers of the Tea-Party use their eco-religious obsession to justify any revolting tactic that they choose, somehow because their religion (it being religion after all) justifies their being utterly awful in achieving its aims.  [Brings to mind the thinking that justified the horrible tactics of the Inquisition (loss of hands and feet, death, boiling, etc.).  It was taking the ends justifying the means to an extreme example.] 
  Today's Tea-Partiers mostly don't cut off hands and feet, but they still justify the means pretty much any way possible just short of getting arrested for harmful violence in the practice of their obsessive politics.   

In the 1930's Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats.
The Tea-Party uses any collective endeavors as scapegoats
"If the money is not coming from a right-wing billionaire it must be suspect."
  Once the designation of the target scapegoat has been assigned to a group or to a common practice, it becomes extremely hard to dislodge that designation in the common groupthink.  So the rest of us are dealing with people who have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the billionaires' incessant megaphone to an extent that they have incorporated those fundamental verities as dogma buried deep in their bones.
  They've even turned logical thinking on its head so that the only money that is real to them is money that is spent by a billionaire on his own volition.  Money that is gathered to be spent by us all collectively is somehow contaminated, and not "pure" money as it would be if it were to be spent by that billionaire acting on his own indulgence.

[That seems pretty backwards to me, (as well as being mystifyingly stupid). ]

The Tea Party screechers are not making those decisions 
  No, they are not.  Those decisions are being made at the loftiest right-wing level by billionaires who would not even deign to shake hands with those screeching tea-partiers. The very idea of resources being spent by the people collectively for objectives that they all decide upon in concert just tears at the gut of the average billionaire.
  The billionaires oppose such collective activity by all of us with every fibre of their being.  These days they will set the Tea-Partiers, like so many baying hounds, upon any political or economic movement that they wish to impede.  

Ever wonder how the billionaires get that unflagging support?
  It is sort of an enigma how these rich boys do it, but it's a long story consisting of many decades of sweaty ambition to plant their stake in the money mountain first, and then holding vise-tight to pyramid that haul using the growth, the control, and especially the political megaphone to build their money up to the mountain tops.  
  The megaphone, which they pay for starting with that initial stake in the money mountain, is crucial to their ability to get the not-so-rich people of the Independent and Republican persuasions to fall right in and play by their "rich man rules." 
  There's got to be some additional psychological propulsion in play as they extend their hegemony beyond those somewhat more sane groups to the more agitated groups like the Tea Party.  Since we're bordering on the disturbed here, I'm probably not going to be an expert in clarifying exactly how they get disturbed and bigoted people riled up.  However, it does seem as if it's not all that hard for them to make it happen and to then soak up the "gains" when the bad things do start to happen. 
  Back on the ongoing right-wing "conspiracy," the fundamental momentum of the current right-wing to gain a major foothold using so called "standard" Republicans for keeping Congress under control [They only need the numbers to keep anything positive from happening.  They have little desire to make anything concrete happen under government, and the numbers to obstruct are much easier to achieve.] has been key.  That has been critical to their ability to stop us from swatting them down the way Roosevelt and the 1930's Congress did after their robber barons plunged us into the Great Depression. 

Why do the not-rich people so easily
 fall in to play right along by
the rich man's rules?
 It is deeply mystifying, and at a
  fundamental level, even more
deeply disturbing   


And really, what is wrong with public expenditures?
  It's only since the billionaires and the Tea-Partiers have moved in in the last couple of decades under the alliance between the billionaires and the Tea-Partiers that such things as federal throughways and going to the moon under Ike and Jack became things to be denounced:

For the whole rest of our history 
Such powerful aims would seem
to have been highly called for
It's only since the coming of the Kochs
That we can't seem to get out of our own way.