The Real Anti-Trump Path

History doesn't always repeat, circumstances change over time, and Republican voters are not identical to Democratic voters. In the following podcast of Breaking Points. in which Emily Jashinsky told Krystal Ball discussed polling results which display Joe Biden's vulnerability in a general election and even in being nominated. They transitioned into addressing the Republican race for the nomination and Jashinsky caught my eye (ear, really) when she remarked (at 3:02 of the video below)

When I think about Tim Scott's campaign, uh, they're saying, like literally, we have no idea what's going to happen a year from now. We have no idea what's going to transpire, so we're just going to kind of wait in the wings and see what happens and we'll be the best in position if, if something changes.

The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's campaign is most likely to be upended or stymied if the candidate is indicted (beyond Manhattan) and GOP voters become considerably wary that the ex-President could not be elected because of his legal troubles. However, not only is there another path to defeating Trump as the nominee but it the one which Tim Scott- and perhaps others- believe is more likely.

Consider a little bit of history, which may or may not be applicable. In an article which appeared in the May, 2004 issue of The Atlantic, Paul Maslin, one of the four chief strategists for Howard Dean, detailed  the presidential campaign strategy of his candidate in the run-up to the Iowa caucus, which largely decided the nomination. Shortly before caucus day, as the two top candidates were expected to be John Kerry and Dean, the campaign ran a television ad criticizing Dean's strongest opponent. Maslin wrote

When we ran the ad, it barely brushed the intended targets—Kerry and Edwards—but delivered a devastating blow to (Dick) Gephardt. Quite naturally, he fought back—with a "kitchen sink" negative ad on us, which ran midweek. That ad, which attacked Dean's views on Medicare and Social Security, snuffed out what little chance we had left at victory—Dean and Gephardt were both increasingly seen by Iowans as running negative campaigns. The exchange, called off within days by both sides, nevertheless sent us hurtling to a crushing defeat instead of a narrow loss that we should have been able to endure. Had the vote been closer, I believe, there would have been no "I have a scream" speech on caucus night. All the habits we had learned so early in this race—work fast, use Iraq, be aggressive—were coming back to haunt us.

As the front-runner, Dean had been criticized by several candidates but most strenuously by Representative (and former Minority Leader) Gephardt. Gephardt had gone hard after Dean, and Dean (inadvertently, according to Maslin) retaliated robustly. Gephardt dropped out, Dean lost the primary and subsequent to the much overhyped, infamous "scream," went on to losing the nomination decisively.

The nomination went to the candidate, John Kerry, who mostly had stayed out of the fray. Fast forward sixteen years to the 2020 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination and before the Nevada caucus, when Elizabeth Warren

launched her first broadside against Bloomberg just minutes into the debate, setting the tone for the night.

“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against,” she said. “A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”

About 40 minutes later, the debate returned to Bloomberg’s alleged mistreatment of women when he was asked to address the accusations. He responded by touting the number of women in leadership positions within his foundation and business, noting, “I have no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the #MeToo movement has exposed.”

Bloomberg faces attacks for refusing to release women from confidentiality agreements

“I hope you heard what his defense was: ‘I’ve been nice to some women,’ ” Warren said, drawing applause. “That just doesn’t cut it.”

Warren then immediately zeroed in on the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who sued Bloomberg, demanding that he release them from the deals and allow their alleged accounts of harassment or discrimination to become public. And from there, the situation only continued to spiral.

Warren repeatedly pressured Bloomberg to reveal how many agreements were signed and attacked his character and electability in light of the allegations, prompting the former mayor to issue defenses that many thought made him look worse.

“None of them accused me of anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,” Bloomberg said at one point, prompting boos and gasps from the audience. He also declined to release women from the nondisclosure deals saying, “They signed the agreements, and that’s what we’re going to live with.”

Bloomberg was done, finished, obliterated while Warren was boosted. This sort of reaction was common:

Time to update Bloomberg's Wikipedia page...

Date of death: 2/19/2020
Place: Democratic Debate stage
Cause: Elizabeth Ann Warren#DemDebate

— Adam Best (@adamcbest) February 20, 2020

On CNN, Van Jones stated “Bloomberg went in as the Titanic — billion-dollar-machine Titanic. Titanic, meet iceberg Elizabeth Warren.” Bloomberg went in to the debate as an extremely plausible Democratic nominee and came out shattered.

Warren had proven the giant-killer. Two days after the debate, the Nevada caucus was held and Bernie Sanders emerged as the most(more?) viable progressive contender for the nomination as he pulled down 46.8% of the voted. Joe Biden received 20.22%, Pete Buttigieg, 11.3%,, and Warren 9.7%.

The Massachusetts senator stayed in the race for a while but she was essentially eliminated after Nevada. She was done in by Nevada voters, who saw two Democrats fighting and decided that strife was not for them. Better to hold hands and sign "kumbaya," and eventually Sanders lost out to the milquetoast Joe Biden. That's the way it is with Democrats, anyway. "Can't we all just get along?"

Republicans may be different. Joe Scarborough and others in the mainstream media blather about Tim Scott having a lane in the Republican nominating contest because he exudes a cheery optimism reminiscent, they pray, of Ronald Reagan while Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are nattering nabobs of negativism. They fundamentally miss the rationale of the Senator's candidacy.

Republican voters believe the country is going to hell in a handbasket, a major reason they are attracted to DeSantis and especially Grump- uh, er, Trump. Many believe, additionally, that the latter is the once, current, and future President.

Although something has to happen to Trump if he is to be derailed, no Republican in the race is willing to criticize the 45th President. They all are waiting around wishing and hoping that the other guy (or gal) attacks Trump, erodes his numbers, and give them their opening.

Realistically speaking, there is one and only one (potential) candidate who would do that.  Someone confrontational, brash, and not a little nasty, perhaps somebody who exudes a bit of that Sopranos, stereotypical Jersey impulse.

Donald Trump says he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours tonight on CNN. Despite how ridiculous that is to say, I suspect he would try to do it by turning Ukraine over to Putin and Russia. #Putin’sPuppet

— Chris Christie (@GovChristie) May 11, 2023

 

Each- but especially a Tim Scott, who has better than a snowball's chance in hell- is waiting for former New Jersey governor Chris Christie He can be, candidates believe, a modern Jesus Christ- sacrificing himself to death (in this case of the political sort) on their behalf. Ironically, there are GOP candidates whose best hope lies in the possibility that Republican voters are similar to Democratic voters.

As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm that the only similarity between Chris Christie and Jesus Christ is in the first six letters of the former governor's name.  And yes, Tim Scott would like to demonstrate vote-getting ability in presidential primaries so he can become vice-presidential timber. However, Scott won't attain even that status unless someone puts a serious dent into the clear front-runner. A former prosecutor, Christie likely believes he can prosecute the case against Trump and, in either case, is probably the only one who can do so in the belligerent manner necessary for Republican voters to sit up and take notice.

It's conceivable that Christie will stay out of the race. He is, after all, more concerned with his own political future than anyone else's, a characteristic of most politicians. Nonetheless, he is a very good retail politician and unlike some candidates- such as Scott, DeSantis, and Nikki Haley- has no chance to be a vice-presidential nominee. He'd be in it to draw blood.

"If something changes," as Emily Jashinsky put it, it probably would be a fellow Republican getting into a figurative knife fight with Donald J. Trump.  Like Richard Gephardt and Elizabeth Warren, Chris Christie would take no prisoners. That would be a confrontation worth watching and provide the best opportunity for someone to thwart Donald J. Trump.

 

Share |

No Time For Passivity

"When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama pompously declared at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. As diagnosis, it still applies. As prescription, it is awful. This is how you do it:

"Kevin McCarthy is a liar and a traitor," Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren maintained on Sunday's State of the Union on CNN. Three things:

1) Bad grammar- she meant "Kevin McCarthy is a liar and traitor." ("Liar and a traitor" implies two individuals.);

2) The subject is not a traitor because treason is defined in the US Constitution as "aid and comfort" to the nation's enemies to the enemy" and the USA is not officially at war with anyone;

3) The subject is an obvious liar.

The first two points are irrelevant. Kevin McCarthy is a liar, and protesting that he's not a traitor draws attention to the fact that he is a liar and to provoke further discussion about whether or not he is a traitor.

It would not be a good look. The Republican Party knows that and as of this moment, is mum about the accusations leveled by Warren.

This is a rare play run by Democrats, who are rarely on the offensive and are content with their status as punching bags as long as they're lauded for occasionally fighting back.

Syndicated columnist Jennifer Rubin, who no longer considers herself a conservative and supports Joe Biden, lavishly praises Michigan Democratic State Senator Mallory McMorrow and Missouri state Representative Ian Mackey. The latter

went viral by denouncing the persecution of LGBTQ Americans. Addressing his Republican colleague Rep. Chuck Basye, who sponsored an amendment to a bill to prohibit transgender girls from participating in sports, Mackey noted that Basye’s gay brother had delayed coming out for fear of Basye’s reaction. Basye began his response with “If I were your brother, I would have been afraid to tell you, too."

When McMorrow was attacked in a fundraising email by a Republican colleague as one who would "groom and sexualize kindergartners," she responded  with a statement which included 

I know that hate will only win if people like me stand by and let it happen. So I want to be very clear right now: Call me whatever you want. I hope you brought in a few dollars. I hope it made you sleep good last night. I know who I am.

My, "I hope it made you sleep good last night" is going to strike fear into the hearts of Republicans.  This passive-aggressive response is more typical of Democrats, as we can glean by reaction to US Representative Madison Cawthorn, a right-wing Republican from North Carolina. 

Upon standing in 2020 as a 25-year-old for election to the House, former classmates of the dropout from Patrick Henry College circulated a letter noting

Cawthorn’s time at PHC was marked by gross misconduct towards our female peers, public misrepresentation of his past, disorderly conduct that was against the school’s student honor code, and self-admitted academic failings. During his brief time at the college, Cawthorn established a reputation for predatory behavior. … We urge the voters of North Carolina to seriously reevaluate Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy in light of who he really is.

Last month, Cawthorn charged

The sexual perversion that goes on in Washington, I mean—being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 or 70 and I look at all of these people, a lot of them I’ve looked up to through my life … then all of a sudden you get invited to, ‘Oh, hey, we’re going to have kind of a sexual get-together at one of our homes, you should come!’ And I’m like, ‘What did you just ask me to come to?’ And then you realize they’re asking you to come to an orgy.

Or the fact that, you know, there’s some of the people that are leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country, and then you watch them do a key bump of cocaine in front of you.

And now, this:

              

            

This, too:

            

Dude has been a sexual predator, apparently drives with a revoked license, allegedly runs an office with more liquor bottles than water bottles and illegally fires a female staffer, and now

New photos show Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn dressed in women's lingerie, chugging wine and surrounded by women - just weeks after he accused his GOP colleagues of inviting him to cocaine-fueled orgies.

The photos obtained by Politico how the 26-year-old Republican with a vacant look in his eyes, wearing women's hoop earrings and a woman's necklace along with a bra and lingerie set.

Screenshots of the photos were provided to the outlet by someone who used to be close to Cawthorn and his campaign. A second former confidante of Cawthorn verified the photos. It's unclear when they were taken, but he appears to be sitting in his wheelchair, indicating they were taken after the car accident that left him paralyzed in 2014.

If this were a Democrat, Republicans already would make sure Americans believed the Democratic Party were infested with liars, rapists, drug addicts, and perverts.  The GOP wants Americans to think of Democrats as "groomers.". Christina Pushaw, press secretary to Florida governor Ron DeSantis, has responded to Democratic opposition to the state legislature's "Don't Say Gay" bill by charging "If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules..."

But this is what leading Democrats have had to say about Madison Cawthorn:

Crickets. Their mouths are shut. Notwithstanding Senator Warren, relatively few Democrats have denounced Kevin McCarthy. Even fewer have even mentioned Madison Cawthorn.

In the latter's case, that may be in part because the LGBTQIA+-friendly Party probably is loathe to criticize a man who enjoys wearing sexy woman's clothing, But this isn't a case of sexual preference, generally determined at birth and beyond personal choice. It's personal choice, and one the vast majority of voters would find odd, were Democrats even to mention it. Additionally, it's Madison Cawthorn, and his behavior has been atrocious at every turn. He is- or should be- a poster boy for hideousness. News flash: he's a bad seed, or at least as much as is imaginable.

This is a case for political behaviorists or even social psychologists. Democrats rag on President Trump or his enablers, Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and the whole roster of rogues. But they are unable or unwilling even to question their colleagues in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It shouldn't be up to Elizabeth Warren to save the country from the likes of Kevin McCarthy and Michael Bloomberg. Her colleagues need to step up, go low, and save this nation's democratic institutions.

 

Share |

Journalism

The Hill reports

MSNBC host Chris Matthews came under fire this week from some progressives for pressing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on why she believed a woman who had accused former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg of pressuring her to have an abortion while she was an employee for his company.

"MSNBC needs to fire Chris Matthews. Today," Shaunna Thomas, president of the women's advocacy group UltraViolet, said in a statement. "Matthews' refusal to believe women, and history of sexual harassment, make it clear that he is not fit to continue to cover this election. MSNBC can and must do better, and they can start by firing Chris Matthews."

After the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday, Matthews asked Warren during an interview why she believed the accuser and not Bloomberg. Warren had brought up the accusation during the debate.

"You believe he is lying?" Matthews asked, referring to Bloomberg.

Warren reiterated that she believed the woman, with Matthews then asking why Bloomberg would lie.

"Just to protect himself?" Matthews asked.

"Yeah, and why would she lie?" Warren responded.

In a lawsuit filed against Bloomberg, a female employee alleged that he told her to "kill it" after he found out she was pregnant. The language was interpreted by the employee as ordering her to have an abortion in order to keep her job, The Washington Post reported.

Bloomberg has repeatedly denied making the remark.

Lauren Duca, a journalist and activist with more than 400,000 Twitter followers, called Matthews's questioning of Warren "insane."

Chris Matthews asks Elizabeth Warren why she believes a female employee who sued Mike Bloomberg for telling her "kill it" when she was pregnant over Bloomberg.

"You believe he's lying? ...Why would he lie? Just to protect himself? ...You’re confident of your accusation?" pic.twitter.com/hVkkQhhXtz

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 26, 2020

Chris Matthews is not insane. Slate's Heather Schwedel recommends he "shut up," even as she inadvertently explains why it is unnecessary, as Warren

answered his incredulity with reason, frankness, and an elegant allusion to how the issue intersects with her own story: “Well, a pregnant employee sure said that he did. Why shouldn’t I believe her? You know, I’m just really tired of this world, this one is personal for me. It really is.” She displayed irritation without crossing over into anger that would surely give her critics reason to dismiss her, at least in their minds: “We have gone on and on and on where people say, ‘Oh, I can’t really believe the woman.’ Really? Why not?” She was composed—“And why would she lie? That’s the question, Chris”— and she didn’t back down. She answered Matthews plainly: “I believe the woman. Which means [Bloomberg]’s not telling the truth.”

It's called journalism. The Massachusetts senator made a serious charge when she maintained during the debate in South Carolina "At least I didn't have a boss who said to me, 'Kill it,' the way that Mayor Bloomberg is alleged to have said to one of his pregnant employees."

Warren herself recognized that the employee's accusation was an allegation, unproven and ultimately a "she said, he said issue.  In drilling down on the matter, Matthews was committing an act of journalism, challenging the candidate to explain why she believed the female employee. 

And, of course, there was the inevitable demand that the offender be fired:

Matthews’ refusal to believe women, and history of sexual harassment, make it clear that he is not fit to continue to cover this election. MSNBC can and must do better, and they can start by firing Chris Matthews. (2/5)

— Shaunna Thomas (@SLThomas) February 26, 2020

Along with the unlikely possibility the employee is lying, she may have distorted what was stated, remembered the incident inaccurately, or omitted important context. But that is how it has become with cancel culture, in which reactions overtake the search for truth.

Not to worry. Elizabeth has this. She understands candidates have their jobs, journalists have theirs, and if there were only sweetness and light between the two, the public would be the loser.

Share |

A Dual Motive

Investigative journalist at The Intercept doesn't understand what's going on:

If Bernie makes it to the nomination history will remember his unrivaled base of support, consistent principles and the convenient egos of his opponents.

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) February 22, 2020

It is accurate that Bloomberg's ad money- certainly not debate performances  or personality- and Warren's spending keep the field divided and have contributed to Bernard Sanders' lead in the Democratic race for President.

And Bloomberg does have a big ego, unavoidable when one has tens of billions of dollars and was chief executive of the largest city in the country (the "Big Apple") for three consecutive terms.

Nonetheless, it's remarkable, recognizing that the presence of Warren (and Bloomberg) in the field has aided the Vermont senator, that Fang completely misinterprets the Massachusetts senator's strategy.

During the most recent debate, Warren stated "I think I would make a better president than Bernie."  Of course she does- otherwise she wouldn't have been on the stage. Everyone vying for the Democratic nomination believes that he or she would make a better President than anyone. That is (for anyone but Donald Trump, who wanted to maximize his wealth) a prerequisite to running. They all have big egos and believe they can effectively lead what- before President Trump tore apart the nation's reputation- was the undisputed leader of the free world.

Were I running for office, I'd expect nothing more positive from a rival than

Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie.

Warren, given her choice, would still prefer to be President. She went on to explain, accurately, why she would be a better president than Sanders, but in a manner which was about as close to an attack as Boston is from, say, Spokane.

In the debate in Las Vegas, every Democratic candidate criticized Mike Bloomberg. However, only Elizabeth Warren lit into him like a vulture lights into a dead carcass. She started off like a hungry, mongrel dog that discovers a bone, and she barely let up. Personally, I thought her initial attack was over the line- but I'm not running for President or fronting for another candidate.

Below, one sees Warren, asked by a reporter "let me ask about Bernie Sanders," replying "I heard you. Michael Bloomberg....."

Liz out here avoiding questions on Bernie, when he is the one eating her lunch in the left lane and about to embarrass her in her home state.

Make it make sense. pic.twitter.com/X0ajqRa5Db

— Sister Night Says...Period. (@BlackWomenLead_) February 24, 2020

Elizabeth Warren has been competing against Bernard Sanders, who was initially propelled by a proposal for "Medicare for All," When she proposed a similar, somewhat less radical, program for single-payer health care with more details, more meat on the bones, than had her opponent, she took Sanders supporters and the right the incoming which Sanders would have expected to get. Her numbers plummeted.

Were I in Warren's position, I would have been annoyed and a little bitter. But then besides being male, a little younger, and far less knowledgeable than EW, I'm not as committed to progressive ideals as she is.  So that is why, in a manner very unusual for a politician, Elizabeth Warren's strategy does make sense. It's how she rolls.

Bloomberg is not the leading candidate for the nomination. Bernard Sanders is, and Elizabeth Warren continues to belittle and denounce Michael Bloomberg. It's almost as if she's trying.... Well, you get it.

Share |

Giving Sanders A Pass

"By the end," Ryan Lizza writes at Politico

it was clear that there was no Bernie slayer at the lecterns in Charleston, someone who alone had the time and skills to convince Democratic voters that the democratic socialist was a radical whose nomination would forfeit the party’s chance to defeat Trump.

  

Nor was there anyone with the desire to slay the front-runner.

Give the Democratic candidates their due. They probably figure Sanders is likely to be the nominee and viciously attacking him might help undo their chances of unseating President Trump in November and to hold onto the House of Representatives, the latter in doubt with the nomination of Sanders. And if one of them brings down Sanders, it might inure to the benefit of Michael Bloomberg- whose nomination would be dicey for another set of reasons.

Consider (times correlated with this transcript):

1) Pete Buttigieg, beginning at 3:37

We know what the President … what Russia wants, it’s chaos.

Once this campaign is over, Buttigieg will be found on the boardwalk either in Atlantic City, N.J. or at southern California beaches. Inasmuch as we don't know what the Kremlin is doing, how it is doing it, when it started, whether it is continuing or who the specific actor is, we don't know why Vladimir Putin prefers Bernard Sanders to all others as the Democratic nominee.  We do know, however, that Sanders has continually knocked USA foreign policy over the decades as one which excessively prefers regimes friendly to this country at the expense of other values. (See "Cuba, literacy.")  Therefore, assuming that Buttigieg really isn't a psychic, his remark may have reflected an unwillingness to confront Sanders here.

2) Elizabeth Warren beginning at 3:40

Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie. And the reason for that is that getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen. Bernie and I both wanted to help reign in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance, but I dug in, I fought the big banks, I built the coalitions and I won. Bernie and I both want to see universal healthcare, but Bernie’s plan doesn’t explain how to get there, doesn’t show how we’re going to get enough allies into it and doesn’t show enough about how we’re going to pay for it.

There could be no clearer endorsement of the candidacy of the Vermont senator than "Bernie is winning right now because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say so."  Moreover, while Warren's pitch all along should have been that she is "someone who digs into the details to make it happen," once she invoked this argument Wednesday night, it was not heard again. Repetition works- ask Sanders, who returns repeatedly to the same theme(s), whatever the question asked.

3)  Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar, beginning at 23:23 responding to Sanders first stating

Let me just, the answer is, it’s something that we would take into consideration. But here is the point. I am very proud of being Jewish. I actually lived in Israel for some months, but what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country. And I happen to believe, I happen to believe, that what our foreign policy in the mid-east should be about is absolutely protecting the independence and security of Israel. But you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people. We have got to have a policy that reaches out to the Palestinians, and the Americans. And in answer to your question, that will come within the context of bringing nations together in the mid-east.

Michael Bloomberg:

Well, the battles been going on for a long time in the Middle East, whether it’s the Arabs versus the Persians, the Shias versus the Sunnis, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, it’s only gone on for 40 or 50 years. Number one, you can’t move the embassy back. We should not have done it without getting something from the Israeli government, but it was done, and you’re going to have to leave it there. Number two, only solution here is a two state solution. The Palestinians have to be accommodated. The real problem here is you have two groups of people, both of who think God them the same piece of land. And the answer is to obviously split it up, leave the Israeli borders where they are. Try to push them to pull back some of those extra, over on the other side of the wall where they’ve built these new communities, which they should not have done that. Pull it back-

Sanders has appeared at the convention of the largest Muslim political action committee in the nation and received its endorsement. He also has chatted on Fox News, allegedly because he believes a public official must communicate with those he disagrees with. Yet he has refused two years running to attend the convention of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and now has labeled as "racist" the leader of one of the two most steadfast allies..

No one cares what Michael Bloomberg's policy is toward the Mideast any more than voters care about Warren's 78 plans for every problem besetting the USA. The front-runner just claimed to be proud that he is Jewish- and called the leader of probably one of the two most steadfast allies of the USA a "racist." In any other context than a Democratic presidential campaign, that is called a "gaffe."

Klobuchar was no better- and should have been. According to this report, the Minnesota senator "has a solid relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the country." The executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas has stated "she's ubiquitous in the Minnesota Jewish community." And last night, when Israel's Prime Minister was called a "racist," she was mum.

4) Joseph Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, beginning at 26:29 with Tom Steyer:

Excuse me, Amy. This conversation shows a huge risk for the Democratic Party. We are looking at a party that has decided that we’re either going to support someone who is a Democratic Socialist or somebody who has a long history of being a Republican. And let me say that I got into this race because I wanted to fight for economic justice, for racial justice, and to make sure we had climate justice for the American people. And I am scared. If we cannot pull this party together, if we go to one of those extremes, we take a terrible risk of reelecting Donald Trump.

Here, Tom Steyer condemns Sanders as a Democratic Socialist and Bloomberg for having "a long history of being a Republican."   To the credit of Steyer- whom yesterday I wouldn't give any credit to- he opened the floor for what should have been an obvious point. 

Three days before the debate, the front-runner lumped the "Republican establishment" in with the typically unspecified, largely neutered "Democratic establishment." He plans to take on the Democratic establishment this autumn and reportedly still has not registered as a Democrat. This does not bode well for a party which  would like to take over the Senate and at least hold on to the House of Representatives, But it did provide an opening, which Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren ignored.

Those are four instances in which Bernard Sanders' rivals, whose chances decline every day, failed for whatever reason to challenge the prohibitive favorite as they should have, and needed to have. And don't get me started on Castro's Cuba.

Share |

Giving Guns A Shot

The town hall events held separately for Democratic candidates by CNN are largely one hour unpaid political advertisements. Whatever they're intended to be, they provide little or no news nor additional information about the candidates. The best response to having watched any one of them is "an hour of my life I'll never get back."

Most of the questions are of the softball variety and the presidential hopefuls are rarely pressed. Nonetheless (or maybe "because") Anderson Cooper's friendly chat with Joe Biden Thursday evening provided at least one moment of drama while revealing a missed opportunity for Michael Bloomberg the night before.

During Wednesday evening's debate, the former Delaware senator and vice-president was asked "what would you do about these companies that are responsible for the destruction of our planet?"

Biden began

What would I do with them? I would make sure they, number one, stop. Number two, if you demonstrate that they, in fact, have done things already that are bad and they've been lying, they should be able to be sued, they should be able to be held personally accountable, and they should -- and not only the company, not the stockholders, but the CEOs of those companies. They should be engaged.

But then he added

And it's a little bit like -- look, this is the industries we should be able to sue. We should go after -- just like we did the drug companies, just like we did with the tobacco companies. The only company we can't go after are gun manufacturers, because of my buddy here. But that's a different story...

Actually, there is at least one, as a contemporary news report in 2011 noted that the Supreme Court had ruled "that a federal law prohibits lawsuits against drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines." However, there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which gives at least some financial relief to injured children. And of course, used properly, childhood vaccines save lives while used properly, firearms end them.

Still, it was a stinging- or should have been- rebuke to Vermont senator Bernard Sanders, whose mixed record on gun safety has reflected his conflict between leftist ideology and representing a rural state.

Then on Thursday, Biden told  the audience and Anderson Cooper (beginning at 5:20 of the video below)

I'm not suggesting you have to vote for me, but what I'm saying is, how about if I said to you, you know what, drug companies should be immune from being able to be sued. They put out 9 billion opioid pills in a matter of years, but they shouldn't be able to be sued. They misled advertising on television saying that you in fact can get -- they don't point out you can get hooked in five days on everything from -- that they advertised. And I said, but we can't sue them.

How about if I said that about the tobacco companies? I said, we shouldn't be able to sue the tobacco companies when they're misleading about how it caused cancer and the like. Or the oil companies that are out there polluting the ground? But guess what? The only industry in America that is not able to be sued are the gun manufacturers.

Now Bernie talks about my record. It's appropriate. It's not -- I'm not being mean. He voted to exempt gun manufacturers from any liability, zero. They can't be sued. And I tell you what, I'm not joking. I've sat there and looked in the eyes of those parents, as recently as today, talking about their kids and how they died, and they died at the hands of -- why can't we sue these manufacturers for advertising, for misleading, for glorifying, for promoting this godawful -- you know how many people have died since 2007 of murder with guns? Three times as many people have died in the Vietnam War and every war since. Three times as many, 150,000 murders, 150,000 murders. Those lives have crushed families. I was on the phone on the second anniversary with Fred Guttenberg down in Florida. He is the guy who lost his daughter, to just call him because I know what it's like to lose a daughter, lose a son.

And guess what? You know, he has devoted his whole life to try to make sure. And all they want, let me sue these guys who have done this stuff, this carnage on the street. Look at the people here in the greatest mass shooting in American history, the worst mass shooting at Mandalay Bay.

A guy has 12 assault weapons with bump stocks, which means you can fire it faster. You can pull the trigger faster. And 100 rounds. Why in God's name should anyone, anyone, anyone, anyone be able to own that? It's just wrong. And we've got to -- and I promise you as president...

And upon being applauded

... I am going to get these guys. I want to let them know, promise you. I'm the only guy that has beaten the gun manufacturers. I'm the only guy that has beaten the NRA nationally, and I did it twice, nationally. And gun manufacturers, I'm coming for you, period.

Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't. Only time will tell and even time probably won't because his election is a long-shot at present. Yet, it arguably was the best moment of his campaign.

Former mayor Bloomberg has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money supporting pro-gun control groups, and helped bankroll  Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety, which recently merged  His gun safety credentials are solid and on Thursday in consecutive tweets had condemned Sanders for being "corrupt" for having helped protect firearms manufacturers from legal immunity. Still, he missed a golden opportunity in the debate because, though no question pertained to gun control, he could have pivoted to making a point about firearms- as did Biden.

Perhaps Michael Bloomberg is such an inexperienced debater that he failed to exploit the one issue on which he is superior to all of his opponents.  More generously, he may have found that one issue he needs to exploit.  Or it's possible that Joe Biden has regained his mojo with a strong line one evening, and a rally and eloquent statement the following day, all on the same topic.

The best possible scenario: both Michael Bloomberg and Joseph Biden zero in on the one issue on which Bernard Sanders falls to the right of most Democrats.It might not do either of their candidacies any good but would at least focus the attention on an issue which in the past few months had received inadequate attention in the campaign. 

Share |

Those For Whom Losing Is Not An O;tion

Were I Blair LM Kelley, the African-American historian who is an assistant dean at North Carolina State University, I would have written the same article that she did. But I'm not, and I will tell you what she- and others- won't.

Kelley echoes the concerns of many Democrats about the  "harsh policing tactics and gentrification policies" New York City mayor Bloomberg imposed and which he defended "as recently as five years ago." She recognizes that Bloomberg's apology for stop-and-frisk "felt staged — and it came well after a change of heart would have made a substantive difference." Moreover, she understands

most of my neighbors don't track NYC politics as closely as they do local politics (and) their focus is often on their place in a city and the state, not urban politics hundreds of miles away. They have probably heard the term "stop-and-frisk," but it likely isn't as front of mind as the coming school board election.

That's a sound, important point to make. However, she ultimately argues

Bloomberg's strength, surely crafted by some smart and experienced staffers, is the direct appeal to black people. Black voters don't want to be taken for granted. They don't want to be ignored. They don't like campaigns where none of the issues affecting their lives are addressed. They like campaigns that talk about investing in black communities that have been poisoned by pollution and neglect. They care about investments in our schools. They desperately want to see an end to gun violence. They want to close the racial wealth gap. They like to be recognized and heard.

Crass calculation or not, Bloomberg has been putting black voices front and center in his advertising.... The time to invest directly and boldly in engaging black audiences is past due for the rest of the Democratic field.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that the other candidates have but a small fraction of the money Bloomberg has to invest in the campaign.  They cannot have the a staff as large or as well paid, nor saturate the air waves as Bloomberg has done, nor serve swanky hors d'oeuvres at campaign events. Money talks- and sometimes it says "I'm a winner."

Black voters are recognized and heard in the Democratic process. As a white, let me assure Kelley: white voters know that African-Africans are front and center among the concerns of white Democratic politicians.  There is a reason more whites have voted for the presidential nominee of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party in the last twelve (12) presidential elections and that no part of what may be considered the civil rights, or black, agenda ever is directly opposed by any Democrat in any presidential nominating contest. Blacks are not stupid, and neither are whites.

The popular base of the Republican Party is white evangelicals, who were wary of Donald Trump in 2016 until he emerged as the clear favorite to win the party's nomination. Now, they are his most loyal constituency- not only because they approve of his policies but also because he is their president. He attacks their enemies- Democrats, liberals, the media, and others- constantly and has demonstrated that he can win. 

A similar dynamic holds sway in the Democratic Party. The popular base is generally black voters. It is, more specifically, non-young African-American women.

Bernie Sanders clearly is the favorite of young blacks, for whom party- the Democratic Party- is not the highest political priority. (Not coincidentally, young whites also are particularly fond of the Vermont senator.)

Joe Biden  was the early and undisputed favorite of middle-aged and elderly blacks. He had been not only the loyal vice-president to the first black president, he was more than any candidate the face of the Democratic establishment.  More than anyone, he represented the party of which blacks are the most loyal supporters, and for which they are the party's popular base.

Way back then- a few months ago- Biden also was widely (though not here) viewed as the most electable Democrat and the one most feared by the incumbent GOP president. He was the one seen as most likely to bring it on home, to secure victory for the Democratic Party. It was only logical and reasonable that African-Americans, the engine of the party, were partial to the Delawarean.

No longer.  There now are serious doubts about Biden's electability.  Further, as his numbers decline, he now is no longer perceived as the face of the party, nor even the figure clearly representing the party establishment.

Enter Mike Bloomberg, with his billions to spend on nomination and election, which in turn persuades voters he can win.  In general, the election is viewed by fewer blacks as a theoretical exercise or one that must be dominated by ideological preference.  Call it "white privilege" or whatever you will, but many of us whites have the luxury of supporting the more progressive candidate (which is certainly not Bloomberg), who is most likely to enact policies which are beneficial, especially fopr African-Americans

However, among a significant percentage of blacks, victory is key.  A political scientist lays out the perspective of many Bloomberg supporters and- although unspoken- that of black voters especially:

Its not just the ads guys. Yes, the ads matter in terms of their base existence. But what is really mattering is the message of the ads- we are in an existential crisis & I can destroy Trump.

That's the message voters are hungriest for- even if they don't consciously know it. https://t.co/ZRr55CbhvL

— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌 (@RachelBitecofer) February 14, 2020

Share |

Think Education

You'd never know it from the media obsession about the stop-and-frisk policy of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, but the worst of Bloomberg is missed by this:

IMO here’s one of the most racist stats ever:

In 2011, the NYPD stopped & frisked 168,126 black men between the ages of 14 - 24

In 2011, there were only 158,406 black men in NYC between 18-24

Yes, they stop and frisked more black men than actually existed!

90% were innocent

— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) February 13, 2020

No, in isolation, they are not "one of the most racist stats" ever. Even excluding Nazi Germany, and slavery in our own country, they are not near the top. We don't know, among other things:

- how many white people were stopped- and what percentage of them were innocent. (The percentage of whites who were stopped undoubtedly is lower than of blacks, perhaps even at a statistically significant level. However, it's conceivable that

- on what basis were blacks stopped? (It might have been simply because of their color, a bulge in their pocket, or suspicious behavior- whatever that might have been.)

- in what neighborhoods the stops took place- and at what times of the day.

- of those individuals of whatever race who were not innocent, for what they were found guilty. (Possession of marijuana for personal use does not rise to the level of illegal possession of a weapon.)

Stop-and-frisk, about which Bloomberg is legitimately questioned, took place from 2003 to 2010. However,  in 2014 the New Yorker

criticized the large fines meted out to banks in recent years. "Some of these fines I think are outrageous and shouldn't be allowed to take place," he said.

Bloomberg adamantly defended the industry in the face of its pre-and-post crisis scandals. "Things have chagned dramatically for the better for the public," he said, but "you wouldn't believe that if you read the newspapers." And he said more regulation could mean a financial system that does less to stimulate the broader economy. "If you reduce the risk, they can't make the money, they can't provide the financing that this country and world needs to create jobs and build infrastructure and all of those things."

That was merely five years ago (video, from 2010). Further, we learned only last month

Bloomberg will soon roll out an education plan that will include backing the privately managed schools as an option for families, his campaign office told The Post — drawing a contrast with other top-tier Democratic presidential rivals.

“Mike’s education plan will absolutely promote charter schools,” Bloomberg campaign spokesman Stu Loeser insisted.

“The record number of charter schools opened under Mayor Bloomberg is clear. That isn’t changing.”

“Few if any people in the country have opened more charter schools than Mike Bloomberg,” he continued.

Under pressure, the former mayor has walked back advocacy of his stop-and-frisk policy.  But it was less than six weeks ago- as a presidential candidate in America's reputedly liberal party- that Bloomberg's campaign has bragged about plans which will further undermine the public school system in the USA.

Put Bloomberg's support of for-profit educational enterprises together with his record of running interference with large financial institutions, we may have the beginning of a pattern of support for continued privatization of the economy, a subject which disturbingly has gotten no attention in the Democratic primary race.

People care about education, as do even voters. Most understand it plays a greater role in their lives than does race. If other Democratic campaigns confront Michael Bloomberg about his promotion of the destroy public schools movement, it probably would help derail his primary campaign. And if it doesn't, it will at least have the benefit of proving wrong my hypothesis in the first sentence of this paragraph, and give us yet another reason to fear for the future of politics in the country.

Share |

Oligarch, A Big Word To Throw Around

Ignore the misleading, emotionally charged, and fairly ridiculous headline from the The Daily Beast. As its reporter notes, on Monday afternoon, MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed former Ohio state senator and prominent Bernard Sanders surrogate Nina Turner.  Matthews (skilled at getting people to say stupid things) asked Turner "do you think Mike Bloomberg is an oligarch?" and Turner replied

He is. He skipped Iowa. Iowans should be insulted. Buying his way into this race, period. The DNC changed the rules. They didn’t change it for Senator Harris. They didn’t change it for Senator Booker. They didn’t change it for Secretary Castro.

Yes, Ms. Turner. Harris, Booker, Castro- we get the implication.  The Democratic National Committee's original criteria for admission to the debates was misguided, it now is trying to correct it, and it may have made matters worse. But that's a topic (involving state parties, money, and Barack Obama) for another time.

Merriam-Webster defines "oligarch" as a member or supporter of oligarchy, which it in turn defines as 1) government by the few; or 2) a government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

Until and unless President Trump is re-elected, this will not be, and has not been, an oligarchy. (Even then, it will be less an oligarchy than rule by one person or by one family.) Not even democratic socialist Sanders has claimed that it is.

Nevertheless, Turner stood her ground, though it be sinking beneath her.  After a commercial break, she maintained

it was “ironic” that “somebody would defend the wealthiest people in this country over the working people in this country.”

“That is the same message Bernie Sanders has to the everyday people of this nation, that I welcome the hatred of the elites because I am standing up for you,” she added. “So cry me a river for the wealthiest.”

MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson 

meanwhile, contended that his issue was what the word “oligarch” implied while also claiming that Turner herself worked for someone who’s part of the one percent, wondering if she would call Sanders an oligarch.

Aside from whether "ironic" is the operative term, Johnson did not defend the wealthy over working people. However, she is not stupid and did not take Johnson's bait. She ignored his question,  inasmuch that under her ill-informed definition of "oligarch," her candidate is one, also.

Conservative, liberal, or progressive; Republican or Democrat; black or  ni____"; very wealthy or oligarch (even hispanic or Latino): words matter.  The USA is not an oligarchy but instead a nation of one President and many cabinet officials, 535 national legislators, and tens of thousands of state and elected officials.

If Turner wants irony, here it is: that individuals such as she who exaggerate the importance of influential people- of whom there are hundreds spread throughout the public and private sectors- may hasten the emergence of authoritarian rule. Johnson added

Mike Bloomberg is just a rich guy. Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean that you’re an oligarch that abuses power. The power that Mike Bloomberg got access to was given to him by the voters of New York... It ain’t the kind of language you should be using. I think it’s dismissive, unfair and it's the kind of thing that blows up in your face if you become the nominee and you have to work with Mike Bloomberg three or four months from now. That’s the issue Sanders people never seem to want to remember.

If Bernard Sanders does become the nominee and his people fail to learn this lesson, Donald Trump will be re-elected and American government will be restructured in a manner far more dangerous than Ms. Turner and some other Sanderistas now understand.

Share |

Not Persuasion

 Politico reports that Mike Bloomberg's 60-second Super Bowl ad

  

which will cost the former New York mayor more than $10 million to broadcast nationwide on Sunday, tells the story of Calandrian Simpson Kemp, a Texas mother whose 20-year-old son, an aspiring professional football player named George, was shot to death in September 2013 outside Houston.

“Lives are being lost every day. It is a national crisis,” Kemp says in the ad. “I heard Mike Bloomberg speak. He’s been in this fight for so long. He heard mothers crying, so he started fighting.”

The personal testimony of Ms. Kemp is enhanced when she asserts “I know Mike is not afraid of the gun lobby — they’re scared of him,”  It is a powerful ad, though its apparent placement at halftime- an upbeat and superficial interlude- is questionable.

However, the main purpose of the ad isn't to introduce voters nationwide to the ex-New York mayor, to persuade Democrats to go Bloomberg, nor even to slam President Trump. At seen beginning at 5:20 of the video below, Chris Clllizza, noting that Trump also has made a Super Bowl buy, recognizes

But persuasion isn't really the goal of either campaign in running the Super Bowl ads.  Intimidation is. The message which each candidate wants to send is that he and his campaign have so much money that they can blow $10 million on a Super Bowl commercial and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

We already know that Donald Trump, an acknowledged bully, is very intimidating. It is the reason that in the impeachment matter, Repub senators were- very successfully- warned "vote against the president &your head will be on a pike.”

Bloomberg will try to be at least somewhat intimidating, a stunningly unusual approach for a Democrat.  And whatever else his (significant) faults, his money and persona cam make it happen. 

I'd skip the reference to "cheeseburger," a favorite of elderly white men at diners in rural Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, here is the Bloomberg campaign manager who once successfully won a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against him:

Bloomberg Adviser Mocks Trump: Only Things in His Head Are 'A Putter, a Cheeseburger, a Porn Video, and Somebody Else's Credit Card' https://t.co/h4PlZmCdsk

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) February 2, 2020

Share |

Opportunity Squandered, Intentionally

Last month, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg did more than "apologize" for the stop-and-frisk policy he implemented as mayor of New York City. He conceded error, stating (at :20 of the video below)

Now hindsight is 20-20.  But as crime continues to come down and as we reduce stops and as it continued to come down during the next administration, to its credit, I now see that we could, and should, have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops. I wish we had. I'm sorry we didn't. But I can't change history. However, today I want you to know I realize back then I was wrong and I"m sorry.

At first glance, this appears to contradict his defense of the policy a few years ago:

He was not sorry. I asked him at a mutual friend’s cocktail party if he regretted his actions (aprrox 2014). He said what he always said: that MORE black and brown people should have been stopped. In lots of ways Bloomberg was a good mayor of NYC, but this is unmitigated bullshit https://t.co/DN8h5ohCAw

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) December 6, 2019

The contradiction, though, is more apparent than real.  Although Bloomberg has acknowledged the policy was misguided, he still isn't aware of the reason..  In June of 2013 he had contended "For years now critics have been trying to argue that minorities are stopped disproportionately; if you look at the crime numbers that's just not true. The numbers don't lie."

The mayor believed then that because proportionately more blacks than whites (inarguably accurate) commit violent crime that more blacks than whites should be stopped and frisked. He may still believe that.

Nonethless, when she ruled against the city in 2013, Judge Shira Sheindlin had observed

What you're drawing from the regression analysis is if they match well that proves there's no race bias. I'm saying it may be precisely the opposite. The closer the match may prove that the officer is saying that since Blacks commit crimes, I should stop Blacks to the same percentage as crime suspects. It's a worrisome argument.

It's worrisome not only because it's facially discriminatory but because it's illogical. While blacks are more likely to live in unstable and impoverished neighborhoods and thus more often run afoul of the law, the disparity dissipates within a given geographical area.   Hence, applying police resources in a particular part of town, then stopping more minorities disproportionately, is a case of double counting.

Evidently, Bloomberg does not realize that the problem with stop and frisk in NYC was that targeting blacks is unconstitutional and ineffective, as statistics indicated.   Instead, he stated "I now see that we could, and should, have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops,"  suggesting that fewer individuals should have been stopped rather than fewer individuals because of the color of their skin.

A "teachable moment," lost.  Anti-gun activist Mike Bloomberg could have noted that his experience as a big-city mayor has taught him two things. One of the means to reduce violence in neighborhoods plagued by crime is reducing the number of illegal firearms in circulation.  However, even that critical goal should not be pursued in a manner which promotes racial discrimination.  His choice not to do so eliminates the only worthy rationale for his candidacy.  

Share |

Best Of Luck With Those Issues

This not about Ilhan Omar or anti-Semitism, nor even about Michael Bloomberg or apologists for Communist China.  This pertains to Democratic party activists or, alternatively, the race to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.

In a segment Saturday on Michael Smerconish's CNN program, proudly centrist and Independent host Smerconish and NYU professor Scott Galloway fawned over Michael Bloomberg's "evidence-based" or "data-driven" governing. At 5:17 in the video below, Smerconish's producer puts onto the screen an excerpt, from a recent Politico article, which explains why strategists for the ex-New York mayor believes he could be nominated: 

The evidence for the alleged noncraziness is based on polling, an emphatically low regard for the current field of Democratic candidates, and an emphatically high regard for Bloomberg’s purported assets. These include a compelling life story, a record of accomplishment as mayor, credibility with activists on gun control and climate change, and an ability to nationalize the race this coming winter and early spring with a historic torrent of money and messaging.

It would be enervating if someone (other than Bloomberg, friend of plutocrats everywhere) passionate about gun safety or climate change were to become the Democratic nominee and elected President. It won't happen.

Do we recall Washington governor Jay Inslee and his campaign dedicated to fighting climate change? Gone. How about Beto O'Rourke (who turned out to be a bad candidate, partly for other reasons) and his passion for gun control? Gone.

Ilhan Omar is not gone. She's still a member of the US House of Representatives, still (barely) arguably an anti-Semite, and victim of a plot to assassinate her by someone threatening to "put a bullet in her (expletive) skull," evidently because she is a Muslim.  Last month, after Patrick W. Carlineo Jr. had pled guilty in federal district court and was scheduled to be sentenced, Representative Omar sent a letter to the Judge urging leniency because

The answer to hate is not more hate; it is compassion.  Punishing the defendant with a lengthy prison sentence or a burdensome financial fine would not  would not rehabilitate him.It would not repair the harm he has caused. It would only increase his anger and resentment.

Paired with the rest of Omar's argument, the letter is misguided on several levels. However, as John Oliver would put it, the point is that Patrick Carlineo Jr. should not be the poster boy for the need for criminal justice reform. An FBI agent had signed the complaint against him and

About a week later, the authorities found a loaded .45-caliber handgun, three rifles, two shotguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition at Mr. Carlineo’s home, prosecutors said. Because of a 1998 felony conviction, he was legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

In Omar's case, reasonable regulation of dangerous weapons is merely a nice thing to support because the public overwhelmingly supports it. However, it takes a back seat to compassion for felons.

It would be less of a problem if Omar were alone. However, she is not. In June I wrote of passage in the House of Representatives of

the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would have would have "required background checks in private sales, including gun shows and online transactions. by a vote of 220 to 209.The bill would ensure that all sales (with a few exceptions) are run through the national criminal background check system. Having passed the House with 232 votes from Democrats but only 8 from Republicans, it was dead on arrival in the Senate.

The bill included an amendment (since reintroduced in the House by a Virginia Republican but stalled in committee) to require that law enforcement be notified "when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check," which notably would have included illegal immigrants. After first being rejected, the amendment passed the House with 194 Republican votes (one against) but with only 26 Democratic Representatives in favor and 208 opposed.

Let that sink in.  The party which supports sensible gun regulation overwhelmingly rejected a measure which would have effected notification of law enforcement when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check. Presumably, it would have been acceptable were it not likely to inconvenience a few illegal immigrants who wanted to buy a firearm.

Support for illegal immigration or criminal justice reform.  Whatever the sentiments of the Democratic popular base- more positive for the latter than for the former- Democratic elites will sacrifice gun control for other causes.   And concern about climate change is sufficiently weak even in the Democratic Party that a legitimate presidential candidate who based his campaign on the threat it poses was out almost before he was in.

If Michael Bloomberg is predicating his presidential run on the basis of the interest he has shown in gun control and/or global warming, his chances are slim and none, with slim on its way out of town.  It would be as likely to survive as would have Ilhan Omar, had the man whom she suggested is the mere victim of "systemic alienation and neglect" had his way.

Share |