Watch Democratic Convention Live Here

To hell with Trump. To hell with today’s Republican Party. To hell with Fox News and CNN.

To hell with Trump’s buddy Putin. To hell with ISIS. To hell with the leaders of the NRA.

To hell with those who call themselves “Christians” and don’t practice Christianity.

To hell with the fools and money-grubbers who deny that global warming is real.

To hell with fanatics who spread fear, hatred and ignorance throughout the world.

Finally, to hell with any strong Sanders supporters who don’t apply at least some of their intensity to electing Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine and a Democratic Congress in November.

You can watch the unfiltered gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Democratic National Convention, without “expert” analysis or commentary, at this site, even if you don’t have cable TV.

And have a nice day!

History Repeats Itself and Then Kind of Doesn’t

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson’s campaign hired an actor who was a registered Republican to do a four-minute commercial expressing his misgivings about Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for President. It was in black and white, of course, and the actor indulged in an unhealthy habit:

The ad was called “Confessions of a Republican”:

The actor, whose name is William Bogert, is still with us and has now made an ad for the Clinton campaign. It’s only a minute long, since our 2016 attention spans are 75% shorter. It’s also called “Confessions of a Republican”.

Also, here’s a related story that probably won’t appear on Fox News.That’s a pity. The ghost writer, who spent 18 months with Trump and wrote “his” popular book, The Art of the Deal, for the real estate developer, wishes it had been called The Sociopath instead:

“I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is,” Mr. Schwartz said. “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

Mr. Schwartz also says Trump has no attention span, is the most prolific liar he ever met and is running for President because he loves publicity. 

Meanwhile, the Republican National Conflagration began today in Cleveland, Ohio. The Never Trump faction tried to get Trump dumped. Yelling and confusion ensued, but the Trump Forever faction won with the help of the politician who held the gavel. A brief video records the disagreement:

https://youtu.be/tvGRAI5fxIw

God bless America.

PS — This is a longer article from The New Yorker about Trump’s ghost writer. The concluding quote:

“People are dispensable and disposable in Trump’s world.” If Trump is elected President, [Mr. Schwartz] warned, “the millions of people who voted for him and believe that he represents their interests will learn what anyone who deals closely with him already knows—that he couldn’t care less about them.”

A Post for Annette Scott and Everyone Else as the Summer Wears On

“I really don’t love either of the candidates. What do they say? It’s a choice between hot and hell,” said Annette Scott, 70, of Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Scott, a retiree, said she’s seeking answers to the country’s problems – and failing to find them from either candidate.

“Please give me solutions. Whether they are workable or not workable, at least propose them so everybody can talk about it,” she said. 

It’s July. We haven’t had either of the conventions yet. We haven’t had the “debates”. Perhaps the “average American voter” isn’t really paying attention at this point. It’s often said that most voters don’t pay attention to politics until after Labor Day. That’s about eight weeks before the election.

That would explain why Annette Scott, who lives in Monmouth County, New Jersey, thinks neither candidate is offering any solutions. She probably gets her news from television, like most older people do. Although she’s almost certainly heard of a couple solutions offered by one candidate (since we’ve all heard about “the wall” and keeping out the Muslims), she’s definitely heard more about the other candidate’s email than any solutions she’s offered.

For Annette:

In case you read this blog, below are links to the two candidates’ websites. One page is labeled “Positions” and the other is labeled “Issues”. (Notice how one refers to what the candidate thinks and the other refers to the problems we face?)

Candidate 1 lists seven positions on his page (in capital letters, so you know he means business):

  • PAY FOR THE WALL
  • HEALTHCARE REFORM
  • U.S.-CHINA TRADE REFORM
  • VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REFORMS
  • TAX REFORM
  • SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
  • IMMIGRATION REFORM

Candidate 2 lists thirty-two issues on her page:

  • Addiction and substance use
  • Autism
  • Campaign finance reform
  • Campus sexual assault
  • Climate change
  • Criminal justice reform
  • Disability rights
  • Early childhood education
  • Fixing America’s infrastructure
  • Gun violence prevention
  • Health care
  • HIV and AIDS
  • Immigration reform
  • K–12 education
  • Labor and workers’ rights
  • LGBT rights and equality
  • Making college affordable and taking on student debt
  • Manufacturing
  • National security
  • Paid family leave
  • Protecting animals and wildlife
  • Racial justice
  • Raising incomes and fighting inequality
  • Rural communities
  • Seeking a cure for Alzheimer’s disease
  • Small business
  • Social Security and Medicare
  • Veterans, the armed forces, and their families
  • Voting rights
  • Wall Street reform
  • Women’s rights
  • Workforce skills and job training

You might not agree with the set of positions or issues they decided to list, but you’ll have to admit the two lists provide food for thought and discussion, whether the solutions are “workable or not”.

For everyone else:

Until proven otherwise, I have to believe that most Americans have more sense than the opinion polls suggest, especially the polls that purport to show this will be a close election. Remember that we actually hold 51 separate elections for President (one for each state and one for the District of Columbia). Those elections generate electoral votes, and those electoral votes determine who will be President. A single national poll is merely a summary of how voters across the country felt when the poll was taken. It doesn’t tell us how voters in particular states will feel in November. It certainly doesn’t tell us, four months before the election, who is going to win 51 separate elections and receive a majority of electoral votes. Given this fact, it’s fair to say that publicizing national polls at this point is journalistic malpractice.

One other thing: We still hear a lot about the “trust issue”, as in “I just don’t trust her”. I would love to hear at least one reporter ask what’s called a “follow-up” question: “You say you don’t trust her, but what specifically don’t you trust her to do? Are you concerned that she won’t try to do any of the things her record or positions indicate? Do you think she’s actually been a secret Goldwater Republican all these years? Or that she wants to introduce sharia law socialism in her first 100 days? Or that she’s going to steal the White House silver? Or are you saying you don’t trust her simply because it sounds better than saying there’s something about her you don’t like?”

When it comes to trusting people running for office, the issue is whether we think they will seriously try to keep their promises after they’re elected. One candidate this year has made some very big promises, but has been sued hundreds of times in his checkered career, leaned in various directions over the years, is very sketchy about details and is world-famous for making shit up. The other has been accused of all kinds of bad behavior, public and private, but was in public office for 12 years and has spoken out on all manner of political issues for decades. Nobody really knows what the first candidate would do as President. Everyone should have a very good idea what the second candidate will do. But it’s the second candidate people don’t trust? 

Since I should be doing something else with my time instead of getting worked up about the election, and given the amount of journalistic malpractice that’s practiced these days (just once, please ask the follow-up question), this may be it for me until November.

In conclusion, therefore, you all have a good rest of the summer, remember to avoid the comments and, when we finally get to November, vote a straight Democratic ticket! Candidate 2 is going to need cooperation from Congress when she’s President.

On Growing Up, Politically Speaking

Kevin Baker writes for a living and voted for Bernie Sanders in the New York primary. In today’s New York Times, he calls on us liberals (aka progressives) to get serious: “Let’s Grow Up, Liberals”.

First, as preamble, he offers a critical analysis of the way Sanders endorsed Clinton this week: 

Senator Sanders’s embrace of the presumptive Democratic nominee included all the inclinations that many of us have come to find, shall we say, a tad grating about the man: his interminable, self-congratulatory stump speech, wearingly bereft of humor, argument, story or anecdote, more a listing of all bad things in the world and how they must be put right, delivered in his usual droning shout. The need to make it all about the platform concessions he had wrangled out of Mrs. Clinton, and the historical magnitude of the Senator himself: “Together we have begun a political revolution to transform America and that revolution continues.” Followed by about as short and perfunctory an actual endorsement as possible.

At least it was done. If Achilles had sulked this long in his tent we would all be speaking Trojan, but never mind. Bernie Sanders did, clearly and unequivocally, say that Hillary Clinton had won the most elected delegates, that she “will make an outstanding President and I am proud to stand with her here today” …

Mr. Kramer then diagnoses a continuing problem with left-wing politics:

Polling shows that 85 percent of Sanders supporters are willing to vote for Mrs. Clinton in November… Most of the remainder will likely come around over the next four months… yet there is a lingering problem here…

With Bernie out of the battle, what remains is the left’s odd, outmoded doctrine of purity, of revolutionary posturing. This is a philosophy alien to the long legacy of pragmatic American liberalism. Its perpetuation speaks directly to the reasons today’s liberals seem to have such difficulty holding and wielding power in this country. “The worse, the better,” went the Leninist saw. There is no reforming the rotten old system. Best to “let the empire burn,” and have the fires purify the new society….

Change — lasting, democratic change, which is the only kind worth fighting for — is hard, slow, often exasperating. And yet the theatrics of revolution seem to mesmerize the left, over and over again. The concept, all too similar to the religious fundamentalist’s obsession with the end times, is that cataclysm will bring redemption. There is inherent in this a deep indifference to the historical recognition that one thing proceeds from another … and that when we start down an unknown trail we cannot be sure where we will end up….

The corrosive effects of a political philosophy devoted to waiting for the revolution can be heard in the oddly passive demands of those speeches by Mr. Sanders that lay out always what he wants, but not how we can get it. It is reflected in the left’s distraction over presidential elections while failing to build democracy on a state or local level….

He concludes by quoting Barry Goldwater’s call to action after Goldwater lost the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon in 1960:

This country is too important for anyone’s feelings,” Goldwater thundered at his delegates. “This country, and its majesty, is too great for any man, be he conservative or liberal, to stay home and not work just because he doesn’t agree. Let’s grow up, conservatives. We want to take this party back, and I think some day we can. Let’s go to work.”

Goldwater backed up his words by campaigning hard in support of Nixon — and not incidentally, building a foundation for the right wing around the country. Four years later, he would use it to gain the nomination himself, and by 1980, Ronald Reagan had taken not only the party but the country for conservatism.

If Voting Was Considered a Sacred Responsibility

Everyone would be willing to visit the VOX site and watch the 41-minute video in which Ezra Klein interviews Hillary Clinton on subjects like poverty, deficit spending and immigration. Or else read the slightly edited transcript.

After they did that, they’d be curious enough to read Mr. Klein’s associated article: “Understanding Hillary: Why the Clinton America Sees Isn’t the Clinton Colleagues Know”. He has an interesting answer. It’s not one I’ve heard before.

The video and transcript

The associated article “Understanding Hillary”

Then, in November, they’d vote for the candidate they prefer and the Congressional candidates who’d help her do her job.