ChrisWeigant.com

Is Resisting Trump Enough?

[ Posted Monday, July 17th, 2017 – 16:36 UTC ]

In the most recent Washington Post public opinion poll, only a little over a third of the respondents (36 percent) approve of the job President Donald Trump is doing. This is the lowest rating for any president, roughly six months into the job, since polling began. It's historically dismal, in other words. But while this is good news for the Democratic Party looking towards the midterm 2018 elections, there was one other poll question that should have them at least a little worried. When asked if Democrats "stand for something" or "just stand against Trump," only 37 percent responded that the Democratic Party stood for something. A whopping 52 percent said the party is now solely defined by their opposition to Trump.

Is this a problem, or not? It's hard to say, really, even though at first glance it does seem rather problematic. However, there was no breakdown of responses other than dividing them between registered voters and those not registered. Without a party-line breakdown, it's impossible to say whether this news is good, bad, or even terrible for Democrats.

Angry opposition can indeed actually be a good thing in midterm elections. The Tea Party rode a very successful wave of anger and obstructionism, two years after the election of Barack Obama. Republicans had no real new answers to any of the nation's problems in 2010 and 2014, but they were extremely successful at the ballot box. Can Democrats replicate this success? Whatever the answer, it's not automatically a bad thing (in terms of electoral chances) if the public sees you solely in opposition to the president -- especially when that president has incredibly low ratings himself. Obama had only fallen to roughly 45 percent job approval by the 2010 midterms, and look how many congressional seats he lost. So the public seeing the party as simply against Trump's agenda doesn't automatically mean bad news for Democrats on Election Day. Anger and a desire to see a president's agenda stopped can indeed win the day.

Part of the problem of figuring out the meaning of poll questions like this is that without followup questions you have no way of knowing how the respondents really feel about the subject. Of the 52 percent who say Democrats are just against Trump, how many think that's a good thing and how many think it's a bad thing? Looking at the other side, just because a voter thinks Democrats stand for something doesn't mean they agree with that agenda. Interpreting what the numbers mean almost requires you to make assumptions that might not be true at all, in other words. Which is why it would have been more helpful to see the answers broken down by party (Democrat, Republican, independent).

Even having said all of this, Democratic strategists should probably be at least a bit concerned that the majority of the voters don't think the party stands for anything. This brings up the whole "Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton" divide once again. Many of Bernie's supporters loved him because he did strongly stand for something. Many also had problems with Hillary Clinton because of a perception that she was too timid in laying out an agenda. This rift in the ranks of Democrats has not fully healed -- not by a longshot. Progressives have been pushing the party to be more bold, but the party's establishment has been reluctant to appear "too radical." The best example of this schism is which Democrats are now voicing their support for single-payer healthcare, as opposed to those who see it as a step too far.

The argument over how bold a stance to take (and not just on healthcare) is currently taking place within the Democratic caucus in Congress. The 2018 midterms are still over a year away, and Democrats right now are trying to hammer together a solid agenda they can all run on. They're keeping their cards pretty close to the vest right now, but have said they're within weeks of rolling their new agenda out to the public. This is all to the good. The fact that these things are being seriously discussed in an effort to achieve consensus now means Democrats are already aware they need to stand up for something soon. So we'll see how bold the agenda items actually turn out to be when they do roll it out.

Getting the party behind a solid agenda -- and creating some good messaging to communicate it well and easily -- could change the public's perception of the party in a big way over the next six months or so. Perhaps by the end of the year, those poll numbers will have reversed, to put this another way.

Democrats may have an excellent opportunity to prove they're serious about moving the country forward within the next few weeks. If the McConnell healthcare bill fails, then Democrats should already have their priorities set on negotiating a compromise with Republicans. They should have a solid list of things they want, and another list of things that are complete deal-breakers. They should be ready to talk about these priorities and define them clearly to the public the moment the Republicans fail.

It's easy enough to see what should be on these lists. The more important one will be the deal-breakers, of course, because drawing these lines in the sand from the get-go will send a clear message to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan as to what Democrats can not accept. First and foremost on the list will be: "Any talk of this being a 'repeal Obamacare bill' will absolutely kill your chances of getting any Democrat to vote for it." End the partisan rhetoric, and sit down with us to fix what is truly problematic, in other words. Other items on this list should include: Medicaid will not be turned into a block grant program; Medicaid expansion will continue; Planned Parenthood will not be defunded; insurers will not be able to turn away people with pre-existing conditions; and there will be no tax cuts for the very wealthy. Period. Any bill with anything even resembling these things is dead as a dodo.

The Democratic list of their own priorities can be a lot more flexible. Some room for negotiation should be maintained, in other words. But Democrats should -- at the very least -- have this list compiled and ready to go. "Here's what we want to do" is a much better bargaining position than: "I guess we should figure this out, huh?"

Up until this point, Democrats have been happy to sit back and watch Republicans flail. Ryan and McConnell have produced legislation that (not unlike President Trump) is historically less popular than any other bill ever polled over the past three or four decades. And now it looks like it'll fail to even get enough Republican support to make it through Congress. When your political opponent is shooting himself in the foot, sometimes the only thing you can do is politely offer to hold his coat and then stand back and watch. But that time will be at an end if the Senate can't pass McConnell's bill.

Democrats should be completely prepared to step into the breach, and should do so almost immediately after the bill fails. They really should get their message out -- "We want to fix Obamacare, and here's how we will do it" -- before the August recess, in order to be prepared to hammer the message as hard as possible once they return to their home states. "Republicans tried and failed to destroy Obamacare and Medicaid -- we want to fix them and defend them instead," works a lot better than just bragging about how dysfunctional the Republican-led Congress is.

In other words, Democrats need to stand for something, not just against Trump and his destructive agenda. The healthcare battle will be an early test of the Democratic Party's ability to prove they have better ideas for governing than Republicans, and as such will be an early indicator of how successful Democrats can be in defining themselves with a positive overall agenda. If Chuck Schumer can propose a bill to fix Obamacare rather than repealing it -- immediately after the McConnell bill fails -- it would be a big step towards convincing the public that Democrats do indeed stand for something. However, if Democrats are disorganized and split and have no alternate bill ready to offer, it will show that the only thing that unites them is opposition to Trump and the Republican agenda. In other words, if the McConnell bill fails to pass the Senate, how Democrats then react is either going to confirm the public's perception of them, or be the first big step on the path to changing that perception for the better.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

82 Comments on “Is Resisting Trump Enough?”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yes.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm going to ask my (Democratic) rep to read this. You nailed it CW!

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Comment [1] was a Yes as in "Yes you nailed it CW!", not a "Yes" as in "Is Resisting Trump Enough?"

    However I have little trust that Michale will let me off with that ;)

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Jerry Moran = No
    Mike Lee - No

    That's 5 votes down without McCain and 4 with him.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Progressives have been pushing the party to be more bold, but the party's establishment has been reluctant to appear "too radical."

    When did good governance become too radical to touch?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    The fact that these things are being seriously discussed in an effort to achieve consensus now means Democrats are already aware they need to stand up for something soon. So we'll see how bold the agenda items actually turn out to be when they do roll it out.

    I hope they can see that the concepts of standing for something and of bold leadership will both be required - and, indeed, go hand-in-hand - if they wish to present the country with an enlightened, future-oriented vision that can win the support of a majority of voters.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Resisting Trump is not enough. And Democrats gaining seats in 2018 is not enough- but it appears that Democrats gaining seats in 2018 is all that matters.
    There is a great opportunity to take on both CMPs while they are down. But articles about whether or not the Democrats can find an issue like healthcare to manipulate citizens into being suckered again by the Big Money Democrats is nowhere near enough.
    There is only one issue that would make the Democratic Party candidates worthy of consideration- a commitment to be small contribution candidates. Without this commitment there is no point in believing any other promises they make.
    Bernie has proven it can be done and his 2016 campaign was just the tip of the iceberg. There is no longer any excuse for the Democrats to resist making a commitment to run small contribution campaigns.
    And there is no longer any excuse for rank and file Democrats to remain Democrats if the party continues to resist doing the right thing.
    And this is not a battle between the Bernie wing and Hillary wing of the Democratic Party or a battle between Democrats and Republicans. This is a battle between citizens that want candidates of any or no party that want to represent average citizens and those that want candidates that represent the Big Money interests.
    Healthcare or any other issue cannot be fixed properly until this issue is addressed because this issue effects every other issue.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I hope Democrats everywhere see this very important piece and heed your sage advice.

    The healthcare debate is a test for them - if they can't turn this into a winning electoral issue, it will be a safe prediction that Democrats will not see a lot of electoral success in 2018 or beyond.

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Back from vacation, and ready for more reality based political commentary.
    Or at least ever hopeful.

    "A whopping 52 percent said the party is now solely defined by their opposition to Trump.
    Is this a problem, or not?"

    Still hoping... maybe next time.

    Of course it's a problem, and I can't believe you are willing to debate the issue as if it may not be.
    Hillary lost with a Not Trump/Better Than Trump campaign.
    It's still a problem.
    And your reference to the 2010 campaign ignores that the Repub gains were not just based on a campaign against Obama, but used (fictional) policy based arguments.
    I'm not recommending imitation... lying to win.
    But it wasn't Obama's approval rating, but rather the effort to drive it down and the (false) alternatives that were offered that helped Repubs win.
    "Republicans had no real new answers to any of the nation's problems"
    Yeah.
    But they pretended they did.
    It wasn't just opposition.

    "The best example of this schism is which Democrats are now voicing their support for single-payer healthcare, as opposed to those who see it as a step too far."

    Yup.
    That radical agenda every major western nation has successfully adopted... still being framed the way Wall Street wants you to... way to go!
    The Democrats taking huge sums of money from health insurance companies and pharma companies are NOT representing a voice of reason.
    The Dems who think it's a "step too far" are corrupt, and need to be ignored, if not primaried out of a job.
    It may be legalized corruption, but it's still wrong, and you should at least be mentioning that tiny, slight, ever so subtle MASSIVE conflict of interest.
    Ignoring that reality is punditry malpractice.

    "Democrats are already aware they need to stand up for something soon. So we'll see how bold the agenda items actually turn out to be when they do roll it out.
    Getting the party behind a solid agenda -- and creating some good messaging to communicate it well and easily"

    And yet, you spent two paragraphs debating the necessity.
    On health care, if it's not the Single Payer that the majority of Dem voters support btw, by definition, it won't be "bold". Less than what voters want is NOT bold... and never will be.
    And you followed it up with an emphasis on "messaging"... JUST LIKE the corporate Dems who have lost a thousand elections... way to go again!

    "Democrats should already have their priorities set on negotiating a compromise with Republicans."
    "The Democratic list of their own priorities can be a lot more flexible. Some room for negotiation should be maintained, in other words."

    OK.
    Your list of deal breakers is fine.
    But what is left?
    What are you suggesting is left to compromise about?

    "sit down with us to fix what is truly problematic, in other words."

    In other words, you don't mention the problems in Obamacare that need fixing... you glossed right over them.

    Take one example.

    For the last four years, the average increase in health insurance premiums under Obamacare has been four times the rate of inflation.
    Roughly ten percent increases year after year after year.
    This is not sustainable.
    Ever more people will be priced out of being able to afford insurance.

    So, are Dems or you noting this problem?
    Nope.
    Are Dems or you suggesting a "fix"?
    Nope.
    You're suggesting a "compromise".
    You suggested it twice even.

    Well, Repubs want insurers to be able to increase premiums as much as they want.
    Obamacare has allowed unsustainable increases.
    A "compromise" would, again by definition, allow even greater, even more unaffordable increases.
    If you are advocating a compromise, that is what you're advocating.
    Meeting Repubs in the middle can only make things worse.

    Maybe you had some of the other problems with Obamacare in mind?

    Do you seriously think any compromises with Repubs will make things better for average Americans?

    It sounds like good ol fashioned practical politics in theory, but in reality, you are talking about encouraging Democrats in Congress to help Repubs snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat.

    That is crazy.
    It is not only bad policy, but bad politics.

    Now, you didn't mention any of the "problematic" parts of Obamacare that need a "fix".
    Maybe you should leave the theoretical generalities aside, and offer an example of your own, and explain how compromising with Republicans will be effective?

    Hit me with some punditry.

    Seriously, I may not be able to sleep unless you clarify and show me that you haven't strayed into some fantasy world where "centrist" corporate Democrats working with right wing extremist Republicans is a good thing that should be encouraged.
    Please.

    A

  10. [10] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    5

    Indeed.

    6

    Indeed.

    A

  11. [11] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW
    delayed response to Post-ISIS Strategy Needed in Both Iraq and Syria

    "Within days, the Iraqi city of Mosul will be declared completely liberated from the Islamic State."

    "Liberated"?

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/17/iraq-j17.html

    Here's a brief excerpt from the beginning of the article.

    "One week after Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi proclaimed the “liberation” of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, the scale of destruction wrought during a nine-month, US-backed siege is becoming clearer, even as reports mount of collective punishment being meted out to survivors.

    Abadi presided over a victory parade in Baghdad on Saturday in which elements of the security forces marched past the prime minister and other officials in the Iraqi capital’s heavily fortified Green Zone. It is a measure of the state of the country that the parade was not publicly announced because of security concerns, with the media learning about it only afterwards and the population of the city excluded.

    Evidence of the death toll inflicted upon Mosul’s civilian population during the siege—largely the result of unrelenting US-led air strikes and artillery bombardments carried out against crowded neighborhoods, particularly in western Mosul’s Old City—continues to mount.

    Conservative estimates have put the number of civilians killed at over 7,000. The London-based monitoring group Airwars documented the deaths of 5,805 civilians between February and June of this year. There were undoubtedly many more deaths that went unreported, not to mention those killed in the four months preceding this period, as well of those who died in the intense assault waged on the area of the city during the last three weeks of fighting.

    Officials in Mosul report that civil defense workers have already dug some 2,000 corpses from the rubble created by US 500- and 2,000-pound bombs as well as heavy artillery shelling and strikes by attack helicopters.

    It is clear that neither the Iraqi government nor the Pentagon has any interest in clarifying the scale of carnage unleashed upon the city.

    According to a report published in the Washington Post Saturday, the grim task of recovering the dead from Mosul’s rubble has been relegated to a “25-man civil defense unit with one bulldozer, a forklift truck and a single vehicle to carry the corpses.” The Post reports that the unit has “found hundreds of people suffocated under the ruins of their homes” after they were flattened by US air strikes. Most of the victims are reportedly women and children."

    -
    -

    If you can handle an alternate version that the corporate media seems uninterested in providing, I recommend reading the whole article.
    It goes on to note the blatant hypocrisy in comparison to how the "loss" by al Qaida "rebels" in Aleppo was reported... as war crimes by Assad... when our "liberation" of Mosul has been far worse.

    "perhaps Shi'ites can come to some power-sharing agreement which truly respects the Sunni population. But if this doesn't happen, the United States should be prepared to deal with it in one way or another, because the alternative is to just let it happen all over again"

    Ah.
    Gung ho US interventionism to solve the US created schism in Iraq.
    What could possibly go wrong?

    Do you seriously advocate that the US "should be prepared to deal with it"?
    Trump's guys?
    With Democrats supporting it?

    Is that what you're saying?

    "If Russia continues to back Assad and we continue backing the rebels"

    Uh... the "rebels" are al Qaida and forces affiliated with al Qaida.

    "... it would become nothing short of a proxy war between two superpowers"

    Technically, Assad is acting in Assad's interest with legal support from an ally invited into the country.
    That does not meet the definition of "proxy"... even if Russian interests are being served.

    The al Qaida "rebels" on the other hand are indeed acting as our proxy in the illegal regime change war we launched with our "allies" who have been openly supporting the very group that attacked the US on 9/11.
    Why not be honest?

    "How hard will we push back if Iran attempts a de facto land grab?"

    What?
    "de facto land grab"?

    Why are you presenting Iranian support for their long term ally as a sinister plot like a neocon?

    Do you seriously believe the Iranians helping Assad will want to stay in Syria once Assad can reassert control?
    Do you think it would even be necessary?
    No.
    They don't need to stay to get what they want from Assad. They don't need to grab land he would guarantee them access to if they simply asked.

    "What are our longterm military and political objectives in Iraq and Syria?"

    Um, you are talking about two sovereign nations, neither of which we have a legal right to shape in order to achieve our military or political objectives.
    International law says it's up to Iraqis and Syrians... not us.

    A

  12. [12] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [5] -

    In the 1980s, I think. It was due to Reaganism...

    Heh.

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [7] -

    Amen to all of that. The DLC attitudes must be forsworn for good...

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone [9] -

    Reality-based is reality-based. I realize there are big changes that could be made to Ocare, and that Dems should work for those changes. But I'm not talking about 2019, I'm talking about now.

    What changes do you think could be passed with the current Congress? Minor fixes, most likely. Haggling will be over dollar amounts in the budget, not over philosophical big steps. Remember, the GOP still holds both houses, and it'll be hard enough to get them to even go along with fixes necessary for the next 1-2 years.

    As for my idea of compromise, here you go:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/28/democrats-should-bring-back-the-public-option/

    Even that might be a bridge too far now, but shows you where my head's at...

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone [11] -

    Hope you had a good vacation, you seem to be well-rested!

    Heh.

    As for Iraq and Syria, my language of being prepared to deal with it means in essence not getting caught by surprise the way we did with the growth of ISIS.

    The best commentary on the war was a PBS "Frontline" report I saw a few months ago, which documented what's been happening in the Iraqi towns and cities AFTER the militias kick ISIS out. They are a law unto themselves, and are just perpetuating the cycle of atrocity matched by another round of atrocities. Several Iraqis commented that once ISIS was gone, it would just mean the startup of the Shia/Sunni civil war that has essentially been raging since we took out Saddam.

    We don't have much we can do in response, but we should at least be prepared for the next cycle, that's all I was really saying...

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    one idea the republicans LOVE is allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. it's a tough sell because the states like to run their own markets and keep their own regulations, as well as concerns with consumer protection. however, if some state exchanges do not meet minimum requirements, one solution is to let people buy in a different exchange. this gives consumers more options, insurance companies more flexibility, and encourages states to run their exchanges more uniformly. more importantly, it's a fix of which republicans have always been in favor, so it would have a chance at passing right now, not in some democratic dream of a future congress.

    another thing that might work would be to adapt the system to mirror the one used in singapore. what they do there is divide different types of medical care into different categories and insure those categories separately.

    http://medicalobserverph.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/INFOGRAPHIC.jpg

    JL

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    In other words, Democrats need to stand for something, not just against Trump and his destructive agenda.

    Exactly..

    As I said and no one can refute...

    If Democrats are solely the Party of TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! they will LOSE bigtime in 2018...

    This is irrefutable..

    Now, the question becomes....

    IS the Democrat Party the Party of TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! ???

    Let's look at the FACTS...

    In the previous commentary, Russia/Putin or variations thereof were mentioned over 100 times...

    As a guide, Healthcare was mentioned about 20 times..

    What about apart from Weigantia??

    NINETY THREE PERCENT of CNN's anti-Trump coverage is about Russia...

    And now that the GOP healthcare legislation is officially kaput, what is the Democrat Party going to rally around???

    TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!!

    And that will put the Democrat Party in even a WORSE position after 2018 than they are now...

    The logic is as impeccable as it is conclusive..

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course it's a problem, and I can't believe you are willing to debate the issue as if it may not be.
    Hillary lost with a Not Trump/Better Than Trump campaign.
    It's still a problem.

    Which is EXACTLY what I said...

    There is a certain amount of logic to the Dumbocrat Anti-Trump strategy..

    Hammer at your opponent and make them look as bad as possible and THEIR votes will become YOUR votes..

    Imminently logical..

    EXCEPT....

    Except the Dumbocrats tried that in 2016 and not only did it FAIL... it SPECTACULARLY failed..

    "Failed.. Failed... IMPRESSIVELY Failed..."
    -Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    Why on earth would Dumbocrats believe such a strategy will work this time around??

    Here are the facts and there is simply NO GETTING around them..

    President Trump and the GOP won and WON BIG because they told the American people that they (Trump and the GOP) could make their (the American people) lives better...

    Whether it's happening or not is another discussion I would be happy to have..

    But the point is, President Trump and the GOP convinced the American people (Except Californians who have their own problems :D) that their lives WOULD be made better..

    And President Trump and the GOP won...

    Now, here's the kicker...

    How is TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! going to make ANY American's life better??

    Answer: It won't....

    And, since TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! WON'T make a single American's life better and, since TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! is the totality of the message and the *ONLY* message that the Dumbocrat Party has.....????

    Dumbocrats will lose (AGAIN) in 2018.....

    If there is a flaw in the logic......????

    "I am all ears"
    -Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    For the last four years, the average increase in health insurance premiums under Obamacare has been four times the rate of inflation.
    Roughly ten percent increases year after year after year.
    This is not sustainable.
    Ever more people will be priced out of being able to afford insurance.

    Yep.. Yep... Yep...

    And when you consider that the real name of TrainWreckCare is THE **AFFORDABLE** CARE ACT, it's got to be massively embarrassing for the Dumbocrat Party..

    :D

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The healthcare debate is a test for them - if they can't turn this into a winning electoral issue, it will be a safe prediction that Democrats will not see a lot of electoral success in 2018 or beyond.

    I whole-heartedly and unequivocally agree with you on this..

    The Democrats have really shot themselves in the foot with their sustained attacks on the GOP legislation..

    A> They have nothing to rally around now..

    and

    2> TrainWreckCare is going to be repealed on it's own and a moratorium on any replacement will be in place for 2 years.. Well after the 2018 mid-terms...

    A worse Perfect Storm could NOT be envisioned for the Democrat Party...

    They will be left with NOTHING but TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! .....

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    However I have little trust that Michale will let me off with that ;)

    Huh?? :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Dems still strive to tell voters what their party stands for

    NEW YORK — House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party's core message to voters.

    "That message is being worked on," the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. "We're doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that's coming together now."

    The admission from the No. 4 House Democrat — that his party lacks a clear, core message even amid Republican disarray — highlights the Democrats' dilemma eight months after President Donald Trump and the GOP dominated last fall's elections, in part, because Democrats lacked a consistent message
    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2017/07/dems_still_strive_to_tell_voters_what_their_party_stands_for

    Now, of course, Weigantians will just stick their heads in the sand and proclaim that being anti-Trump is enough of a message...

    And I think that's great! More power to ya'all.. :D

    TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!!

    ALL THE WAY TO VICTORY!!!!

    For the GOP and President Trump....... :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Now, of course, Weigantians will just stick their heads in the sand and proclaim that being anti-Trump is enough of a message...

    Amend that to read "MOST" Weigantians....

    My bust...

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Amen to all of that. The DLC attitudes must be forsworn for good...

    Do you honestly see that happening what with an ObamaBot/Clintonista as the head of the DNC???

    I mean, honestly.. Perez makes Wasserman-Schulz look like the epitome of fairness by comparison...

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW - One of your best columns!

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    In the most recent Washington Post public opinion poll, only a little over a third of the respondents (36 percent) approve of the job President Donald Trump is doing. This is the lowest rating for any president, roughly six months into the job, since polling began. It's historically dismal, in other words.

    It's from WaPoop, in other words..

    It's like saying it's significant that FoxNews had an Obama poll that was "historically dismal"..

    While factually accurate, it doesn't really MEAN anything... :D

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, if ya'all like polls, there is the Bloomberg National Poll that shows President Trump has a better approval rating than NOT-45!!!! :D

    THAT's a great poll, right!?? :D

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS
    Repeal & Delay

    Susan Collins - No

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS
    Repeal & Delay

    Shelley Moore Capito - No

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Cite???

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    "If you claim something and can't back it up, you're a lying troll."
    -Russ

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:
  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    is a repeal even possible under reconciliation?

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    17

    one idea the republicans LOVE is allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. it's a tough sell because the states like to run their own markets and keep their own regulations, as well as concerns with consumer protection. however, if some state exchanges do not meet minimum requirements, one solution is to let people buy in a different exchange.

    Yep.

    Little Known Fact: Section 1333 of the Affordable Care Act actually contains a provision wherein states can agree to "health care choice compacts" that would allow health insurance companies to sell their products across states lines.

    SEC. 1333. PROVISIONS RELATING TO OFFERING OF PLANS IN MORE THAN ONE STATE.
    (a) HEALTH CARE CHOICE COMPACTS.—
    (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than July 1, 2013, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, issue regulations for the creation of health care choice compacts under which 2 or more States may enter
    into an agreement under which—
    (A) 1 or more qualified health plans could be offered
    in the individual markets in all such States but, except
    as provided in subparagraph (B), only be subject to the
    laws and regulations of the State in which the plan was
    written or issued...

    Why the Obama Administration never issued those regulations is a mystery to me, but there is nothing whatsoever stopping the current administration from doing so without taking a single vote. :)

  36. [36] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re [34]: is a repeal even possible under reconciliation?

    Good question, but it doesn't entirely matter. With the two balancing no's immediately filled, McCain's call for regular order, including hearings, that seconded by Graham, pretty much puts it exactly where Sen. Corker said it was back when.

    He was responding to a question on the newly-passed House bill. As presented, could it pass the senate? His one-word answer: "No."

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS
    Repeal & Delay

    Lisa Murkowski - No

    There is no cite for breaking news as it happens. The Internet will catch up later.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    There is no cite for breaking news as it happens.

    And yet, there it is.. :D

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/mcconnell-s-new-obamacare-repeal-already-lacks-gop-votes-to-pass

    So, yer admitting that I can do something that you can't..... or WON'T... do...

    Actually provide a citation or substantiation of the information.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [35] (and JL 17): You're missing the point. Insurers, given their druthers, would prefer to offer the crappiest plans possible - plans that are of little use to consumers when serious illness strikes.

    This obvious fact has been obscured in the healthcare debate, I think deliberately so. Republicans want to talk about the cost to the consumer, while the real issue should be the quality of the coverage, i.e., will they pay for grandma's chemotherapy?

    Because state laws vary wildly in this regard, insurers would prefer to sell the sorts of plans that they offer in states with very lax regulation, that may have onerously high deductibles, or simply don't have to cover expensive procedures.

    The ACA attempted to even the playing field by setting Minimum Standards for health insurers. In return, insurers were allowed to price these beefed-up plans accordingly. To cover the sticker-shock for consumers who had never had to buy comprehensive insurance, money would be allocated (paid for by higher taxes on the rich) to cushion the blow to consumer's pocket books. To hold prices down, the ACA ended the practice of 'exclusive markets', forcing insurers to compete on state exchanges. Lastly, the ACA ripped a page from the Republican 'Romeycare' plan and added a provision that everyone, young or old, sick or healthy, would have to buy health insurance, i.e., the Mandate. The Mandate is there solely to soften the blow to insurers of suddenly having to provide actual coverage.

    And that got blown out of the water by the Supreme Court, who ruled that states could indeed 'opt out' and continue to allow insurers to offer crappy plans under their own crappy rules. To show their gratitude, insurers raised the cost of plans in states that didn't opt out, or dropped out of state markets altogether, since they now had revenue streams that were independent of ACA regulations.

    So that's why 'buying across state lines' is actually a terrible idea - because it would lead to crappy, useless health insurance, and essentially bring us full circle back to the bad old days of health insurance.

    The ACA is a crappy bill, designed almost solely to keep insurers in the game - like designing a Rube Goldberg machine for coffee making with the intent of using an umbrella.

    You can put me firmly in the camp of "Medicaid for All", as my preferred alternative. At least that program wasn't designed to screw people.

  40. [40] 
    John M wrote:

    nypoet22 wrote:

    "is a repeal even possible under reconciliation?"

    LeaningBlue wrote:

    "Good question, but it doesn't entirely matter."

    Guys, from what I have read, the answer is NO. A straight complete repeal of Obamacare would require 60 votes to repeal it. Which means the Democrats could stop it. Unless the Republicans want to drop the nuke and end the filibuster for all legislation going forward now and forever.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    Guys, from what I have read, the answer is NO. A straight complete repeal of Obamacare would require 60 votes to repeal it.

    Cite??

    Unless the Republicans want to drop the nuke and end the filibuster for all legislation going forward now and forever.

    How AWESOME would that be!!!??? :D

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    The ACA is a crappy bill, designed almost solely to keep insurers in the game

    Yep... Odumbo and the Dumbocrats sold out the American people to Corporate interests...

    And yer just admitting that I was right all along NOW!???

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    The ACA is a crappy bill, designed almost solely to keep insurers in the game - like designing a Rube Goldberg machine for coffee making with the intent of using an umbrella.

    even if all that were true, it's still better than what existed before it was passed, i.e. nothing. don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly. two-thirds of all bankruptcies tied to medical bills, 20,000-45,000 preventable deaths per annum.

    is obamacare flawed? of course. does it include massive giveaways to big pharma and insurance companies? absolutely. but in spite of all that, my educated opinion is that it has saved lives and prevented bankruptcies and foreclosures.

    "medicaid for all" is a great idea, but has precisely no chance whatsoever of passing right now. if we don't accept THAT reality, deathcare/donTcare will eventually become the new reality. the exercise CW has proposed is coming up with legislation that will help the american public, address obamacare's flaws, but which republicans have a snowball's chance in hades of actually allowing to pass.

    JL

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The Democrats have really shot themselves in the foot with their sustained attacks on the GOP legislation..

    I disagree, actually.

    I would say that the Democrats have really shot themselves in the foot with their complete lack of leadership in terms of their collective failure to demonstrate to the American people - forget about Congress, for the moment - that they understand the problematic areas of the Affordable Care Act and that they know how to remedy them and make the legislation work more effectively while they also work on the bigger picture and make the case for a single-payer, government-run healthcare insurance system.

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    38

    And yet, there it is.. :D

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/mcconnell-s-new-obamacare-repeal-already-lacks-gop-votes-to-pass

    So, yer admitting that I can do something that you can't..... or WON'T... do...

    You posted a link to a cite 35 minutes after I posted live news as it was happening. Thank you for proving my point that the Internet will indeed catch up to live breaking news.

    Actually provide a citation or substantiation of the information.. :D

    I have a mutt who is fetching those for me now. Heel.

    Would you like to discuss the actual political issue or are you too busy focused on your self-appointed role as board DICKtater?

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy
    39

    You're missing the point. Insurers, given their druthers, would prefer to offer the crappiest plans possible - plans that are of little use to consumers when serious illness strikes.

    Yes, thank you, I'm a huge fan of single-payer health insurance and a copious user thereof. I was just pointing out to JL -- which he may well already know -- that the ACA actually already allows the selling of insurance across state lines and wouldn't even require a vote since it's already law and waiting for implementation. Under the provisions of the ACA, state compacts to allow for the interstate sale of health insurance would have to include the ten Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) that govern the minimum coverage standards.

    The ACA EHBs are not set in stone, however, as Section 1302(b) gives the HHS Secretary the power to "define the essential health benefits," in ten different categories. So without taking a single vote on the issue in Congress, Secretary Price could define the EHBs and then tweak the minimum standards for what needs to be covered in these plans. It's already in the bill.

    Do you think the lawmakers who are constantly giving lip service to the selling of insurance across state lines are even remotely aware that it's already contained in the ACA? If they can't agree on a darn thing by vote, they should avail themselves of current law as enacted.

    Who knew health care could be so compliated? ;)

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M [42]: And yer just admitting that I was right all along NOW?

    No, you've missed my point entirely. It's more like..

    NYP [43]:even if all that were true, it's still better than what existed before it was passed

    Yes. You get it.

    Liz [44]: Democrats have..[failed]..to demonstrate.. that they understand the problematic areas of the Affordable Care Act..

    I disagree. I think that Democrats disagree among themselves about what is possible to change, and what isn't, given the present and likely political makeup of the congress.

    I think CW hit the political sweet spot, for Democrats at least, with his suggestion of a hybrid system with a Public Option. That way, some could purchase better plans that cost more, but also cover more, while those who couldn't afford that wouldn't be stuck out in the cold.

    But even though Ayn Rand herself availed herself of government healthcare late in life, Paul Ryan still thinks it's a collectivist plot to steal money from the pockets of hedge fund mangers.

    So thank god we at LEAST have Obamacare to fall back on, still. My thanks to all of the Republicans who assured us of that this week, and special thanks to John McCain, who needed healthcare just in time to save it for the rest of us.

    The credit, however, goes to all of the grassroots protesters who have made life a living hell for congressmen of every political persuasion who would dare to even think about reducing healthcare benefits. There's the best of our democratic party right there, Elizabeth: in a wheelchair in the doorway of a congressman's office, holding the line.

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    What would Joe say? Just making sure you saw this dated yesterday.

    Americans decided health care is for all.
    The GOP wants to roll that back.

    Their plan would once again make it a privilege for the wealthy.

    By Joe Biden

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/17/joe-biden-as-a-nation-we-decided-that-health-care-is-for-all-republicans-want-to-roll-that-back/?utm_term=.ad37b5fd573a&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

    Apologies if this is a repost. :)

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [46]: Secretary Price could define the EHBs and then tweak the minimum standards for what needs to be covered in these plans. It's already in the bill.

    Yeah, I'm sorta thinking that it can't be that simple, else Price would have already done that. What other reason would he have for waiting? Perhaps he just doesn't want to designate himself "Healthcare Piñata".

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Thanks very much for posting that Biden link on healthcare.

    I have to say that it was quite a disappointing read. I always expect more from Senator Biden and he usually delivers. Not so in this piece.

    He spends an inordinate amount of space detailing how fundamentally flawed is the Republican bill to repeal and replace the ACA. He says Obamacare isn't perfect but, it's better than what the Republicans are proposing. No kidding. Tell us something we don't already know, Senator!

    Biden goes on to assert that "more must be done to address the [opiod addiction] crisis, not less" but, offers nothing - specifically or in general - about how that might be done.

    He pronounces that the McConnell bill can't be fixed because it denies that all Americans have a right to health care but, he doesn't spell out what that right means.

    In conclusion, Biden advocates for having a debate on the issue and then left out every single cogent Democratic debating point on this issue and sqauandered an opportunity to persuade.

    Sad!

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Biden should receive a MIDOTW award here on Friday, then I shall have to mount a protest and nominate Governor Jerry Brown of California for belated honour as the video below is from last Friday ... for successfully negotiating an extension through 2030 of California's cap and trade programme.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=nya3U4UmmC4&t=3m47s&app=desktop

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Breaking...

    Did anyone else see Bernie Sanders getting interviewed on the PBS NewsHour tonight (Tuesday)??

    Bernie freakin' knocked it out of the park. He not only had a list ready, he admitted what on the list was do-able with the GOP and what was pie in the sky for now (his own single-payer bill).

    I have no idea if that was just Bernie off-the-cuff, or whether this is just the start of a full-court press by a united Dem party or not. If others start repeating the same bullet points on the list, this could be an excellent development. Stay tuned...

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, that would be the one PBS Newshour I missed.

    If I didn't have bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all. :(

    Got a link? :)

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy
    49

    Yeah, I'm sorta thinking that it can't be that simple, else Price would have already done that. What other reason would he have for waiting? Perhaps he just doesn't want to designate himself "Healthcare Piñata".

    Oh, I never said it was easy, not much contained in the ACA is "that simple," but the ACA in Section 1302(b) does give the HHS Secretary the power to "define the essential health benefits," in ten different categories. (see below)

    Why didn't Price just do this already? Price is keen on losing maternity care and some of those other "requirements" and "limitations" and therefore relied on Donald Trump's unequaled negotiating skills in order to gut the ACA like a piñata. /sarcasm off

    SEC. 1302. ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS.
    (b) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS.—
    (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
    shall define the essential health benefits, except that such benefits shall include at least the following general categories and the items and services covered within the categories:
    (A) Ambulatory patient services.
    (B) Emergency services.
    (C) Hospitalization.
    (D) Maternity and newborn care.
    (E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
    including behavioral health treatment.
    (F) Prescription drugs.
    (G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
    (H) Laboratory services.
    (I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease
    management.
    (J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

    (2) LIMITATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that the scope of the essential health benefits under paragraph (1) is equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan, as determined by the Secretary. To inform this determination, the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the benefits typically covered by employers, including multiemployer plans, and provide a report on such survey to the Secretary.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does I = regular doctor's office visits?

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    50

    Thanks very much for posting that Biden link on healthcare.

    Welcome.

    I have to say that it was quite a disappointing read. I always expect more from Senator Biden and he usually delivers. Not so in this piece.

    Uh-oh, Joe!

    In conclusion, Biden advocates for having a debate on the issue and then left out every single cogent Democratic debating point on this issue and sqauandered an opportunity to persuade.

    Sad!

    Perhaps he had a word limit and time constraints. Maybe give him a pass this time... just this once. :)

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Never!

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    53

    Got a link?

    I missed it too but found a link I'm going to watch a little later. Try this one. :)

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/episode/pbs-newshour-full-episode-july-18-2017/

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Watch the Jerry Brown video.

    I gonna see if there is one just like that of him getting passionate about healthcare ...

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    55

    Does I = regular doctor's office visits?

    Section 2713, I believe defined as "screenings." It's a complicated 906-page exercise in insanity... better than nothing, though. :)

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you think I'm gonna click on THAT, you're nuts!

  62. [62] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don't have a link, but it's one of the first two segments in that "full episode" link...

    There's the news roundup, then Lisa Desjardins, then the Bernie interview, if memory serves...

    It's well worth the time.

    -CW

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I'll watch it, for sure ... but, I'm officially done for the night.

    I guess he's gonna be the MIDOTW award winner, eh?

  64. [64] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    I dunno, Gov. Brown is still a strong contender for his cap-and-trade win. CA will lead the way until at least 2030, now. That's a pretty big deal (especially out here, in the local news).

    :-)

    -CW

  65. [65] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    As I was saying to a friend of mine earlier tonight: "Jerry Brown will go down in history as California's FDR."

    Brown will be the only governor in CA history to serve 4 terms. We passed a 2-term limit law, but grandfathered in previous terms. So JB was able to run again and win twice, despite having already served two terms. Nobody will ever match that feat, that's for sure.

    Heck, popular as he is, he'd easily win a fifth term, hands down.

    :-)

    -CW

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    61

    If you think I'm gonna click on THAT, you're nuts!

    *LOL* No, it's wasn't supplied for actual "clicking and reading," just a CITE to silence the DICKtater who is more preoccupied with discussing posters and dictating the requirements for posting than actually discussing political issues. :)

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    EM

    Okay, I watched the Jerry Brown cap-and-trade tirade and Saint Bernard on PBS; thanks for posting those. Two very solid contenders for the MID award, but I would go with the Governor on this one. It was particularly masterful the way he turned around to his audience and explained he wouldn't be necessarily be around but was fighting for them.

    Say... there's a theme for Democrats:
    Fighting for Your Future [even if we'll be long since deceased]. :)

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I would say that the Democrats have really shot themselves in the foot with their complete lack of leadership in terms of their collective failure to demonstrate to the American people - forget about Congress, for the moment - that they understand the problematic areas of the Affordable Care Act and that they know how to remedy them and make the legislation work more effectively while they also work on the bigger picture and make the case for a single-payer, government-run healthcare insurance system.

    But we agree that the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot, regardless of the reasons.. :D

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    M [42]: And yer just admitting that I was right all along NOW?

    No, you've missed my point entirely. It's more like..

    NYP [43]:even if all that were true, it's still better than what existed before it was passed

    No, as usual, you don't address my point and go off on a tangent..

    I said NOTHING about whether or not what came before TrainWreckCare was better or worse... Personally, I believe TrainWreckCare is worse, but that wasn't my point.

    My point was that YOU finally conceded that I have been dead on ballz accurate about TrainWreckCare all along..

    I have said that TrainWreckCare is a crappy piece of shit legislation designed to enrich insurance companies at the expense of the American people for years now.

    And YOU finally admitted that I have been right all along..

    Then when I point that out that you agree with me, you try to back-pedal... :D

    Nice try, Balthy, but I have it on the record. You finally have conceded that I was dead on ballz accurate about TrainWreckCare.. :D

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria

    *LOL* No, it's wasn't supplied for actual "clicking and reading," just a CITE to silence the DICKtater who is more preoccupied with discussing posters and dictating the requirements for posting than actually discussing political issues. :)

    Says the DICKtater who is "more preoccupied with discussing posters and dictating the requirements for posting"....

    Veronica, you are so fraked up in the head, you can't see that you are EXACTLY like you accuse me of being.. :D

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    South Carolina restaurant workers arrested after allegedly throwing newborn baby in trash

    A woman and her mother were arrested in South Carolina after a newborn baby fell out of a hole in a trashbag at a Mexican restaurant and larter died, authorities said.

    Estela Ruiz-Gomez, 19, gave birth in the bathroom of La Parrilla restaurant on July 12 and her mother, Lorenza Gomez Rodriguez, 41, knew about it, officials from the Greenville Police Department said.

    An employee taking the trash out later that day noticed the bag was heavier than usual and dragged it across the parking lot.

    Authorities responded to an emergency call from the restaurant reporting that a newborn was in cardiac arrest.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/19/south-carolina-restaurant-workers-arrested-after-allegedly-throwing-newborn-baby-in-trash.html

    Dumbocrats... :^/

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That is a horrible personal tragedy, but there is no rational basis to blame democrats for it.

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    That is a horrible personal tragedy, but there is no rational basis to blame democrats for it.

    Yea, and some scumbag Bernie bro who slit the throats of two Good Samaritans ALSO had no rational basis to blame Trump supporters for it..

    That didn't stop the blame from being applied and you letting it slide then...

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    You know the drill...

    You want to condemn me for this kind of garbage, then apply your condemnation equally without regard to Party loyalty....

    It's the ONLY way to get me to stop...

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well at least you acknowledge that it IS garbage.

    That don't make no sense!
    -o' brother where art thou

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Well at least you acknowledge that it IS garbage.

    Of course it's garbage... I have ALWAYS said it's garbage...

    The difference between you and I is that I acknowledge it's garbage whether it's against the Dems or the GOP..

    You only acknowledge it's garbage when it's against the Dems...

    That puts me several levels up from ya'all on the integrity and credibility ladder... :D

    But we can still be friends.. :D

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    70

    Veronica, you are so fraked up in the head, you can't see that you are EXACTLY like you accuse me of being.. :D

    Wrong. I've never once posted an outline explaining to posters how to word their comments in order to avoid a lecture from me containing repetitive bullshit about their Party bigotry; that's your handiwork in your self-appointed role as board DICKtater.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/14/ftp445/#comment-105131

    And witness more of your handiwork above in [74] wherein you DICKtate to JL the terms of how to get you to stop posting "garbage." Pathetic.

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Wrong. I've never once posted an outline explaining to posters how to word their comments in order to avoid a lecture from me containing repetitive bullshit about their Party bigotry

    Hay, I was just trying to be nice and help people out...

    Like I was with you providing your citations for you..

    I LOVE to help you out, Veronica...

    Which way did you come in??? :D

    If you need to travel somewhere, I'de be happy to run you over with my car... :D

    "You want to spill all this to the newspapers?? I'll be happy to run you over with my car..."
    -THE TALBOT ODYSSEY, Nelson DeMille

    See!?? I am a nice guy!! :D

    "You can't win! I've got god on my side!!!"
    -Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D heh

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    And witness more of your handiwork above in [74] wherein you DICKtate to JL the terms of how to get you to stop posting "garbage." Pathetic.

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Would you like some cheese to go with yer whine, Veronica?? :D

    Face the facts, sunshine.. Yer outgunned here... :D

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    that's your handiwork in your self-appointed role as board DICKtater.

    And witness more of your handiwork above in [74] wherein you DICKtate to JL the terms of how to get you to stop posting "garbage."

    Apparently, someone has DICK on her mind... :D

    Once again, I see you are obsessed with my body parts....

    I'm flattered, but spoken for, sweet cheeks.. :D

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of DICK on the brain..

    Someone mentioned Kamala Harris as a POTUS candidate in 2020??? :D

    Were it not for her fanatical support for abortion and all things culturally degenerate, NOW and NARAL would see Harris as an annoying and unworthy rival to Elizabeth Warren. A nubile Harris, after all, slept her way to the middle of California politics after she had an affair with a pol thirty-some years her senior, Willie Brown. An open crook with a Cosbyesque marriage to a long-suffering wife, Brown had no problem arranging lucrative state jobs for Harris after they trysted. The legendary San Francisco columnist Herb Caen called Kamala Harris Brown’s “steady.”

    These days Harris furrows her brows over Trump’s “public corruption.” But Willie Brown, to paraphrase Oscar Levant, knew her before she was a virgin. She got at least two public jobs after serving as his mistress, according to the California press. It is safe to say that MSNBC-style fretting over “emoluments” didn’t figure into their pillow talk.
    https://spectator.org/run-kamala-run/

    By all means, Dumbocrats.. Nominate Harris as your candidate in 2020! :D

    I would *LOVE* to see Trump take her apart even MORE devastating than he took apart NOT-45!! :D

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    81

    So the right-wing rags have already started writing the articles that paint Kamala Harris as a loose woman. They must really be afraid of her to start so early.

    No need for the any of the lefties to worry, really; there's simply no one the Democrats could run that would be a bigger player than the Whore-in-Chief Trump. :)

Comments for this article are closed.