I didn't paint him as a LeftWing hack..

I painted him as a hysterical NeverTrump hand have yet to see any FACTS that would counter that label..

Is his latest book a biased Anti-Trump hit piece?? Or is it a fair and balanced honest and objective assessment of the Trump administration..

If it says nothing good about President Trump then it's the former..

If it makes an honest case for President Trump's win and losses..

Then it's the latter..

The thing is, Trump failed to mention, to his investors, that Sater was a twice convicted felon.

Yes, sir, and Sater was/is also a valuable cooperating witness for the U.S. Department of Justice, helping to convict mob figures for financial-fraud crimes.

A felony in the US, carrying 10 years in Sing Sing. the statute of limitations runs out in 2021 for that SDNY fun.

You don't say, JTC. I wonder if Mueller and the NYAG knows about this? *nods head*

Watch the Dubious friends of Donald Trump on YTube, By Zembla, I way have mentioned it before.

I know, right!? I posted it on this blog the day after it dropped in May 2017... seems like decades ago

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/17/kid-president/#comment-100152

It was posted the day I also commented for the first time on the blog that the GOP had received laundered money from Russian sources, which fact was just proven with Mueller's latest indictment and guilty plea/flipper. I got called some choice names that day over it... as per usual... but how do you like me now? ;)

LL&P

Woodward in respected by folks from both sides of the aisle,

That's what NeverTrumpers said about Wolff..

He's renown for spot on reporting, and his attention to detail, most of the politico types have said you can pretty much take to the bank what he writes is solid in facts.

Many NeverTrumpers have said the same thing about the NY Grime and WaPoop..

I have NO DOUBT that Woodward's book will be well-received by those who already hate President Trump..

But we have been promised these TRUMP IS TOAST consequences from these tomes of revelation before..

And it's NEVER happened..

You could be right this time and Woodward takes down a POTUS...

OR..

Woodward is so enamored by reliving the past glory of taking down a POTUS, that he has fudged on details and facts to please a built-in 'ready to buy the bs' audience.....

He wouldn't be the first.. He won't be the last..

Does Woodward say ANY good things about President Trump?? Is there any praise of President Trump??

If not, the hysterical NeverTrump bias is obvious and blatant...

Such is the curse of HHPTDS...

Woodward in respected by folks from both sides of the aisle, He's renown for spot on reporting, and his attention to detail, most of the politico types have said you can pretty much take to the bank what he writes is solid in facts.

[71] Kick, we're being assured that Woodward has all the empirical evidence and an iPhone bursting with recorded interviews.

We were assured the same thing with Wolff and Omarosa as well..

So, you believe that the proper response to racism is more racism??

OK.. I respect your opinion.

I simply don't agree with it..

We've done it before.. :D

Watch the Dubious friends of Donald Trump on YTube, By Zembla, I way have mentioned it before.

LL&P

*laughs* And most famously Timothy O'Brien, formerly of the failing (just kidding) New York Times, where Trump lost and lost bigly and perjured himself ~30 times in deposition where he claimed his net worth fluctuated based on his mood and that he wouldn't know Felix Sater if he was in the room (bigly lie).

Of course, Trump would lie under penalty of perjury about knowing who Felix Sater was... because money laundering.

You're on a roll, Kick, That's the second good document you've linked to today.

And then I discovered Senator Patrick Leahy's Twitter feed and read 'til I fell asleep -- not because it was boring -- I think my eyes just got hypnotized. ;)

Have you seen that thing? Lots more "confidential" documents: https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy

Trump isn't going to come out of all of this with a good opinion of lawyers, that's for sure.

Yes, sir... especially and particularly his own lawyers, and the shit hasn't even come close to hitting the proverbial fan yet. Mueller is just getting started. :)

Smart cash is on this Washington institution, he not only knows the game, but wrote a fair amount of the rules.

Yes, sir.

He's also hardly going to roll the dice with a slander or defamation suit at this late stage of his career.

Plus, how would Hair Dick-Tater claim he was too busy being POTUS if he commenced to suing everyone who wrote a book about him? *laughs*

Trump has form for suing authors, the last few, David Cay Johnstone, and Michael D'Antonio have both sat in depositions, armed with notes, and beaten trump at his litigious game...so he won't go there with Woodward...that and he will know he'll have bags of evidence to Trump's winning smile...

*laughs* And most famously Timothy O'Brien, formerly of the failing (just kidding) New York Times, where Trump lost and lost bigly and perjured himself ~30 times in deposition where he claimed his net worth fluctuated based on his mood and that he would know Felix Sater if he was in the room (bigly lie).

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/trump-s-history-of-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien

You can't really slander the president in America, though, JTC; the POTUS is fair game for all. If he wasn't, Barack Obama would have skewered Trump nine ways to Sunday for all his fabricated and utter nonsensical Birther nonsense. So when Trump became president, he basically forfeited his claims to libel and/or slander in perpetuity. Poor Donald. :)

Trump isn't going to come out of all of this with a good opinion of lawyers, that's for sure.

LL&P

CNN
@CNN

Read the stolen letter from President Trump's desk reported in Bob Woodward's book https://cnn.it/2wMZUSY

3:34 PM - 6 Sep 2018

Like I said, Woodward will have receipts. :)

Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will take a hard right..

Justice Kennedy wasn't all that moderate so I don't think the SCOTUS will change all that much with Kavanaugh. It will likely make Roberts the swinger, though.

Guessing Trump will tweet something about an American icon, overlooking his role on 'Flipper' naturally.

Flipper! People will think he's whining about Mikey Cohen. ;)

You're right, of course. And none of it will matter because he'll be confirmed regardless.

I happen to agree with that..

Recently I read an opinion piece that used this analogy:

The Republican attitude toward rulemaking is like that of a team that has been able to run up the score in a game 64-0 in the first quarter, because the other team was not allowed to wear helmets. Now that the other team finally has some helmets, the winning team objects to any change in the rules that would allow the losing team to catch up, arguing that to do so would make the game 'unfair'.

And once again.. Complete agreement between myself and Kick...

Crazytown! Oh, wait... that's the White House.

You watch. Jags and Packers.. Super Bowl LIII

I would wager y'all are going to have to beat the Patriots in order to make it... and probably Pittsburgh too. You know that, right? You better hope Brady gets hurt. Packers are hard to beat on the Frozen Tundra. I would wager the road to the Super Bowl will at least go part way through there... pending injuries, of course. Who could beat the Packers this season? The Aint's might, Atlanta maybe, and Super Bowl LIII is in Atlanta. I've been there for a Super Bowl. My team won... good times. :)

I better thrown Don a bone, though: Don, your Mr. Brady of the Giants will likely win Rookie of the Year but... no Super Bowl for you. Sorry, but thank you for playing! ;)

What Kavanaugh is saying is that racism as a response to ADDRESS racism is not the correct solution..

I happen to agree with that..

I realize you want to see the boogey-man here, but it is all pointless..

Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will take a hard right..

This is the reality you better get used to cuz their ain't no stoppin' it now...

Elections have consequences..

Ok, onto the next theory.

RIP Bandit.

Guessing Trump will tweet something about an American icon, overlooking his role on 'Flipper' naturally.

LL&P

"...which generally requires that all Americans be treated as equal (absent a program narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). The desire to remedy societal discrimination is not a compelling interest, however."

It isn't? I could present dozens of reasons for the government to have an intense interest in remedying societal discrimination, particularly in the Hawaiian islands, where native populations experience high rates of poverty.

Ironically, Kavanaugh switches directions when the subject becomes airport security, and argues initially that race-neutral approaches to passenger screening "could be" even more effective than one based on racial classifications.

But Kavanaugh, a political appointee, realizes that the prevailing sentiment of the Bush White House was that Muslims should be the primary target of suspicion. So he switches gears, and suggests in the very next paragraph that "if the use of race renders security measures more effective" - the opposite of the view he'd just expressed - "then perhaps we should be using it in the interest of safety, now and in the long term".

Finally, he adds: "such action may be legal under cases such as Korematsu."

Korematsu v. United States was the Supreme Court ruling that justified the Executive order that sent the Japenese into internment camps during WWII.

It's hard to discern here whether Kavanaugh was actually endorsing basing a race-based policy on such controversial precedent or subtly warning his peers of the slippery slope of argument that could follow such policy. Either way, it demonstrates just how 'dark' Kavanaugh was willing to go to appease his political bosses at the time.

This!

I'm still not convinced Javanka didn't do it. They were the first ones I thought of when I read it.

And once again.. Complete agreement between myself and Kick...

This could be the start of something wonderful.. :D

You watch. Jags and Packers.. Super Bowl LIII

:D

And I'll say it again..

You'll say it again? But you're not known for being the repetitive type... why start now?

Thank you... :D

No reason whatsoever to thank me for agreeing with you; even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)

No matter who wins on Sunday, can we at least agree that this could be a Super Bowl preview?

Giants and Jags? Super Bowl preview?

I hate to rain on your little parade there, Don, but you are only half correct. The Giants are not Super Bowl material this season, but one out of two ain't bad. ;)

Whoever wrote it is attempting to justify why he and whoever agrees with him is enabling this POTUS instead of telling the public POTUS is unfit. It is the beginning of the GOP's process of rehabilitating their increasingly tattered reputations. When Blotus goes down they will claim he was never one of them and they shouldn't be tarred with his brush.

And, to be accurate, he isn't one of them if you mean the mythical conservative - which none of these people are. What he is is the instrument through which they'd get what they want. The deal they struck was they'd let him run roughshod over everything so long as they could push through laws and legislation that delivered their priorities: destruction of the social safety-net, an end to protective regulations, empowerment of the already rich and powerful and weakening of everyone else, etc. Abortion is the sweetener they'd throw to the Christianists who's votes they needed.

I've said all along the GOP would support Blotus up to the point where it hurts them more than it helps them. That point is getting nearer every day and they can smell it and are starting to implement Operation We-Don't-Even-Know-The-GUY-and-Aren't-Responsible-For-Anything-He-Did-On-Our-Watch.

It is NOT good that a bunch of unelected staffers are supposedly running the government. It is NOT good that Repubs with oversight powers refuse to use them and fall back on the crutch that unelected staffers may prevent the worst of the worst just long enough for them (Repubs) to break a few more things. And when Blotus is gone, they shouldn't survive unscathed.

And I'll say it again..

Thank you... :D

How can I be "missing the point" when, as you point out, it's a point that *I* made first? :D

No, I did not say anything about you making the point first because you didn't make the point I added to y'alls obvious previous points, which was: Pence can't be fired. :)

Thank you for acknowledging it and agreeing that I am factually accurate.. :D

It didn't require all the "claimed" BS to get there since I was quite obviously agreeing with y'all and adding another reason to both of yours. Sheeeeeeeesh! ;)

Don't count chickens until the fat lady sings, or something like that...

What's interesting - among many things - is that Kavanaugh really seems to be an exceptionally bad choice. He appears to have a ton of baggage and Repubs trying to suppress that baggage makes them look terrible. If they force him through now he will be tainted and so will they. That may not matter in the short term but I think it will matter in the end.

But the other story is the beauty of the Dem pushback - they're doing it with real ammo. It's not bs, it's substantive. It's great to see in action.

How can I be "missing the point" when, as you point out, it's a point that *I* made first? :D

Regardless, you are correct.. The NY Grime wouldn't protect Pence... Which is the point I made..

Thank you for acknowledging it and agreeing that I am factually accurate.. :D

publish that op-ed

NYT *CLAIMED* they gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired...

Who on this board did you think needed it dumbed down or clarified since obviously everything stated by the editors of the NYT -- or any publication, Left or Right -- is their "claim." Besides, you're missing the point that if Pence went to the NYT and requested anonymity to publish an op-ed, they likely would tell him to pound sand... for the exact reasons you already stated. :)

Cory Booker released documents showing what a scam the Repub's hiding of them are - good for him! Stuff is coming out that needs to be on the record and I am thrilled to see it.

I read them and see no "confidentiality" reason these should be excluded from release. None.

https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

NYT *CLAIMED* they gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired...

That would certainly put a whole new spin on things to say the least if it were traced back to the Vice President.

On the other hand, I simply CANNOT see the NY GRIME protecting Pence like that..

The NYT gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired. Pence cannot be fired. :)

Paula [38]: Cory Booker released documents showing what a scam the Repub's hiding of them are - good for him! Stuff is coming out that needs to be on the record and I am thrilled to see it.

Yep. If, as CW says, the outcome is pre-ordained, this is the way to use to process to make a larger point.

And there have been other 'shoo-in' nominations that were deep-sixed by revelations of this sort.
The hazard of conducting these hearings during an election cycle is that something could come out that sends even conservatives running for the exits. Remember John Tower, giant of the Senate? His nomination was 'in the bag' until his alcoholism became an issue.

Don't count chickens until the fat lady sings, or something like that...

The reason I keep after CW, Ralph Nader and anyone else that I contact are:

Determine what works and work it.
Accept what doesn't and don't.

I regret to inform you that you genuinely suck at determining what isn't working for you. I'm infinitely interested in your viewpoint on a multitude of subjects, Don, but your beating of the dead horse of trying to get CW to shill for you isn't one of them. :)

People are checking Michelle Obama's use of "lodestar" because they know Melania plagiarizes her ;)

Also: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-stunned-that-there-is-someone-in-white-house-capable-of-writing-an-editorial

I also have it on good authority that it's going to be the JAGS and the PACKERS in the 2018 Super Bowl

:D

Agreed..

ESPECIALLY if one considers that fact that Pence would be the immediate beneficiary of the invocation of the 25th...

On the other hand, I simply CANNOT see the NY GRIME protecting Pence like that..

Cory Booker released documents showing what a scam the Repub's hiding of them are - good for him! Stuff is coming out that needs to be on the record and I am thrilled to see it.

Dems are coordinated and united - yay!

With the Grand Poobah's permission of course. :D

Jaguars- 16

Hay now.. There is no call to be NASTY!!!! :D

Jaguars are coming off a near SuperBowl season.. And they have only gotten better as the pre-season shows..

Giants are coming off of a horrendous 13 loss season and a so-so preseason...

Jags defense will crush the Giants and, if Bortles gets his groove, he will trounce the Giants defense..

Final Score JAGS 21 GIANTS 3

Yea... exactly... Part 2...

1) The Equal Rights Amendment was just ratified last year by Nevada and this year by Illinois, making Illinois the 37th state to do so, leaving it one state short of the 38 needed for ratification. It then becomes a political question of: A) The original deadline imposed by Congress. Many people point to the 1992 ratification of what became the 27th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1789 but took more than 200 years to secure support from three-fourths of state legislatures. and B) Whether a state can rescind or legally withdraw their ratification of a Federal Amendment. Five states have done so: Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this question.

2) A Supreme Court Justice, like the President, can be removed through the Impeachment process. If Kavanaugh were to get into hot water in the future over a ruling regarding Trump, this, while never having been done before, is not out of the realm of possibility.

3) I have seen speculation that it might have been the Vice President Mike Pence who penned the Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, chiefly because of the use of the term "lodestar" by the author when talking about John McCain, a word Mike Pence is know to use A LOT. That would certainly put a whole new spin on things to say the least if it were traced back to the Vice President.

Yea.. exactly....

Serious stuff. But President Trump should relax and remember it is the New York Times after all. The paper has a scandalous history of lying about the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously - especially when that source parrots their agenda.
https://townhall.com/columnists/phelimmcaleer/2018/09/06/relax-president-trump-new-york-times-has-history-of-exaggerating-seniority-of-anonymous-officials-n2516340

That's a very good point as well..

LL&P

Thank you..

I'll be here all year.. Be sure and tip your waitresses... :D

Now, this is funny. Beyond being clever, like all good humor, there is more than a grain of truth in it.

I'll be back later.

Ya'all will note that, at NO TIME does the anon author, expose ANY criminal activity or ANY impeachable offense..

The anon's entire op-ed can be summed up thusly:

"While I approve of some things that the President is doing, I don't like the way the President is doing other things"

That's it.. That is his ENTIRE op-end condensed down, with all the spin and all the political BS removed..

Now, is THAT how ya'all want America to be run?? But an appointed and un-elected person supplanting the WILL of the people for their OWN judgement??

Do ya'all ***REALLY*** want to establish such a precedent??

REALLY????

Moreover, the nebulous objections relayed by Anonymous reveal not some noble protector of our national ideals, but rather an establishmentarian who simply disagrees with the most basic tenants of our 2016 movement. He writes, for example, that Trump “shows little affinity for ideals long-espoused by conservatives.” Well, the track record of the last 20 months sure fooled me, as this president has achieved historic tax cuts, immense regulatory relief, and the nomination and confirmation of dozens of conservative judges/justices. Apparently, Trump has fooled a lot of others as well, considering he regularly enjoys approval ratings above 90 percent of Republicans in polling. 3/9
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/06/the_times_nameless_author_a_man_for_no_seasons_138000.html

Someone who is such a blatant coward has absolutely no credibility...

That is the POINT...

These America Haters are NOT just playing ball. They are preaching and sermonizing..

People go to and watch games to get AWAY from divisive politics.. And now scumbag America Hating millionaires are shoving it down their throats.

Those scumbag America Haters are paid JUST to play ball..

So, have them do what they are paid for and shut the frak up??

I bet if hundreds of players got together to pay homage to GUNS AND AMMO with full support and cooperation of the league, ya would HATE that, right??

You would scream BOYCOTT til yer blue in the face..

Such is the hypocrisy of Party slaves...

Nowhere in the op-ed does the appointee allege criminal or treasonous behavior on the part of the President. Rather, this person says the President is not faithful to "ideals long espoused by conservatives," and conducts meetings that "veer off topic and off the rails." 6/21
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/opinions/how-dare-a-senior-trump-official-arrogantly-subvert-an-elected-president-jennings/index.html

From CNN no less..

Yes, they ARE a bunch of pussies, after all.. :D

Probably to clean house and get rid of EVERYONE who is "calming" and "moderate", thereby leaving President Trump with ONLY the ones who think and act exactly like President Trump to guide President Trump...

Which, given ya'all's.... ahem... considered and learned {rolleyes} of President Trump, COULD possibly indicate that President Trump is actually the anonymous op-ed author and is setting up just such a moderate purge..

Which means, ya'all are actually cheering on President Trump!!! And cheering on President Trump's efforts to purge all moderating influences.. :D

"That oughta clinch up their sphincters"
-Rachel Phelps, MAJOR LEAGUE II

:D

Some anonymous coward who is afraid to stand and be counted, claims to be a calming and moderating influence within the Trump administration and claims there are others like him.. Goes on the record "exposing" what it's "really like" in the Trump White House..

And what is the like response from President Trump??

Probably to clean house and get rid of EVERYONE who is "calming" and "moderate", thereby leaving President Trump with ONLY the ones who think and act exactly like President Trump to guide President Trump...

And ya'all think this is an AWESOME development!!!???

So much for ya'all's claim that you are all about protecting the country..

Yer cheering on the scumbag coward who is going to give President Trump free reign...

Why oh WHY can't ya'all follow Smokey's advice...

THINK!!!!! Before you strike...

Ya'all are willing to see this country destroyed ALL to prove ya'all we're "right" about President Trump...

Ya'all are willing to advocate the total decimation of this country, ALL because your candidate lost.. The ultimate in sore luserism...

Of course, all of the afore pre-conditions that President Trump is insane and incompetent as ya'all CLAIM he is..

Given the FACTS and REALITY... You don't have much cred in that regard...

"Obi-Wan may have trained you, but Luke... I am your father"
-Stuart, SPIN CITY

:D

One of the two powers is going to be less oriented to the wealthy than the other. It doesn't matter which.

It matters when one Party blatantly and unequivocally LIES thru their teeth about it..

That notches the condemnation up a couple levels..

At least it does for those who are not enslaved by Party dogma..

You vote for the party that is getting less money because they are motivated to inhibit money in politics.

It is that simple.

It WOULD be that simple IF the Party getting less money is by their CHOICE... IE they CHOOSE not to take money from corporations....

But it's not and you know it..

Democrats are getting less money because their policies suck, Unions have been decimated and black Americans are leaving the Democrat Party by the millions..

THAT is why the Democrat Party is getting less money..

NOT because of some noble "We Won't Take CITIZENS UNITED MONEY" position...

Kavanaugh's most egregious sin, the ONE sin that Democrats are most incensed about is that Kavanaugh had the audacity, the unmitigated GALL.... to be nominated by President Trump..

All of this Democrat kabuki theater has absolutely NOTHING to do with Kavanaugh and EVERYTHING to do with President Trump..

President Trump could have nominated Merrick Garland and Democrats would be acting the EXACT same way...

Of course every one of the NeverTrumpers here and abroad will cheer this anonymous coward...

Just as I am sure every one of the NeverTrumpers here and abroad would curse & condemn such cowardice if it came out of the Odumbo White House..

"... and so it goes and so it goes..."
-Billy Joel

CW, this is a very powerful piece. Just a little bit of spine and down-and-dirty realpolitik on the part of the Democratic party will work wonders for turning the course of this nation around.

"A little bit of spine??? Oh we're doomed, DOOOOOOMMMEED I tell you!!!"
-Democrat Party, channeling Dr Smith...

:D

That would be 60s Dr Smith and not Gary Oldman's awesome portrayal of Smith.. :D

The AWESOME, WELL-THOUGHT OUT AND MASTERFUL takedown of Merrick Garland.....

There.. FIFY :D

Trump has set records for the number of judges confirmed,

What!!?? Doth my eyes deceive me!!

Are you actually giving President Trump CREDIT for something!!!!

Awww right!! WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL CW!!!!!???

So where is the unified Democratic Party push to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United? Small efforts may exist in Congress, but so far the party has not made it a top priority -- despite the fact that most Americans simply do not agree that corporations have personal rights under the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights contained within). That is merely one example of what I'm talking about.

Of course, you will simply NEVER see CU overturned, either legislatively or otherwise..

Republicans *AND DEMCORATS* simply love CU too much to do more than, in the Democrats case, lip service about it..

This is fact..

How about a privacy amendment, which guarantees every citizen's privacy from both corporate America and the government? I'd bet that would be a pretty popular idea. It also might just help shore up Roe v. Wade. How about an amendment legalizing marijuana and regulating it exactly the same as alcohol? Bet that one would also be wildly popular right about now.

Again, won't happen. Democrats are hip deep in insuring that Americans DON'T have any privacy..

It was Odumbo who expanded domestic surveillance to heights that would even make Dick Cheney pause and say, "ho now, this is getting out of hand.."

I even seem to recall you gave Odumbo the BIGGEST LIE OF THE YEAR award for claiming that he "Welcomes the public debate on domestic surveillance"... :D

So, yea.. Dumbocrats taking on Privacy issues???

Not gonna happen...

If Democrats don't like Supreme Court decisions, and they think they've got the public squarely on their side, then they should push as hard as they can for a constitutional amendment.

And therein lies the kicker...

Democrats DON'T like many of the SCOTUS decisions and they only THINK the public is on their side..

Pro 2nd Amendment rulings are a perfect example of this..

The Republicans have known this for a long time, and have wielded this political weapon quite masterfully, at times.

Holy crap!!!

I'll ask again!!!

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH CW!!!!!

The flag-burning amendment got fourteen such Democratic votes in the Senate, one vote short of the two-thirds majority it needed.

Hmmmmmmmmm

100 Senators.....

14 votes is ONE vote short of 2/3rds???

OK, color me confused...

Or do so in direct response to Supreme Court decisions you disagree with. Citizens United won't be the only one to target in the near future, that much seems certain at this point.

You pick the ONE example that Democrats simply WILL NOT touch..

They profit too much from CU to ever get rid of it..

Now, if Democrats can public state that they will not take CU-inspired money, and then STICK WITH IT, then the Democrats might have some credibility on the issue..

But they have none and everyone here knows they have none..

CU will ALWAYS be with us because the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle like it too much..

This is fact. This is reality...

Your commentary raises several good points and several good facts..

Democrats are going to lose on Kavanaugh.. That can be taken to the bank...

But the one overarching point, the ONE thing that totally makes everything that follows impossible is the one thing you state right at the front:

The first is pretty obvious. Elect more Democrats

That will never happen as long as Democrats en masse are demonizing and attacking tens of millions of American voters, as "racist", "violent", "deplorable" and "irredeemable"...

Until Democrats can talk TO those voters and, more important, LISTEN to what those voters are saying instead of attacking them and demonizing them???

"Elect More Democrats" will be nothing but a pipe dream...

Other than the points I have raised..

Great commentary... :D

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Lasting and long-term progress is generally acquired incrementally through compromise:

* Determine what works and work it ---> accept what doesn't and don't
* Win some, lose some ---> skip some
* Two steps forward, one push back ---> ever onward

Maintaining the status quo is doomed to fail... eventually. And while it's not as showy or fun as claiming the mantle of radicalism: Cool, calm, collected, calculated, and progress always triumphs in the end. :)

It's way past time for you to stop viewing the big picture of our political process through the analog screen of the two party system and look at the full HD picture.

Don, seriously, it's way past time for you to stop viewing CW as your means to an end and cease and desist in the trolling of his blog with the same asinine and repetitive request. He's obviously not interested in what you're selling, and you should acknowledge this reality instead of ignoring it. :)

Mate, I thought of you while pouring over some...whatever.

https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2018-05-17/economist-dambisa-moyo-edge-chaos

LL&P

Both the parties are tainted by money. We all agree to that.

But power in America in the 21st Century is a two party game.

One of the two powers is going to be less oriented to the wealthy than the other. It doesn't matter which.

You vote for the party that is getting less money because they are motivated to inhibit money in politics.

It is that simple.

Purity tests just don't work.

Win the house this year, rely on Trump(not that he'll be running, but his stench will remain) to lose both the senate and the White House in 2020 and then, while there's a comfy majority, in that forever rotating house ownership, go about plugging the annoying Republican dark places, like lobbying, dark money and anything Liz Warren can suggest that will even the playing field.

My solution was elegant also, as elegant as a brick can be as it comes through stained glass window...if SCOTUS is indeed a partisan parking spot for life, then subject these snobs to elections. Also, 'for life' should be for life, either die in your robe or be ritually put the sword if you want to retire. Call it the Kennedy Clause.

LL&P