ChrisWeigant.com

Jeff Flake's Delusional Presidential Dreams

[ Posted Thursday, October 4th, 2018 – 17:10 PDT ]

It has long been said that when every single U.S. senator looks in the mirror each morning, he or she sees a U.S. president looking back at them. In reality, making the leap from the Senate to the White House is actually quite rare in modern American history -- before Barack Obama managed the feat in 2008, it hadn't happened since John F. Kennedy's win in 1960. But that doesn't really matter to the senators, as they all still see themselves as valid contenders for the presidency anyway, each and every morning.

Currently, there are quite a number of senators who are mulling a 2020 bid, although almost all of them are Democrats. The obvious reason for this is that Donald Trump is still in his first term as president, and therefore is already the presumptive 2020 Republican nominee. Any Republican who decides to challenge him will have a very steep hill to climb, as is the case with any sitting first-term president. But there's one senator who is reportedly considering such a move, even though he won't actually still be in the Senate in two years. Sitting senator or not, though, Jeff Flake certainly sees himself as a viable alternative to Trump.

This is somewhat delusional, in reality. But things could always change. Two years is a long time for any politician, and it's an absolute eternity for Donald Trump. Anything could happen between now and then, and Flake must surely be hoping something cathartic will eventually trip Trump up. It's really the only way he'd have any sort of chance at dethroning Trump, no matter what that guy in the mirror tells him every morning.

Ever since Trump's takeover bid of the Republican Party gained momentum in the 2016 campaign, Jeff Flake has been trying to present himself as a rational and principled conservative who is ready to save his party from themselves. His basic problem is that the party doesn't seem to want saving -- or Flake's brand of it, at any rate.

For the past two years, Flake has been trying to have his cake and eat it too with the conservative base of the Republican Party. He has, at times, vocally come out against Trump and his antics, condemning the worst of Trump's excesses as downright unseemly. However, when it comes time to vote, he's never broken with Trump on any major issue. We have just seen that in painful detail over the past week, in fact. Flake took what was supposed to be a principled stand against the rush to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, but then after demanding an F.B.I. investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh, Flake decided that the directive from the White House to conduct an investigation that was as minimal and limited as possible was fine with him. He didn't really stand on his convictions, but he certainly gave a good imitation of doing so, in other words. This has been a recurring theme for him. He'll get into a war of words with Trump, but at the end of the day will vote how Trump wants anyway. The most notable example, up until this week, was when Flake voted the party line to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, while his fellow Arizona senator John McCain voted with Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to kill the bill. Flake, at times, talks the talk, but he never actually walks the walk.

There's a reason for this, and the reason is that he is still a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He's never really been a maverick at all. He's not going to deny the Republican Party's best chance in three or four decades to ensure a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, no matter how much he may protest the process or no matter how flawed the candidate may be. Even though he's stepping down from the Senate, he knows full well that his political career would be over if he did so.

But I still say his hopes of winning the presidency are nothing short of delusional, at least absent some major Trump crisis before 2020. Flake really has a very short window to act, since by 2024 he will have been out of public office (and out of the public eye) for six whole years. He could run for statewide office in the meantime (governor, perhaps?) but if he doesn't (or, even worse, if he runs but doesn't win) he's going to be barely relevant in GOP circles in six years' time. So it is most likely that he's either got to take Trump on in 2020 or miss his chance entirely.

Flake has certainly been grooming himself for such a run. He has tried to emerge as nothing short of the conscience of what used to be the Republican Party. He followed in the footsteps of another Arizona senator, writing a book with an almost-identical title. "Conscience Of A Conservative" helped catapult Barry Goldwater into the 1964 GOP presidential nomination, and Flake thought he could make history repeat itself by writing "Conscience Of A Conservative: A Rejection Of Destructive Politics And A Return To Principle," which (as the subtitle suggests) was a clear shot across Trump's bow. In it, he set himself up as a champion for the return of the Republican Party to its ideological consistency while rejecting the incivility and exclusionary nature of the party of Trump. Flake figured that eventually the party's base would get tired of the negativity emanating from the White House and crave a return to a brand of politics that conservatives could support with pride (rather than shame).

So far, this hasn't notably happened yet. The Republican base continues its love affair with Trump and Trumpism unabated, no matter how outrageous he acts. Jeff Flake decided against running for re-election for a reason, after all, and the reason was he wouldn't have even won his party's nomination. He would have been successfully primaried by a Trump supporter, and he knew it.

This, more than anything else, points out just how delusional Flake's dream of becoming president in 2020 truly is. He has positioned himself as the "moral high road" guy in the Republican Party, but this is woefully out of step with what the Republican Party wants right now. They're not interested in voting for Jiminy Cricket, to put it another way. How does Flake expect to win the nationwide GOP presidential nomination when his own constituents won't even vote for him in a primary?

The only other road Flake would have would be to run as an independent or third-party candidate. This would also be an exercise in futility. In modern times, the only people who can achieve even limited success doing so are billionaires who are willing to spend whatever it takes to be competitive. Flake is not a billionaire. And even the most successful third-party bid in modern history -- H. Ross Perot in 1992 -- won almost 20 percent of the popular vote, but failed to win a single Electoral College vote. The hurdle is just too high, even for people who can self-finance their own campaign. For Flake, it would be impossibly high for him to even attempt.

I have no doubt that Jeff Flake, every morning, sees a president looking back at him in his mirror while he shaves. How could Republican voters not love a guy who is a staunch conservative who hews to his own moralistic view of politics, after all? How could they reject him in favor of the boorishness of Trump? Well, they could and they already did. And, so far, they show no signs of changing their minds in any meaningful way. Jeff Flake managed to have his cake and eat it too this week, by making a principled stand that was more style than substance. If, last weekend, he had announced that he would absolutely vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation unless the F.B.I. was given complete autonomy to follow the facts wherever they led, then he might have been able to make a case that he occupied the moral high road. Since he did not, he cannot make this claim with any credibility. When he votes to confirm Kavanaugh, his entire stunt will ultimately be proven an empty gesture. But I believe that none of it will matter much anyway to Flake's presidential aspirations. Even if he hadn't taken his stand, his dream of unseating Trump was always pretty delusional. By taking his stand (and then backing down), I don't believe he has helped his chances one iota. Even if Trump somehow goes down in flames, Republican voters will be looking for someone else to lead them in 2020 and likely won't even give Flake even a second thought.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

55 Comments on “Jeff Flake's Delusional Presidential Dreams”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe he will vote no.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Even if Trump somehow goes down in flames, Republican voters will be looking for someone else to lead them in 2020 and likely won't even give Flake even a second thought.

    That was exactly my thought.

    Sarah Palin is a more likely Presidential hopeful than Flake is - the Republican Party are in looneyville at the moment and Sarah is cray-cray certified.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Depressing, but probably accurate, reason that conservative women shun victims like Dr. Ford:

    https://www.politicalorphans.com/how-conservative-women-protect-rapists/

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did anyone find the following passage from Kavanaugh's WSJ op-ed today just a bit odd?

    He wrote:

    "At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct …"

    Without corroboration? Why did he need to say that?

    I read that as confirmation that he did it.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … even if he doesn't remember doing it.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I sounds like he thinks he could have done it, in other words.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Flake could always run as a Democrat in 2020. The Democrats are also pretty good at taking principled stands that are more style than substance.

  8. [8] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [4] He said "Without corroboration", E M, because he's still at the mercy of Trump and his stalwarts. Mr. K is a political creature, fully mindful of the lockstep footwork required in the GOP ranks of this environment.

    As for Flake, I can see him elsewhere, Governor...a stretch, Mayor...perhaps. Maybe Flake runs for a house seat, less worry, similar perch. Flake maybe flips allegiance, turns Democrat... if you think it never happens, you know nothing about Trump.

    Flake just isn't a good name to ride into anything wanting, other than a confectioners. (google it)

    But, big but... I still believe the haste to ramrod Mr. K into SCOTUS is as much about the fear of losing the ability to do so, as securing the court so the right-wing evilgelicals can unplug their noses and cut bait with Trump morally.
    Once the SCOTUS is stacked in favour of the right, I assume the religious nutters will fall away from Trump like leaves from a tree in Autumn. Unless they are as redundant in morality as they are in spirituality, religion takes another hit. Which is of course, fine by me.

    It will be curious to see if any Republicans spend the next year distancing themselves, on moral and religious grounds, from Trump... it's from that group you'll find a contender to Trump in the 2020 primaries. The GOP aren't stupid, they know Trump has them by the balls and they know he'll blow the White House in 2020. Don't be surprised if they take him down in favour of Pence in the interim.

    LL&P

  9. [9] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [7] D. H... "Flake could always run as a Democrat in 2020"

    Ha... I didn't even see your comment. Nothing in politics would surprise me though.

    LL&P

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And I don't know why you write aboot this now when 2020 is two years away and there is (according to some here) a flake with delusions of what could happen with the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections if just one in ten of them instead of not voting participated in One Demand in 2018 which would total 5% of the total vote in 2018 and could inspire more citizens to participate in 2020 that you could write aboot now for the current election.

    It appears that Jeff Bezos you're not. And Flake might not be the only one with more style than substance.

    I believe you can do better if you try.

    And if you do better by informing citizens aboot the opportunity in the current election it could in the long run HELP the Democratic Party by increasing voter turnout (One Demand is for Congress in 2018 so participants could still vote for Democrats in state and local elections while they are at the polls) and as more citizens participate in each subsequent election it will put pressure on the Democrats to stop taking Big Money which will then make it possible to believe the Democrats when they claim to represent ordinary citizens which many citizens do not believe now which is why they don't vote.

    And if the Democrats don't stop taking Big Money it will make it possible to replace them with candidates that don't take Big Money. And this is how it should be- citizens replacing the style they don't like with the substance they want.

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JTC-
    Having the same thought as I did can be a traumatic experience for some here- but you seem to be dealing with it well. :D

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Holy crap - Kavanaugh is now the equivalent of a fictional one armed black man in the 1930's because both were accused of rape.

    Give me a f'n break.

    Next he'll be a maligned alien who just wants to go home.

  13. [13] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    @DH

    OK, Don, so one day in the coming month fully 5% of the electorate register at One Demand (for a reason I'm not clear on, unless it’s supposed to cement one’s resolve) and proceed to experience the exhilaration of going to the polls and voting for someone who isn’t on the ballot or who has actually not run a big money campaign.

    What ensues? What is the thing that happens next that makes this known as a growing movement that then spreads like wildfire? Who and how does anyone know what this 5% has just achieved? What, in fact, has it achieved? What is it that’s going to make these individuals do this every election going forward? And tell their friends? And bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner? What is the feedback loop/behavioral reinforcement at the individual level?

    I'm definitely missing a couple of things here – the glue that holds this nascent movement together, the mechanism by which other voters come to realize this is something they need to be part of, and the engine that drives this movement on. Could we start with those items, please?

  14. [14] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [7[ Flake could always run as a Democrat in 2020.

    Or, he could change the title of his book to Conscience of a Conservationist and run as a Green Party candidate.

  15. [15] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [11] D. H... Luckily, here in Cana-Uruguay, my psychiatrist is covered under universal healthcare; without UH, coping would be a stretch.

    :D

    LL&P

  16. [16] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [13] M V ... "nascent movement"

    Spot on. Perfect description of a group of people in need of an agent of coalescence.

    Isn't that what Trump achieved with his flock?, one might see his base as a third party? Trump does.

    LL&P

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Ever since Trump's takeover bid of the Republican Party gained momentum in the 2016 campaign, Jeff Flake has been trying to present himself as a rational and principled conservative who is ready to save his party from themselves. His basic problem is that the party doesn't seem to want saving -- or Flake's brand of it, at any rate.

    Very well said, sir. Add to that, the seat which Flake seeks to fill is currently being occupied by one Governor John Kasich who comes from the magic state where unicorns "boof" rainbows and pixies frolic in the meadow. ;)

    If Senator Flake has any serious "presidential dreams" whatsoever, he'll need women's votes to realize them, and a "yes" vote on Kavanaugh would be his worst nightmare.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    MyVoice-
    The reason people might participate is that they are part of the 80% of citizens that want the Big Money out of politics and they realize that voting for Big Money candidates will result in Big Money legislators, not voting will not change the current dynamic dominated by Big Money candidates and to register a vote against the Big Money candidates to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates- basic democracy.

    When other citizens see that the 5% were willing to vote for this goal rather than waste their vote by not voting in 2018 they could decide to participate in 2020 because they now know that others have made the commitment so they won't feel as if they are acting alone. This is also one reason for signing up now before the 2018 election.

    What you are missing is that the 50% or so of citizens that don't vote in off year elections and 40% or so that don't vote at all have already rejected the narrative that the two Big Money choices are worthy of their support.

    When citizens see an opportunity to send a clear message and a chance for change, they participate.

    This is why people voted for Bernie, Trump, Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot- just to name a few.

    Again, basic democracy.

    What the 5% would achieve is a beginning.

    The same argument could be made aboot voting for Democrats in 2018 because TRUMP! and Democrats are the only other choice besides the evil Republicans.

    What would that achieve in 2018? Will it achieve a majority in the House and Senate for the Democrats or will it be a beginning to achieving Democratic majorities in 2020?

    And would achieving a Big Money Democratic majority in 2020 do anything to get Big Money out of politics?

    History says it won't. It certainly hasn't, yet.

    So what could make people participate is that they realize the emperor has no clothes and they see an opportunity to do something aboot it.

    How people will know aboot this opportunity is when journalists such as Ralph Nader, CW, etc. do their job and inform citizens aboot the opportunity.

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    3

    Depressing, but probably accurate, reason that conservative women shun victims like Dr. Ford:

    https://www.politicalorphans.com/how-conservative-women-protect-rapists/

    Sadly, this article is dead on, particularly in the South. Thankfully, my parents raised all their children to be fighters regardless their gender. I decked my first attacker in 8th grade and got called to the principal's office. He picked up the phone and called my mother; imagine his surprise when my father showed up. :)

  20. [20] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    What on earth induces any thinking person to believe that Trump will be running in 2020? Do you think the justice system in the US is so completely broken, that criminals like Trump will keep getting away with breaking the law forever?

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    4

    Did anyone find the following passage from Kavanaugh's WSJ op-ed today just a bit odd?

    Yes ma'am. Kavanaugh continues to lie about there being no "corroboration" when he is a judge who knows better. Corroborating evidence does not mean air-tight proof. Any evidence that would support Dr. Blasey Ford's claim that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her when he was drunk at a party is indeed corroborating evidence:

    * Dr. Blasey Ford proved she knew Kavanaugh in 1982. Indeed, she was dating "Squi," a.k.a. Chris Garrett.

    * She also knew other people Kavanaugh confirmed under oath he was friends with: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth.

    * She also knew that Judge and Smyth were Kavanaugh's drinking buddies, and this was corroborated by nothing less than Kavanaugh's very own personal calendar -- you know, the calendar that was intended to exonerate him.

    * She also knew Kavanaugh's drinking habits, and this too was corroborated by Kavanaugh's personal calendar as well as by Mark Judge's book where he identifies "Bart O'Kavanaugh" throwing up. He was asked under oath if he was Bart O'Kavanaugh. He said he didn't know that you would have to ask Mark Judge. Another lie under oath; he knows he is.

    * Dr. Blasey Ford said that 6-8 weeks after the assault she saw Mark Judge working at Safeway. This too is corroborated by Mark Judge's memoir.

    I could go on, but you get the idea. The GOP claim that "corroborating evidence" exists only when there is an innocent bystander at the scene of the crime who claims to have witnessed the whole attack is nonsensical bollocks. There is almost never that kind of evidence in an assault case. Indeed, if there was, the GOP would simply claim the witness was also drinking and therefore must be "confused" or "mixed up." Regardless, Kavanaugh is lying about there being "no corroboration," and he knows it.

    And lastly, regarding this ridiculous op-ed, keeping in mind that this is not a criminal trial but indeed a job interview, Kavanaugh wants to be hired and "excused" for his belligerent job interview.

    Imagine this was a different type interview:

    Law enforcement officer: I know I was an emotional wreck and talked of conspiracy theories during my job interview, but please assign me a killing weapon and allow me to patrol your community.

    Brain surgeon: I know I was a sniveling ninny and a liar during our surgical consultation; however, please allow me to cut into your cranium and excise your tumor.

    Babysitter: I know I...
    ______________

    No. No. Hell no.

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    MyVoice
    13

    Well said... as always. :)

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mopshell
    20

    What on earth induces any thinking person to believe that Trump will be running in 2020?

    Agree completely. There's never so much manufactured chaos and prevaricated BS that could ever overshadow the illustrious "Mueller Snitch Hunt Choir," containing the dulcet tones of Flynn, Gates, Manafort, Cohen, et al.

    Do you think the justice system in the US is so completely broken, that criminals like Trump will keep getting away with breaking the law forever?

    I know it isn't. :)

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Murkowski is a no. :)

  25. [25] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Debate is closed.

  26. [26] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    We all know the procedural vote in the senate is the first step for Senators fell one another out. The swing vote is a little more convoluted than it appears, there are a few senators that doing the 'DC Dance'... the fancy footwork that puts them in the clear, within their own constituencies, to come out smelling like a rose. Murkowski needs a democratic vote of approval to cancel her no vote, Collins needs one too...it wouldn't be so hard to imagine Pence, being carried in on his seat next to god, to great applause to break the deadlock...Bring it on, then we can get back to why the GOP hate women...just in time for the midterms.

    Women are the sleeping giant in the mix, they have the chance to send a huge message in November.

    LL&P

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (22)-
    "Well said"?

    So you are affirming the questions as if they somehow invalidate One Demand, the questions have never been asked and answered previously and were not answered in my reply?

    ...as always.

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    [20] Mopshell

    "What on earth induces any thinking person to believe that Trump will be running in 2020?"

    Easy, Trump's own ego, nothing else is required.

    "Do you think the justice system in the US is so completely broken, that criminals like Trump will keep getting away with breaking the law forever?"

    I was at first just going to give a blanket yes, but that would be way too cynical. Not forever, but he will definitely not face any consequences until he leaves the Presidential office.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Women are the sleeping giant in the mix, they have the chance to send a huge message in November."

    It is likely that a good number of the 50% or so that will not vote in 2018 are women.

    As these women (and the rest of the 50% that are not women) are not interested in sending the message that they support the Big Money candidates of either party shouldn't these women and others be informed aboot an opportunity to send the message they may want to send- that they want the Big Money out of politics and want small contribution candidates in 2020 and future elections?

    Is CW against women because he won't inform these women aboot the opportunity offered by One Demand to send the message they may want to send?

    The 50% that don't vote in off year elections and the 40% that don't vote at all are the real sleeping giant and are very real people.

    Ignoring real people is not addressing reality.

    Sound the alarm, CW. It is time to wake the sleeping giant.

    You can't claim to be addressing reality when you ignore 50% of the electorate which is 50% of reality.

    Live up to your claim.

    #Be a Bezos

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    27

    Kick (22)-
    "Well said"?

    Yes, Don, it was very well said.

    So you are affirming the questions as if they somehow invalidate One Demand, the questions have never been asked and answered previously and were not answered in my reply?

    Is that a question or an assumption? <--- rhetorical question... obviously, you assume. However, in the exact same way that I'm not interested in beating a dead horse, I'm not interested in your "One Demand."

    ...as always.

    And so shall it remain ever thus. :)

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    So because you are not interested in One Demand CW should not inform other citizens that may be interested in One Demand aboot the opportunity?

    Of course, you are interested enough to affirm the questions- just not enough to bother with the answers.

    And fortunately, CW decides what to write aboot and there may actually be people that are interested in answers so I don't have to convince you to support One Demand.

    And fortunately, I am able to post comments on what CW writes aboot, what I think CW should write aboot and why and am even allowed to complain when he does not respond and point out when he is ignoring reality.

    And in the spirit of those before me that kept trying until their issues were addressed I will continue asking, commenting and complaining until I get CW to write aboot One Demand or at least give the reason he continues to ignore it that actually addresses what One Demand is.

    #Be a Bezos

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    Senate's dirty old men prepare to rape America. Will Collins help? Shall she go down in history as one of those women who let their husbands rape their daughters while she averts her gaze?

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Big Money interests controlling both Current Major Parties are preparing to rape America AGAIN. Will CW help? Will he go down in history as one of those men that knows his brother is raping his niece while he averts his gaze?

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    31

    So because you are not interested in One Demand CW should not inform other citizens that may be interested in One Demand aboot the opportunity?

    So it's obvious you're still content to put words in my mouth in the form of ridiculous questions, Don. Based on your continued assumptions, anyone can obviously see that the concept of "don't care" eludes you.

    Dead horse. Don't care.

    Of course, you are interested enough to affirm the questions- just not enough to bother with the answers.

    Been there. Dead horse stench. Don't care.

    And fortunately, CW decides what to write aboot and there may actually be people that are interested in answers so I don't have to convince you to support One Demand.

    Dead horse. Don't care.

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    [33] DH auditions to replace Michale as the resident troll.

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    35

    [33] DH auditions to replace Michale as the resident troll.

    Sure appears that way.

    What does it say about a poster who would troll an author's comment section for years requesting that he shill for him who would then resort to accusations that the author would allow intra-familial sexual abuse?

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick[21]

    I think you completely missed my point.

  38. [38] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Don Harris, I'm curious about something.

    As you know, there was an on line campaign which raised almost 2 million dollars from small donors to contribute to Collin's yet to be named opponent in 2020.

    Would you support that kind of thing if it were to be organized for Heitkamp for this year? Or, because she is a senator, she is by definiton Big Money, and therefore such a grassroots campaign is a fool's errand?

  39. [39] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Make that "there is an on line campaign...

    Now we'll see if that goes to 3 million...

  40. [40] 
    Paula wrote:

    Looks like Susan Collins is a weaselly snivelling crybaby "yes" like her Rape-friendly colleagues.

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    37

    I think you completely missed my point.

    You say that quite a lot, EM, but your points aren't all that complicated. Have you considered that missing your point and expounding on it are two totally different things?

    Yes, his parsing of words and continuing to lie about legal terms makes him sound guilty to me too... indubitably and without question.

    Additionally, he chose American Pravda a.k.a. Fox News to address the people and chose to publish his op-ed insisting he was an "independent, impartial judge" in that bastion of conservatism known as the Wall Street Journal. The word "oxymoron" comes to mind. :)

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, my points, alas and simple as they are, continue to be elusive. :)

  43. [43] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Last week someone suggested to me that when Flake, Murkowski, Collins, and Manchin huddled one evening that they made the trade of Murkowski's no for Manchin's yes.

    I said here that I didn't believe that. I was fibbing. I am that cynical, and, in spite of the Flake smoke screen, here we are.

  44. [44] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Oh, and one last good thing. We won't have Avenatti to kick around any longer.

    No, I'm fibbing again. Like a case of shingles, Av isn't ever going away. Keep a pin in this, post election, if the Democrats take the House: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/maryland-statute-limitations/571507/

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    42

    But, my points, alas and simple as they are, continue to be elusive. :)

    Not at all, EM. You believe his use of the term "no corroboration" sounds as if Kavanaugh thinks he may have done it, whereas I believe his use of the same term points to his continued pattern of lying and parsing of words which points to the same thing. He seems like he thinks he is guilty. Yes, ma'am, he appears to be signaling he's guilty... in more ways than one. :)

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Say it ain't so, Joe."

    That famous question has an odd resonance today, as we learn that the final vote to confirm Kavanaugh - surely as much an embodiment, in both persona and political orientation, of today's Republican Party as one could imagine - is that of a Democrat? Say it ain't so!

    When asked if he had a future in the Democratic Party, Manchin replied, "I'm just a West Virginia boy", which as political statements go, falls somewhere between a Trump tweet and the lyrics to "Strawberry Fields Forever".

    I know that the party's supposed to be a "big tent", blah, blah, *gag*, but c'mon, can that really include voting for a guy with "GOP Puppet" and "Trump's bitch" tattooed on his eyelids? There has to be a limit to open-mindedness, and I think that comes when you start confirming operatives of the other side.

    :{

  47. [47] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    @DH

    Do you realize that you skipped right from why people might do this in the first place to when other citizens find out about it without explaining what links the two? On the one hand, it sounds as though you feel that if this snowball just got the impetus necessary to start rolling, it would keep going of its own accord and on the other, that those you have selected to make it a thing would have to keep flogging it endlessly.

    How would anyone even know of this 5% block, which, if it existed, is presumably spread over all the states? What sort of post-election analysis by what organization or body would reveal an unusually large number of write-in/non major party votes were cast across the country? Would it actually even show up as statistically significant anywhere? If it were noted, how would anyone trace it to One Demand?

    What you are missing is that this is not at all like attending a march, joining a social media group, going to rallies, entering the echo chamber, or doing whatever other things people do to connect to like-minded people to build a resistance or a movement. Since you've indicated your website will show only aggregate data counts, you are and will always be dealing with individuals, secret ballots, and word-of-mouth.

    For some reason, whenever you are asked about your vision, your response is some variation on, "So it's better to do nothing?" That's a false dichotomy and I imagine you realize that.

    One person can, in fact, launch a movement, but it has to be out there in the public arena and kept there for people to see and decide to become part of. We're seeing an amazing number of first-time candidates entering the fray to run for office this election season. They are working their tails off to be seen and heard and taken seriously. It's a huge undertaking for any such candidate.

    That's YOUR job with respect to One Demand. You need a viable plan to get it from idea into reality. You don't seem to have one yet. You have a hope that others can get it kick-started for you, but hope is not a plan. Once started, you appear to see it as a self-reinforcing juggernaut, but that is also a hope. You are going to have to line up a hell of a lot of shills to keep flogging this for you and then coordinate their activities if you hope to break out on the national stage and have a lasting presence.

    Maybe a small, local effort that you can test your ideas out on would enable you to develop a workable plan. We can hope, right?

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    EM [37 & 42]

    But, my points, alas and simple as they are, continue to be elusive. :)

    Liz,

    Then for God’s sake tell us what your point was instead of just announcing that we missed out on the nugget of wisdom you were offering! I thought Kick’s response lined up perfectly with what you were saying, so it would benefit multiple people if you expounded on what point it was that we were missing out on.

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I wonder how Kavanaugh might respond to being asked if when his daughter turns 21, would he opposed to teaching her the in’s and out’s of a Devil’s Triangle weekend?

    Or if he has ever “boffed” in front of his daughters? In public?

    Or was he more comfortable “boffing” when it was just him and the guys he hung with?

    Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has come out and said Kavanaugh should not be on the court! That he would make a public statement like this is HUGE!

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ [48],

    Calm down … for God's sake! Heh.

    My point was spelled out - in three comments, no less.

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    [47] MyVoice: you're wasting your time but that seems to be a learning curve everyone has to go through.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    LB-
    For me personally Heidtkamp would have to return any Big Money she already took and commit to running a small contribution campaign. Each participant in One Demand would make their own determination if Heitkamp had to return Big Money or just make the commitment going forward.

    My problem with the Collins fund is that it is according to CW for a Democratic opponent and there is nothing mentioned on whether the opponent will get the money in the primary or only the general election and who decides who gets the money. Do the contributors get to vote on who gets the money?

    It is also not clear if the opponent can still take Big Money or only be funded by the small contribution fund.

    That is why One Demand participants will send their contributions directly to the candidates of their choice and not funnel it through One Demand so the participants control who they support.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Myvoice-
    All of that shit has been answered many times here, sorry if you missed it in other posts just as you missed much of it in the post you claim it wasn't in.

    But you are in sense correct that I must get other people to get on board, though I do not think that shills would be the proper word to use.

    Certainly that word is appropriate for a journalist that purposely spins for say the Big Money Democrats or Republicans and ignores anything that would contradict the narrative that party wants to present.

    The journalists that would write aboot One Demand could just be doing their job to inform citizens aboot this idea, just as they inform citizens aboot Trump, Pelosi or any idea like the Collins Fund or even "Not One Penny".

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    LB
    39

    Now we'll see if that goes to 3 million...

    $2,741,600 and still climbing.

  55. [55] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [51] Paula:

    Not to worry, but thanks. To use my very own mixed metaphor, I'm well aware it has long since been time to listen to the writing on the wall. Still, a closed system is an interesting challenge.

Comments for this article are closed.