ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Kavanaugh Fight Finally Ends

[ Posted Friday, October 5th, 2018 – 16:46 PDT ]

Brett Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court tomorrow. That was the breaking news this afternoon, as Senators Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, and Democrat Joe Manchin all indicated that they're going to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation. Republican Lisa Murkowski had briefly given rise to hope on the Democratic side when she announced she'll be voting against confirmation, but as things stand now Vice President Mike Pence won't even be required to break a tie, because tomorrow (if every senator votes how they now say they will) the total will be 51 votes for confirmation to 49 against.

This brings an end to the most extraordinary court fight since Clarence Thomas. For three weeks, America has been riveted by the drama that played out at the very end of the confirmation process. From the initial accusations to the lengthy hearing where Dr. Christine Blasey Ford told her story and Brett Kavanaugh showed his true temperament, to the dramatic move by Jeff Flake which forced a week's delay, to today's final vote announcements, the entire process has been completely consuming the political world for weeks.

Here's an interesting footnote: immediately after Susan Collins announced she would be voting for Kavanaugh's confirmation, the Crowdpac page which is raising money for her next re-election opponent crashed. As of this writing, it is still down. We have no idea whether the site was overwhelmed with people wishing to donate money to the cause of defeating Collins or not, but it certainly seems like a strange coincidence. We've actually talked with voters in Maine this week who predicted that Collins is going to pay a political price for her vote next time around. But she's pretty popular in general with Maine voters, so we'll have to wait and see. The last time we wrote about this effort (in the MIDOTW award section of FTP [500]) was three weeks ago, on September 14. At that point -- which was before the Ford / Kavanaugh hearing had even happened -- the fund was already up to $1.3 million. We have no idea what it's up to now, but we'd bet that this is going to be a potent political tactic in all sorts of future situations. All the pledges were contingent on Collins voting no -- if she had voted yes, the money would have been returned to the donors and the fund would have disappeared. Now that she's voting no, whichever Democrat wins the nomination to run against her next time is already going to have a hefty campaign fund on Day One of their general election campaign. Media markets in Maine aren't all that expensive to buy ads in, so a multimillion-dollar head start will definitely be a factor in the race.

[Editor's note: After a few hours of being down, the Crowdpac page now appears to be back up, and the donation total is now over $2.34 million and rising fast -- a half-hour or so ago, it was only at $2.08 million.]

This is a brand-new political tactic, it bears mentioning. A single-issue election fund dedicated to a yet-to-be-named politician has never been seen before (or, at the very least, never on this scale). We are predicting that this effort will be replicated in other situations (for other issues) in the very near future. Collins isn't any too happy about it, and has called it the equivalent of "extortion" or "blackmail," but it is in reality neither. She is not being offered anything, after all. No campaign funds for Collins are going to be affected one way or the other. Instead, this is a show of strength against Collins, as a measure of the anger her vote has sparked -- both among her constituents and nationwide among others disgusted with her vote. It remains to be seen how effective such an effort can ultimately be, but we will be watching it closely because this pioneering effort could indeed become quite common in the years to come.

This episode also really points out the political silver lining for Democrats, such as it is. If Kavanaugh had been defeated, then it would have been a major issue for Republican base voters in November. They would have been outraged and fired up to go vote, especially in Senate races. But now, with the election a full month away, the energy built up on the right over Kavanaugh may well disperse. It's hard to know what will motivate individual voters, but there are a whole lot of news cycles between now and Election Day, so Kavanaugh will likely be seen as old news by then.

At the same time, because their side lost, Democratic voters will be even more fired up to get to the polls. Finally Democrats are beginning to learn how important judicial picks truly are, and the Democratic base is starting to take them more seriously. They've got a lot of catching up to do, since Republican voters have cared about this subject for decades, but Democrats are certainly paying a lot more attention this time around.

Once again, this was really a one-issue week in the political world. The Kavanaugh fight sucked up all the oxygen in the room, although other political news still was being made. Donald Trump announced a new "United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement" on trade, which he claimed was wonderful and would replace NAFTA. Its relative wonderfulness aside, it won't actually be all that big a difference from NAFTA, as most of the framework will still exist under the new deal. In fact, most of the new provisions came straight out of another trade deal that Trump said was horrible -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If Trump hadn't bailed on T.P.P., then we would already be enjoying these benefits, to put it another way. Amusingly enough, most of the people involved in the negotiations were holdovers from the Obama administration, which is why the final product looked so much like both NAFTA and the T.P.P. Not that Trump mentioned any of those facts, of course.

OK, because the awards are going to run kind of long this week, we're going to wrap up with two rather bizarre stories. The first was that Alex Trebek, of Jeopardy! fame, was invited to moderate a gubernatorial debate in Pennsylvania, for some unfathomable reason. The debate was only 45 minutes long, and Trebek took up way too much of this time with rambling comments and stories. Nobody was very happy with the outcome, and after hearing the reviews, Trebek himself came out and apologized to the voters in Pennsylvania. "I'll take 'Epic Political Moderator Failures' for $1000, Alex...." Heh.

And finally, while we are about as pro-marijuana-reform as can be imagined, we also realize there are limits to what the voters can accept. Which is why we really wanted to give some sort of an award to Anne Armstrong, candidate for governor in Rhode Island -- however, she falls outside our awards' criteria, since she is a third-party candidate. Armstrong's campaign is centered on legalizing marijuana in Rhode Island, but again, there are limits to this sort of thing -- and Armstrong surpassed anyone's definition of these limits when she was arrested carrying a whopping 48 pounds of weed recently. Seriously, 48 pounds of marijuana is probably enough to get every single voter in Rhode Island high, since it's really not that big a state. Maybe that was her election strategy, to pass out a joint to anyone willing to vote for her?

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have a number of Honorable Mention awards to hand out this week before we get to the most obvious candidate for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

The first two are directly related to the midterm elections. This week Michael Bloomberg announced he's giving $20 million to the fund to elect Democrats to the Senate. The Senate Majority PAC had $29 million on hand already, so this will significantly boost the amount they'll have to spend on advertising in the final weeks of close Senate races all across the country. Bloomberg had already pledged more than $80 million to help Democrats in House races, but he felt the need to act after watching the Kavanaugh hearings. From a spokesperson: "Mike was extraordinarily disappointed in the Republican leadership in the Senate and feels increasingly passionate about changing it. And he's already enthusiastic about the impact he's having on House races and increasingly confident that he can contribute to a Democratic takeover." Of course, this isn't entirely selfless of Bloomberg, as he's reportedly considering a 2020 bid for president. Still, his money will be useful over the next month, no matter how pure his motives may be.

The second Honorable Mention goes to another wealthy guy, but one who is spending his time and money in a completely different way to help Democrats get elected. Former J.P. Morgan banker John Burton has devoted the past year to a grassroots project involving 16,000 amateur researchers, whose sole purpose is digging up opposition research on vulnerable Republicans in the House, the Senate, and even in state legislatures. Burton explains his purpose as: "We're going to do with real information and real Americans what the Russians tried to do with fake information and fake Americans."

His group, Citizens Strong, has targeted districts and states that lean slightly to the right. He is reported to have a "trove" of oppo research ready to be unleashed. So a whole lot of October surprises could be forthcoming very soon now, in races all across America:

With the midterms looming, he's begun disseminating his "citizen oppo" in three Senate races, 22 House races, and 133 state legislative races across 13 states. He's hoping these last-minute attacks will help push many of these races into the Democratic column, flipping control of the House -- and possibly even the Senate -- as well as state legislatures that will play a critical role in redrawing congressional lines in 2020, a process that will shape national politics for the next decade.

Here are just a few tactics the group plans to use:

More colorful was the "Sloth Index." Volunteers tracked the attendance and output of incumbents, including Facebook posts, videos, and press releases, on the theory that those who didn't bother showing up for work, and didn't do much when they did, would be easier to pick off. Many of the politicians on the list have never faced a tough race and so haven't taken elementary precautions such as registering their own domain names. Burton has snapped up 203 domains of incumbent Republicans that will soon bear the fruit of his researchers' efforts. Voters searching for information on Representatives Mike Bost of Illinois and Dave Schweikert of Arizona will discover their fondness for staying at Ritz-Carltons and the Waldorf Astoria, a perilous habit in light of Trump's attacks on the Washington "Swamp." For Tyler Vorpagel, a Wisconsin state representative who's voted to cut public assistance programs, readers will learn that his wife collected unemployment while she was running his first campaign in 2014, all the while posting Instagram pictures of herself (and her dog Teddy) at happy hours and baseball games. ("My wife spent countless hours looking for a new job and never turned down a job that was offered to her," Vorpagel says in a statement. "[T]he bills we passed require everyone to look at welfare benefits as temporary assistance, not a long-term lifestyle.") Meanwhile, Rohrabacher.ru will feature Citizen Strong's trove of materials on the Putin-friendly California congressman. And, if the Russian government shuts it down, ComradeRohrabacher.com will replace it.

So we've got all that to look forward to, for the rest of this month.

Our final Honorable Mention goes to Bernie Sanders. Four weeks ago (in FTP [499]), we also gave Bernie the same award, for introducing the "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act" (or "Stop BEZOS Act"), which was targeted at corporations like Amazon (run by Jeff Bezos) who pay their entry-level employees such low wages that they qualify for federal benefits. This week, Bezos announced he would be upping all of his employees' pay and would not pay anyone less than $15 an hour. However, this announcement was tainted by a subsequent announcement that while Amazon was giving to low-paid workers with one hand, it was taking away with the other -- they would no longer get bonuses or stock options. So while we did praise both Sanders and Bezos earlier this week, our laudatory comments about Bezos turned out to be premature. Even so, Bernie deserves credit for shaming a giant corporation run by the world's richest man into at least partially doing the right thing. Oh, and for good measure, Bernie also saved a clueless pedestrian from being hit by a car this week, too.

But our obvious choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Senator Heidi Heitkamp. She is probably the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate who is facing re-election next month, and her North Dakota constituents seem to be on the side of Kavanaugh. So the smart thing for her to have done politically would have been to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. This might have helped her at the polls, and with Collins voting yes it wouldn't have mattered one way or the other -- Kavanaugh would still have been confirmed. Heitkamp wasn't the deciding vote, in other words.

But she couldn't bring herself to do so. Her brother Joel explained her reasoning to MSNBC, saying: "She may lose. But in the morning, when she's brushing her teeth, she needs to like the person she sees."

She may have committed political suicide by voting no, but that's what she's going to do anyway. Such courage is rare in Washington, since most politicians care about their own political survival more than just about anything else under the sun. For taking such a brave stand, Heidi Heitkamp is the easy choice this week for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Heidi Heitkamp on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We have one (Dis-)Honorable Mention award to hand out this week before we get to the obvious choice for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

The (Dis-)Honorable Mention award goes to Jackson A. Cosko, who is a former congressional aide, and who has worked for both Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Maggie Hassan in the past. He is being described as "former Democratic staffer" in news reports, by which we read that he isn't currently employed by anyone in Congress. But somehow he managed to sneak into Hassan's offices "after 10 p.m. Tuesday" and used an aide's computer and login to post private information about Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee to Wikipedia. He posted their home addresses and phone numbers, which briefly appeared on the site (but were quickly taken down by the Wikipedia editors). For doing so, Cosko now faces one misdemeanor and six felony counts (including identity theft and witness tampering) which could land him in prison for up to 20 years.

It almost goes without saying, but it also must clearly be reaffirmed by all Democrats -- this is not the way to play the game of politics. This is disgraceful and should be condemned by all. It's contemptible behavior when the other side does it, but it is just as contemptible when done by a Democrat. Democrats should universally condemn such gutter tactics, unequivocally.

However, the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week was -- again, obviously -- Senator Joe Manchin, who will be the only Democrat voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. Now, Manchin might have avoided the MDDOTW award if he were in the same situation as Heitkamp -- if his vote would have meant his political suicide. That still would have been disappointing, but perhaps understandable. But Manchin is actually up in the polls. While his seat was seen as vulnerable earlier in the election cycle, he has shown surprisingly strong support in West Virginia, a state that went for Trump by an overwhelming margin. So he probably could have voted no and still been re-elected.

Manchin voting yes means that the vote won't be a tie -- if Manchin votes no, then Mike Pence would have had to cast the tie-breaking vote, which would have further delegitimized Kavanaugh's appointment. But now Republicans will be able to claim Kavanaugh got "bipartisan support," even though one Democrat isn't all that bipartisan, when you get right down to it. Manchin also wouldn't have been the deciding vote either way, so he could have voted no without being blamed for Kavanaugh failing to be confirmed. Yet, in the end, Manchin decided to boost his chances of re-election by becoming the only Democrat to vote yes.

After the past three weeks, that is incredibly disappointing to millions of Democrats and millions of women across the country. Which is why he's the obvious choice for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 503 (10/5/18)

We return to our regular list of talking points this week, which are kind of all over the map (but with the connecting thread of the upcoming midterms running through most of them). Normally, we'd save an amusing item for the last one, but this week we thought we'd go against our own tradition and instead save the last item for possibly the most important talking point of all in 2018 -- one that the mainstream media has been all but ignoring, for the most part.

As usual, enjoy and use responsibly.

 

1
   I believe her

For once, we're going to present a true talking point (rather than a whole paragraph leading up to one) -- a slogan that's short and sweet enough to fit on a bumpersticker. This is for a historical reason, in fact. Those not old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation fight will not be aware of what happened afterwards. But on cars all across America, bumperstickers began appearing with a powerful message: "I Believe Anita Hill." This time around, we have no idea whether this will become a bumpersticker phenomenon or not (Twitter wasn't around, back then), but all Democratic candidates for office should immediately add this line to their stump speech anyway:

"I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford."

 

2
   Think about this when you vote

Democrats need to explicitly tell their voters how important this stuff is, over and over again.

"Are you outraged that Brett Kavanaugh is going to be on the Supreme Court? Then get out and vote in November! There's only one way to create a check on this process, and that is to elect more Democrats to the Senate, to the House, and eventually to the White House. Do you want a president that doesn't mock survivors of sexual assault to score political points at rallies? Then get out and vote! Each and every 5-4 decision that makes you angry from now on should make you that much more committed to vote in each and every election. Republican voters care about judicial appointments, and they don't sit out the midterm elections! You've got to match their energy and you've got to get just as determined. Vote the Republicans out of office to prevent this from happening again. Channel your anger into a fierce determination to elect more Democrats each and every election cycle!"

 

3
   Want to see Trump's taxes?

Of course, the Senate isn't the only battleground worth fighting for.

"The New York Times this week exposed Donald Trump's lies about how little he got from his father. He's not a self-made man, his daddy handed him hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, and committed tax fraud by doing so. The state of New York is now investigating this story, although the criminal statute of limitations has already passed. But you just know that Trump has probably gotten away with cheating on his taxes recently as well -- which is why he won't show them to anyone. Well, there's a very easy answer to all of this -- elect more Democrats to the House this November, and we'll all finally get to see Trump's taxes. Democrats will make it their first order of business to begin an investigation of Trump's taxes to see what he's been hiding from everyone all along. Is he in bed with Russian money-launderers? There's only one way to find out, and that is to elect more Democrats to the House. If Democrats take control of the chamber in a blue wave, Trump won't be able to hide any more!"

 

4
   Please don't, Mister President...

Republicans always loved to make hay over this issue when it was Barack Obama's embarrassment, so we should happily return the favor.

"I see that some Republicans aren't exactly eager to have Donald Trump appear on stage with them. In central Florida, Republican Michael Waltz is running for an open House seat. Trump apparently wanted to appear at a rally with Waltz, but Waltz wasn't interested. He's not the only one, either. Trump is holding a rally in Kansas tomorrow, but GOP Representative Kevin Yoder won't be on stage with him, despite being invited to appear with the president. Seems Trump isn't very popular in Yoder's suburban district. Yoder blamed a 'scheduling conflict,' which is pretty amusing. More and more Republicans seeking office are being faced with a tough choice -- appear with the president and leader of their party, or run away from him in a desperate effort to get elected in districts where Trump's support hurts Republicans more than it helps."

 

5
   I see nothing!

This might be too dated a reference, but we don't care because it's so perfect.

"If Democrats take control of Congress, you can bet we'll be looking into the instructions the F.B.I. was given for their so-called 'investigation' of the claims made against Brett Kavanaugh. Who told them to ignore so many witnesses? The White House? Senate Republicans? What, exactly, were they told? It sure seems like the White House demanded that Sergeant Schultz be put in charge of the effort, because the F.B.I. report was nothing more than shouting 'I see nothing, I hear nothing... nothing!!!' in the face of many corroborating witnesses. Dozens and dozens of people were either listed by Kavanaugh's accusers or volunteered their testimony to the F.B.I., only to have the F.B.I. completely ignore them. Stories of people contacting the F.B.I. only to never hear back from them are all over the place. Again, if Democrats retake Congress, you can bet we'll be getting to the bottom of this, because this 'Sergeant Schultz investigation' was woefully inadequate."

 

6
   October's here. Surprise!

Until he actually unloads all the oppo research, it will be fun to make all Republicans nervous about what's in it.

"John Burton's new group Citizen Strong has spent all year digging up opposition research on Republican candidates across the country -- in House races, in Senate races, and even in statehouse races. He says he's got plenty of October surprises to unleash, he's just waiting until the timing is right in each case. If I were a Republican candidate for office right now, I'd be worried about any skeletons in the closet that haven't seen the light of day. Politics ain't beanbag, and plenty of Republicans are about to find this out very publicly."

 

7
   The pre-existing conditions election

This continues to fly under the inside-the-Beltway radar, for the most part.

"All the pundits and prognosticators in Washington are missing a rather large issue that could be determinative in dozens of races this November -- because Republicans are finally beginning to pay the price for all of their 'repeal and replace Obamacare' antics. When the Republicans in Congress tried to shove through their repeal bill, the rest of the country learned two very important things. The first is that if Obamacare went away, the protections for people with pre-existing conditions would also go away. The second is that Republicans had absolutely no answer for this problem. There was no 'replacement' for it at all. In fact, they still don't have any idea what to do about the problem. But now, all those 'repeal Obamacare' votes are coming back to haunt them. In race after race, this is emerging as the biggest issue -- Democrats will fight to keep the protections for people with pre-existing conditions intact, while Republicans want to blow them up and replace them with nothing. Republican congressmen already voted to do exactly that, and Democratic candidates are now reminding the voters of this fact. Although it hasn't gotten much attention in the political press, this could be the single biggest issue driving people to vote for Democrats at the polls this year. We may look back at 2018 as the 'pre-existing conditions election,' in fact. And Republicans will only have themselves to blame."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

154 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Kavanaugh Fight Finally Ends”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Further note:

    By the time I posted this, that Crowdpac page was up to $2.5 million and climbing...

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Love John Burton and BIG kudos to him.

    Hate Joe Manchin. We "need" him to help dislodge McConnell in a month but, beyond that, this vote burns a lot of bridges for him. My hope is, assuming we still actually have a Republic in 2020, we win enough additional senate seats to render him expendable. He can become another Joe Lieberman - a man who's name elicits hisses from many Dems when said out loud.

    And just in general, f&ck every single rapist-friendly perjury-excusing traitor who votes for Kavanaugh.

  3. [3] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I sincerely hope someone starts a gofundme for Heitcamp. She can still win her race. When Patton was told (at least in the eponymous movie) that the commander of the trapped 101st Airborne, when surrender was demanded, replied "nuts," his reply was that any s.o.b. that eloquent deserved to be saved. Her "yes" was even more eloquent.

    It's not too hard to imagine that the heat of the rage which Collin's contribution rate implies could easily transfer to Heidi as well.

  4. [4] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I meant, of course, Heidi's "No" vote was more eloquent. Long, long week, and it's hard to tell the AC's from the DC's at this point.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Bullshit! The Collins Fund is NOT a brand new political tactic. It is a cheap takeoff on One Demand.

    You get a "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" for that one.

    But since you are in favor of the idea, you have no further excuse for not informing citizens abbot the real thing.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You also get a liar, liar, pants on fire for the paragraph preceding talking point one in which you claim you will not be providing a paragraph leading up to the talking point.

    Very Trumpian. :D

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Talking point two:
    Don't you ever learn?

    The "you need to vote for Democrats because Trump/the Republicans are so much worse" mantra only works on Democrats. It does not work on the 50% or so of voters that do not vote in off year elections and the 40% that don't vote at all- the people the Democrats need.

    If it did work then many or most of those people would vote.

    You are asking the wrong questions.

    You should be asking:

    "Are you tired of the Big Money Democrats making promises in the elections and providing excuses after the are elected? Do you want the Big Money out of politics? Do you want to vote for small contribution candidates?

    Each and every Big Money Democrat that fails to deliver, and each and every Big Money candidate regardless of party should make you angry that that much more committed to vote in each and every election.

    Vote the Big Money candidates out of office and/or register a vote against the Big Money candidates and create and demonstrate demand for the small contribution candidates that you want."

    Enough of this delusional righteousness of supporting the Big Money Democrats because the Republicans are worse. It is beneath you- or at least it should be.

    Think aboot that when you decide what to write aboot next week and in the future.

    Don't be Col. Matthew Brady who said in Inherit the Wind, "I don't think about the things I don't think about."

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Talking point three:
    Same bullshit as talking point two. Voting for Democrats is part of the problem- not part of the solution.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Talking point five:
    It takes one to know one. When are you going to stop Sgt. Schultzing One Demand?

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Talking point six:

    Just what we need. More vote for Democrats because Republicans are so bad.

    How is more of the same old bullshit an October Surprise?

    One Demand would be a real October Surprise.

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    My main comfort in all this is that I think the battle over Kav was worth fighting. Had Dem leaders just given in from the beginning Kav would have slid through with his "Mr Nice Guy" persona intact. Now he is damaged goods and the Repubs look like lying sacks of crap and Joe Manchin is getting (deservedly) scorned.

    By putting up a fight the public learned a bunch of stuff about Kav that Repubs did not want discovered, making him and them look bad. Kav is tainted and the court, with him on it, will be tainted. Kav is unpopular. If Dems get the House they will keep after him and it's possible he could be impeached. That's more likely as a result of the fight since people are now disposed to see him as a liar and predator, and the media has an interest in digging up more dirt. And repubs engaging in their cover-up certainly enraged Dems even more than they already were. Previously we were pretty united in hating DT. Now a lot more people despise Repubs as well and recognize how much they are one-with-Trump.

    For years now many of we-rank-and-file-Dems have wanted our leaders to step up and engage - fight back with ferocity. We've said for years that you may not win but you definitely can't win if you don't try. Losing this battle sucks, but not nearly as much as it would have had we given in at the beginning. That would have been depressing. This is enraging.

    Rage is energizing. Rage is better.

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Talking point seven:
    Our democracy is in critical condition and ready to flatline and you want to make this the election of the pre-existing condition from Obamacare?

    If we address and treat the pre-existing condition of Big Money corrupting our political process that is the cause for this "battle" over part of the health care problem that was only superficially addressed by Obamacare then we might be able to actually solve the health care problems and many other problems that are all more difficult if not impossible to solve as long as Big Money controls our political process.

    The Kavanaugh fight is over- the fight to reclaim our democracy from the clutches of the Big Money interests is overdue.

    It's time for you to address the tools provided by our founding fathers that citizens need to fight this battle and a way to utilize these tools offered by One Demand.

    #Be a Bezos (pre-oops)
    #Stop the Schultzshit

  13. [13] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    TP 0ne..." I bought a Ford, but it did't MAGA" seems apropos for a bumper sticker.

    I realize people are overwrought from the last two weeks, but it has been a cleansing, of sorts. Even with the inimical Trumpian roast of DR. Ford at a rally/stand-up, heels were warmed.

    Let's face a few facts, kids... The GOP were always jamming Mr. K down the throats of the Senate, were it not him, surely another partisan hack could be unearthed, sharpish, to replace him. Democrats (imo, stumbled into the perfect polarizing storm with Dr. Ford) stole a bit of moral high-ground when the GOP went off on their various little rants about decency and procedure. The Dems also bolstered their comfy 'women' vote with indignation, while the GOP barely moved the needle with their idiotic 'hetoo' bullshit.

    I think today's unemployment figures, although impressive, (thanks to the general trend inaugurated by Obama) really just make the make a good case for legal immigration to be encouraged.

    Unluckily for the GOP, Trump will drown out the latest figures with his victory laps, being for the benefit of Mr. K, how could he not?

    If you disregard the upcoming war with Iran, and the revelation that China is now the number one cyber threat to the US, because they are apparently going after Trump, it's been a slow week in news...

    A new trade deal, one that actually kinda works, though the US couldn't rid itself of Trump's most shameless lie (this notion of Canada and Mexico 'dumping' at the US expense, when in reality, of 119 disputes, most were launched by Canada and Mexico against the US...this is worth a look... https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Decisions-and-Reports )

    So, the Democrats have a powerful platform, with many talking points, to have a really good run up to November... There should be no excuse now to run the house, and put a broad shoulder to the senate.

    LL&P

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "We've said for years that you may not win but you can't win if you don't try."

    Exactly what I say aboot One Demand and the battle to remove Big Money from our political process.

  15. [15] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [11] "We've said for years that you may not win but you definitely can't win if you don't try."

    Because the NHL has dropped the puck on a new season, and the Toronto Maple Leafs are highly touted to do well, I give you a similar quote, Paula... "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." Wayne Gretzky.

    LL&P

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    [15] JTC: Yes!

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

    Exactly what I say aboot One Demand and the battle to remove Big Money from our political process.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    James,

    I think today's unemployment figures, although impressive, (thanks to the general trend inaugurated by Obama) really just make the make a good case for legal immigration to be encouraged.

    Just for the record, I think we better give some of that thanks to his treasury secretary Geithner for that general trend.

    And, President Obama probably still owes him a thick juicy steak dinner for almost sabotaging Geithner's efforts early on. Oh, I like to kid president Obama about this one. :)

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i really think there ought to be a rule (or at least a very strongly worded suggestion) against posting more than three times straight on a tangent. yeah, i know nobody appointed me manners police, not that it would matter if they had.

  20. [20] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [18] Obama wasn't perfect, his mantel is littered with MDDOTW.

    Obama has been excoriated, his legacy-- all but undone. Trump's braggadocio notwithstanding, Obama has been kicked around, I like to think he should get to own the overall praise for putting the US back on the rails.

    LL&P

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Seriously, 48 pounds of marijuana is probably enough to get every single voter in Rhode Island high, since it's really not that big a state. Maybe that was her election strategy, to pass out a joint to anyone willing to vote for her?

    Reminds me of the recent story about the Hartford, Michigan cheerleader allegedly trading marijuana laced brownies in exchange for votes to become homecoming queen of her high school. :)

  22. [22] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    More cartoon gold... Everything one expects from the Guardian. The line, "It's a bit telling that no one thought to tell him" made me chuckle.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/oct/05/martin-rowson-on-the-brett-kavanaugh-controversy-cartoon

    LL&P

    (2)

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as another aside, michael bloomberg is ineligible for his honorable mention. he's not a democrat, he's an opportunist, and the harm he did to new york's schools is still resonating throughout the system. i'd even vote for donald trump before i'd vote for bloomberg.

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DH,

    OneDemand doesn’t have anything to offer!!! How many times do you have to be told this before you get it?

    Think I am wrong???

    Then by all means, PROVE me wrong!

    You say the king is wearing beautiful royal garments.
    We reply that the king is not wearing ANY garments, he’s naked!
    You hear, “We don’t like the style or color of the royal garments”!
    We repeat that there is nothing there for us to like or dislike!

    Provide us with evidence showing how great your group is at getting people motivated to vote. You have no success for Chris to write about, and you have the gall to blame him for your failures!

    You seem to believe that political movements take off because the press reports on them, but the press reports on political movements because they have taken off!

    Why do you think that Chris has the ear of the non-voting public, as I am guessing most people following political blogs tend to be voters? There may be a small number of non-voters who follow politics but refuse to vote (to prove to the world just how serious they take their commitments and how deep they are... the same folks who love the smell of their own farts) but these contrarians will shoot far more holes in your weak premised movement than anyone here has bothered to the second they hear your strategy!

    Why aren’t you spending time at sites where more people rally behind your idea? Or is this the “best” response when compared to how others have trashed you elsewhere?

  25. [25] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [24] Everyone has their own agenda, people go off chasing butterflies all the time. Michale (may he pest elsewhere) had his cut and plagiarism, Kick had Michale to kick, E. M has overall control, I advocate the bulldozing of religion and D.H has his vote-thingy shtick.

    Some Chris guy lets people hang in his yard. The gate has no lock.

    LL&P

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Actually, it is the Big Money Democrats that are the emperor.

    You are the one claiming the naked king is wearing beautiful garments.

    I am the one pointing out the emperor is naked.

    The press does inform citizens aboot political movements before they take off as well as after it takes off.

    You could look back at 2016 right here and find articles that CW wrote aboot Bernie early on in the primary campaign when Bernie was still according to conventional political wisdom only going to get aboot 3-5% of the primary vote and he wouldn't be able to raise enough money from small contributions to be competitive.

    "Not One Penny" got a mention as soon as it was announced. It even got another mention even though it didn't really take off.

    Thank you for your suggestion to try other sources than commenting here.

    All this time I could have been contacting other journalists, politicians, activists and organizations or submitting articles to publications instead of just commenting here.

    I am not blaming CW for my "failure". I am blaming CW for his failure to live up to his claim of a reality based blog because he is ignoring this very real idea and the very real 50% of eligible voters that do not vote in off year elections and 40% that don't vote at all.

    And the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections are people that vote.

    I would love to have the opportunity to prove whether One Demand could work or whether it wouldn't work. That is why I keep after CW, Ralph Nader and others.

    The only way to find our if it will work is for citizens to be informed that it exists.

    It may turn out to be as ineffective as "Not One Penny" (remember how well that worked?). But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it could work.

    But if citizens are not informed and given the opportunity to decide if they want to participate, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy guaranteeing it will not catch on.

    One Demand has nothing to offer you, but you are not the only person that gets to vote. It does offer an alternative for citizens not fooled by the Big Money two party two step.

    There are people that read political blogs that vote and do not buy into the two party bullshit (I am one example). These people are the ones that can help get the non-voters involved. There may even be more than just me that read CW's blog, but don't comment or even read the comments. Many that see his articles when they are cross posted may not read the comments here.

    The only way to prove whether or not One Demand can succeed is for citizens to be informed aboot the opportunity.

    So, CW, will you honor Listen's request that I prove that One Demand can work by informing citizens aboot One Demand or continue with the self fulfilling prophecy of ignoring it?

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    22

    More cartoon gold... Everything one expects from the Guardian. The line, "It's a bit telling that no one thought to tell him" made me chuckle.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/oct/05/martin-rowson-on-the-brett-kavanaugh-controversy-cartoon

    *laughs*

    The word "shit-heel" comes to mind too. :)

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    25

    Kick had Michale to kick...

    I am an equal opportunity "kicker." Seriously. If you'd like to test that theory, please begin hurling a regular repertoire of repetitive insults and invectives while simultaneously whining like a toddler about name calling. :)

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    24

    Very well said, sir. :)

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    $2,980,304

    Oh, looky there. The defeat Susan Collins fund is < $20,000 away from clearing the $3,000,000 mark. :)

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    More cartoon gold... Everything one expects from the Guardian. The line, "It's a bit telling that no one thought to tell him" made me chuckle.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/oct/05/martin-rowson-on-the-brett-kavanaugh-controversy-cartoon

    The figures looking out the windows of AF1 are amusing as well.

    Thanks for sharing.

  32. [32] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I just went in and pledged/gave my 20.20 to the Collins opposition crowdpac.

    It should be over 3 million in about ten minutes at the current pledging rate. (2,992,000+ as I click this)

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LeaningBlue -

    I love how $20.20 is the most popular amount to donate.

    I just watched it roll over. Was $2,999,125 and I waited one minute and refreshed, and it was $3,000,875.

    That's a cool million raised, in less than 24 hours...

    -CW

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    33

    I just watched it roll over. Was $2,999,125 and I waited one minute and refreshed, and it was $3,000,875.

    Oh, you liked that, did you? Well, I strategically timed my donation in excess of Don's "One Demand" in order to push it over the $3,000,000 mark. Me and LB are movers and shakers that way. ;)

  35. [35] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [27]I like to post the occasional cartoon.

    " The word "shit-heel" comes to mind too. :)"

    A rare gift for me is a word I'm not familiar with, 'shitheel' is such a word. I looked it up, it could have had a picture of Trump next to the definition, it's that suitable.

    If I want to hurl abuse and invective at strangers online, I have a few Facebook chat sites I can frequent. I've been on the business end of more than one 'mute' button over the years. I encounter lots of people who enjoy monstering others in the comments section of WSG, WAPO, The Hill, NYT etc, it's not a good look, so I steer clear of cyber-mud slinging more often than not.

    LL&P

  36. [36] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    You crazy kids, watching a Gofund cash ticker for shits and giggles...

    I watch the Abbey RD live webcam when I have a few ticks to waste.

    Behold … http://www.onabbeyroad.com/cam.htm

    Last year, my nieces were in London, they wanted their own iconic 'Abbey Road' shot...I watched in real-time and in stitches as they dodged traffic to pull it off.

    ;)

    LL&P

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (33)-
    Who would have thought that when presented with an opportunity that citizens could respond so quickly?

    If citizens can respond to this watered down version of One Demand, then it is possible that citizens might respond to the real thing.

    And in 2018 citizens do not even have to respond with contributions. All they have to do to participate in 2018 is sign up on the website and vote.

    Of course, there are differences between the Collins Fund and One Demand. The Collins Fund is designed to help Democrats maintain the status quo and One Demand is designed to help America and change the status quo.

    I wonder how LB found out aboot the Collins Fund. Is it possible that LB learned aboot it from an article or some other form of media informing LB aboot the Fund?

    It's a pretty safe bet it wasn't a revelation from God.

    So since you believe in the basic principle of the Collins Fund that is the same basic principle of One Demand, why write aboot the Collins Fund and not one Demand?

    Is it because the Collins Fund is designed to benefit Democrats and is the "Golden Dancer" (see Inherit the Wind) version of the idea that is all show and no substance so that citizens will think they are doing something to solve the problem when they really aren't and One Demand is the real thing that could actually work?

    What have you got against real democracy?

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems Kick was able to make a contribution in excess of the One Demand limit to the Collins Fund.

    How is that possible? As the One Demand limit is also the aggregate limit for small contributions by respected organizations that analyze and report on these things that can only mean the the Collins Fund is NOT a true small contribution campaign and is therefore a deception.

    Yet you keep pretending that it is a small contribution campaign. What happened to reality?

    Or is that claim that this is a reality based blog also just a deception?

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    36

    You crazy kids, watching a Gofund cash ticker for shits and giggles...

    I beg your pardon, sir; we were participating for "shits and giggles." ;)

    I watch the Abbey RD live webcam when I have a few ticks to waste.
    Behold … http://www.onabbeyroad.com/cam.htm

    Oh, this is super cool. |bookmark| It's dark and raining, and I just watched this dude almost get run over by this car driving on the wrong side of the road. :)

  40. [40] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [37] - I wonder how LB found out [about] the Collins Fund. Is it possible that LB learned [about] it from an article or some other form of media informing LB [about] the Fund?

    I don't remember; it's been part of the media "buzz" since its inception. CW, above, mentions that he first wrote of it on 9/14. So it has been at least since then.

    It's not just Collins; that site is named crowdPAC. There's one for Grassley, for example, which is also trending. From the $ChuckCHUCK page:

    Because Chuck has already raised $1,078,202 from lobbyists, we need to be prepared to spend big money to defeat him.

    Why don't you take a good look at crowdpac dot com, and figure out some way to put that platform's gearing behind your crank?

  41. [41] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [39] I knew the Beatlemaniacs would find it cool. People come from far and wide to 'do the Zebra crossing'. I'm taking my kids next year, London is a great city, lots of museums, pubs, Balty houses and other must-do's. One can even stop by Saville Row and go in the Apple Core, I usually pop in to get a selfie with whatever cool memorabilia they happen to be displaying. Last time, they had Macca's Rickenbacker bass from Stg. Pepper and Lennon's fur coat from Let It Be.

    LL&P

  42. [42] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    In my mind, one batch of weasels that need the kind of exposure, if not money raised in opposition, that social sites like crowdpak offer are those who came into Congress with term limit pledges and are still there. You can be assured that they are, in any definition of the term, Big Money weasels.

    Sue, herself, is one of them.

    P.S. What's the correct collective noun for a group of weasels?

  43. [43] 
    Patrick wrote:

    There are five collective nouns for weasels:

    Take the one that fits best.

    1 boogle of weasels;
    2 confusion of weasels;
    3 gang of weasels;
    4 pack of weasels;
    5 sneak of weasels.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Another correct collective noun for a group of weasels is Congress.

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DH,

    So OneDemand is now going to be a third political party, is it?

    You keep attacking the Democrats, but what if a Democrat wanted to run a small donation only campaign? Why would they want to align themselves with you and OneDemand given your vocal negative opinion of Democrats?

    You attack politicians who take large money contributions as being beholden only to their largest donors, but you have never shown any evidence that shows them voting for legislation that harms their constituents and only benefits their largest donors.

    But then again, you haven’t ever provided any evidence to suggest that the reason that people do not vote is because those running accept donations larger than $35 dollars!

    Yet, you think people who have never voted are going to finally agree to go vote just so they can write their own name in on the ballot and guarantee that their effort accomplished NOTHING!

    I am sure tons of people are just itching to wake up extra early on voting day to go cast their ballot with their name written in so that they can have their family and friends make fun of them when Bart Simpson gets more votes than they do! How again is that a demonstration that citizens want candidates that place small donation campaigns above everything else?

    There is no demand for OneDemand!

  46. [46] 
    Paula wrote:

    #####PRESS RELEASE######

    Newly formed Republicans for Rape Pac will be inviting Susan Collins to share her thoughts on "Republican Rape Culture: How Young is too Young?" What is the best age to start teaching your sons to rape and your daughters to accept rape?

    The R4R will be asking Susan to use her new high profile as America's Rape Representative to see if she can lure Ivanka Trump to join her and share her thoughts on "Incest - Do Father's Know Best or Can Brothers Get In On The Act?"

    Although some may draw the line at incest it's clear that to have a truly flourishing Rape Culture you need rapists to build their skills and there's no getting round the convenience of sibling proximity. And daughters have always been available to rape-inclined fathers and now that the GOP has given rape the green light it's time for daughter-raping-Republicans to come out of the closet and share the love their hero, Donald Trump, enjoys!

    Let's not forget the ladies! Republican women who allow their daughters to be raped, and their athletic sons to be molested (here's looking at you Ohio State, vying with Penn State to move Jim Jordan into the top spot as America's Most Powerful Molestation Enabler!) deserve some attention! R4R will be encouraging Moms to compete for the "Most Enabling," "Best Excuses for Rape," "Most Skilled Slut-Shamers" Awards.

    Republicans for Rape Pac (R4R) is funded by Bill Shine, Bill O'Reilly and Harvey Weinstein. © 2018, All Rights Reserved.

    Dedicated to Brett Kavanaugh, America's first Rapist Supreme Court "Justice"!

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    James[25],

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

    And, I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    :-)

    (wanna guess who I'm paraphrasing?)

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll give ya three guesses and the first two don't count ...

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula[46],

    Why do you think it is that Republicans understand so well how critical presidential nominations to the Supreme Court are when Democrats, generally speaking, do not take that presidential authority nearly so seriously?

    I hope Democrats don't follow your tactic or that of Senator Chuck Schumer because they are both losing propositions.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Here is a much better way forward for Democrats:

    https://deepstateradionetwork.com/a-reaction-to-a-heartbreaking-week-in-american-politics-a-defeat-or-a-call-to-action/

    A call to action, indeed!

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    having read collins' justification for her confirmation vote, i'm hard pressed to deny her the prerogative. it certainly isn't the way i would vote, and i think she should absolutely be challenged for her senate seat. however, the fbi did their jobs and didn't find enough evidence, so that's that. it's not as if a failed confirmation would prevent donald from nominating someone equally horrific tomorrow.

    although don's demand may be unrealistic as he currently conceives it, in principle the strategy of direct voter action isn't crazy. how about instead we pledge to nominate candidates for office who stand up for their constituents' pocketbooks? perhaps we could promise to vote for candidates who will scrap the cap on social security tax and treat capital gains as income. that's a hard line i could live with. it's not as sexy as abortion or marijuana legalization, but that's the policy that will actually help bring us back from the brink. the other issues and court confirmations, while important, tend to be wielded as implements of distraction so we won't follow the money.

    JL

  52. [52] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Don Harris.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/04/bill-c-76-liberals-elections_a_23550832/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

    Also, I'm glad that shit is done. Mr. K can wear a cape any day of the year, and not just on Halloween, he remains a creepy bugger.

    Time to reflect-- an overhaul of the process might be in order-- the shine this turd needs is a drastic de-politicising of the judiciary, obviously.

    Here's how I get my kids to split anything fairly... one cuts, the other chooses. The same logic can be applied to the US senate and its Judiciary committee... Have the minority suggest candidates for the majority to consider... I'll wager you'd see more centrists parading past these committees.

    SCOTUS renders itself redundant with every partisan decision it makes. If a conclusion is foregone, why bother with the palaver of a court? Get rid of it, dissolve it, remove it, dismiss it, dismantle it, disband it, liquidate it, disestablish it or drain it, just do it. Seems SCOTUS was originally a roving band of judges, sent out to oversee legal matters, this panel went from town to town as arbiters for the state. Dispatch it :)

    LL&P

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    No, One Demand is not a third party.

    A Democrat that wanted to run a small contribution campaign would seek the support of participants in One Demand because they have committed to supporting small contribution candidates. Such a candidate would understand that I am "attacking" Big Money Democrats and Big Money candidates of any or no party- such a candidate would see the Big Money candidates as a common enemy.

    80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics so they already recognize the correlation between Big Money contributions and the behavior of the legislators that take the Big Money contributions.

    So a smoking gun is not needed and since 80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics and 50% of eligible voters don't vote in off year elections at least 3 out of 5 that don't vote in off year elections want the Big Money out of politics.

    The 20-30% of voters that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections are people that vote- NOT people that never voted. Even many of the 40% that don't vote at all have a one time or another voted.

    Just this morning while typing this comment a caller on Washington Journal said he hadn't voted since he voted for Perot. A non-voter that watches and calls in to Washington Journal. They DO exist.

    And participation in One Demand in 2018 by citizens that would not otherwise vote does not accomplish nothing. It would get people that wouldn't vote to vote and would be a beginning of a process to bring about change. You know- BASIC DEMOCRACY!

    "We've said for many years that you may not win but you definitely can't win if you don't try."
    -Paula
    comment 11

    I have covered all this many times before including this very thread.

    Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending to be that stupid?

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    The problem with voting for candidates that will do the things you want them to do is that if they take Big Money they won't do those things even if they promised to in their campaign.

    It is also a problem to get people to agree on all those issues.

    So starting with one issue that 80% of citizens agree on and getting citizens to work together on this common issue even if they disagree aboot other issues is a better strategy.

    We won't need to follow the money if we eliminate the money. And we can eliminate the money by taking away what the money needs from us- our votes.

    So there is nothing unrealistic aboot One Demand. It is basic democracy. If One Demand is unrealistic then democracy is unrealistic.

    What is unrealistic is to expect the Big Money candidates/legislators to represent ordinary citizens instead of their Big Money contributors.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    45

    Very well said, sir. :)

    There is no demand for OneDemand!

    Exactly right. In fact, I would wager that on this board there would actually be a larger demand to prohibit solicitors from spamming the board to promote their own product and that the only person who should be allowed to promote their product regularly on CW.com should be CW himself.

    For instance, I've collected money for veterans' causes and have done so for decades where 100% of the proceeds go directly to veterans. I take no salary whatsoever, pay all costs associated with the foundation, and kick in generously myself... a true charity that benefits veterans. I have decided that I'm going to spam this board daily seeking donors, and I'm going to whine incessantly and troll the author until he devotes time in his very own blog to America's fighting force. Who's with me?

    Yes, of course I'm not going to do that because I don't believe my solicitation belongs on another man's blog. Perhaps if I start near daily solicitations and demands that the author shill for my political venture, that in and of itself would speak volumes.

    My "One Wish" is that "One Demand" and similar solicitors not be allowed to spam this board near daily demanding that the author publish on their behalf, and I would wager I'm far from being alone. CW has an email that he makes available to the entire world so it's not exactly going to limit "free speech" if people wishing to solicit their personal ventures do so to the author via his email.

    Rant over. :)

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    we've hashed and re-hashed the difference between dimensions of public opinion. so, i'm not going to waste everyone else's time explaining yet again why your idea has multiple canyon sized holes that you need to address if you ever plan to be successful.

    nonetheless, the corrupting influence of campaign money is a real problem, and some aspects of your idea hold merit, which is why i hope some folks here consider those line-items in spite of the daily attempts at nuisance solicitation.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    51

    how about instead we pledge to nominate candidates for office who stand up for their constituents' pocketbooks?

    Excellent idea. Health care is an issue that falls right into this lane.

    perhaps we could promise to vote for candidates who will scrap the cap on social security tax and treat capital gains as income.

    Perhaps we could also promise to vote for candidates who will promise to index the minimum wage to inflation or something similar. The cap on SS should have absolutely been scrapped long ago or at minimum exponentially raised. As far as capital gains as income... ouch, but I sure like your way of thinking. :)

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    What is your political venture?

    The comments section on a political blog is a perfect place to discuss it and seek people to support it.

    And I would have no problem if you felt that your charity venture deserved mention by CW- even if you sought contributions here in the comment section. And that would apply even if I was against helping veterans.

    Apparently you do not understand the difference between spamming and posting an opinion and offering information on a political idea.

    Fortunately, CW does.

    I originally sent CW an email, but it is not a publicly published email- you have to sign up to send him an email using the email form. He then invited me to comment.

    While I have at times sent him other emails, Ralph Nader advised that people trying to get a journalist, politician, activist to address something should also put their request into a public forum, so I continue to post comments following Ralph Nader's advice.

    You can post comments where you wish that CW would ban people that you don't agree with from posting comments.

    And CW can ignore that also.

    As for Listen's comment that there is no demand for One Demand which you have affirmed as somehow being valid, it is technically correct- but just plain stupid.

    And that is the very reason why I keep encouraging and cajoling CW to write aboot it and complain when he doesn't.

    People can't demand something if they don't know aboot it.

    The only way that statement would be valid is if people knew aboot it and did not want it.

    50% of eligible voters know aboot the Democrats and Republicans and have shown they do not want either by not voting in off year elections.

    These citizens obviously want something other than the Big Money Democrats and Republicans. The only way to find out if they might want One Demand is if they find out that it exists.

    And CW writing aboot it is one way for that to happen. And no matter what else I or anyone else does or doesn't do it makes no difference to whether or not CW should write aboot it.

    CW is a journalist and a journalist provides information. A journalist that has information and does not provide that information is not being an honest journalist. And a journalist that claims to be covering reality should cover all reality or stop claiming that they do.

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet-
    Thank you for saying that some of One Demand has some merit.

    How aboot it, CW? is there ANYTHING aboot One Demand that in your opinion has any merit?

    Could it work- if not, why not?

    What is good aboot it (if anything) and what isn't good (if anything)?

    Simple, reasonable questions deserving of a reasonable answer.

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And thanks to Michale for taking some time off as people like Kick need someone to attack and with Michale not here it increase discussion on One Demand.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    So a Republican President and a Republican Senate managed to confirm a Republican judge who is tainted and should be subject to an impeachment for lying to the Senate to completely undermine his legitimacy, even though the impeachment will fail (Bengahzi!!!! strikes back).

    The fundies now have their abortion-ready SCOTUS and I'm sure they have a nice test case lined up. Let's see the damage as the Republicans impale themselves on the promise they've hoped not to be able to deliver on since the late 1970's when Carter integrated schools and they lost their marbles.

    The new symbol for the GOP will be an elephant dragging a chain of bloody coat hangers.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    58

    Apparently you do not understand the difference between spamming and posting an opinion and offering information on a political idea.

    Offering information? Don, your handiwork above on this commentary is spamming and trolling; apparently it's you who doesn't understand the difference.

    You can post comments where you wish that CW would ban people that you don't agree with from posting comments.

    I didn't ask CW to ban anyone from posting comments whether I agreed with them or not, and your BS I quoted directly above is a gross mischaracterization regarding my "One Wish" that near daily solicitations and trolling of the author be made via his email versus the comments section of his blog.

    As for Listen's comment that there is no demand for One Demand which you have affirmed as somehow being valid, it is technically correct- but just plain stupid.

    If we are "technically correct," then how is my affirmation "somehow" valid? <--- rhetorical question.

    So you, Russ, and I agree that there is "no demand" for "One Demand." Progress at last.

    And that is the very reason why I keep encouraging and cajoling CW to write aboot it and complain when he doesn't.

    *cue music*
    You say "encouraging" and we say "spamming"
    You say "cajoling" and we say "trolling"
    Encouraging, spamming, cajoling, trolling
    Let's call the whole thing off. <--- sung to the tune of

    The only way that statement would be valid is if people knew aboot it and did not want it.

    You and I and Russ are people, and we've agreed there is "no demand."

    50% of eligible voters know aboot the Democrats and Republicans and have shown they do not want either by not voting in off year elections.

    Have you considered they know about the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, and others and want nothing to do with them either? Have you considered they're apathetic and don't care who gets elected?

    These citizens obviously want something other than the Big Money Democrats and Republicans.

    These citizens aren't voting for Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, et alia either. Have you considered they don't want "something other than" and don't care who gets elected regardless of Party? Despite your seeming belief otherwise, there are more than two political parties in America, although admittedly the majority of Americans that choose to vote tend to choose either a Democratic or a Republican candidate. This, of course, is less factual in parts of the North and Northeast.

    The only way to find out if they might want One Demand is if they find out that it exists.

    You and I and Russ know it exists, and we've agreed there is "no demand."

    And CW writing aboot it is one way for that to happen. And no matter what else I or anyone else does or doesn't do it makes no difference to whether or not CW should write aboot it.

    I wholly and wholeheartedly disagree with you there. I believe if there was some kind of demand for "One Demand," it would be far more likely that CW would or "should" write about it. As we've established, you and I and Russ agree there is "no demand." I believe you believe CW is your ticket to whip up demand for your "One Demand;" however, I believe the fact of the matter is that CW would be infinitely more likely than not to write about your "One Demand" if there was some kind of demand other than the "no demand" that we agree currently exists.

    CW is a journalist and a journalist provides information. A journalist that has information and does not provide that information is not being an honest journalist. And a journalist that claims to be covering reality should cover all reality or stop claiming that they do.

    The fund to defeat Susan Collins in 2020 is fast approaching their current goal. You go raise close to $3,500,000 and climbing for your political venture, and I would wager CW will write about it without your near daily solicitation, spamming, and trolling.

    Again, you and I and Russ have agreed there is "no demand" for "One Demand." Perhaps that is exactly why, among other reasons, that CW feels no need to discuss it, and that's on you to change and not remotely on him. :)

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    60

    And thanks to Michale for taking some time off as people like Kick need someone to attack and with Michale not here it increase discussion on One Demand.

    Oh, Don, how sad that you believe someone is "attacking" you because they disagree with your spamming and trolling the comments section and the author of CW.com near daily with your personal solicitations.

    I don't need someone to attack, Don. I simply agreed with Russ and added my own thoughts to his comment. It's not remotely the first time I've agreed with Russ and made a comment regarding one of his posts, and I can assure you it won't be the last. It's also not the first time I've made similar comments regarding "One Demand," and I can assure you it won't be the last either... regardless of who is or is not commenting on the board at the time. :)

  64. [64] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    According to Univ. of Texas' KUT dot org, as of Oct 5:
    "So far, 91 percent of eligible voters have already registered."

    This article, http://www.kut.org/post/93-percent-eligible-voters-travis-county-are-track-register-modern-record , quotes the county registrar as forecasting 93% will do so by the registration deadline. Count on Republicans to challenge sources of registration.

    While Travis County, dominated by Austin, can never be confused with the rest of Texas, to say nothing of the nation at large, this does indicate the sort of civic intensity, and community organizing, that has been aroused, and may be more pronounced than detected in polls or reporting.

    It doesn't look like Beto should be counted out just yet.

  65. [65] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    P.S. As of end 2017, Travis Co. population was 1.2 million, and, for Texas as whole, 28.3 million.

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    If what I am doing is spamming and trolling then CW would put a stop to it.

    As CW has made his decision that it is not spamming or trolling, whether you agree or not in this forum it is not spamming or trolling.

    I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

    But I'm glad we agree that opinions as your wish only referred to spamming and trolling which by definition in this forum I am not doing.

    It was not your affirmation that was not valid in that sentence, it was Listen's comment. An understandable mistake on your part.

    You ,Russ and I are three people. I was obviously referring to the millions of people that do not know aboot it. Not an understandable mistake on your part. More like purposely playing stupid.

    But with you, Russ and I there is 33% of those polled that DO want One Demand. :D

    Why does there have to be demand for an idea before it is discussed or entered into the public forum?

    The idea itself regardless of whether only one person supports it is information. A journalist is supposed to inform citizens aboot ideas.

    The idea is real whether you like it, agree with it or care aboot it. CW claims to be a reality based blog. Ignoring part of reality is not covering reality.

    Perhaps you are right aboot CW not writing aboot One Demand because it has no support. Perhaps you are wrong.

    Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a suggestion, going forward …

    There seems to be quite a number of posted comments here that contain little else than personal insults directed toward fellow Weigantians which might have been discarded on sober second thought or re-phrased.

    For the record, it's okay to make negative comments about what people post so long as you are not engaging in the always boring personal attacks.

    Hope that was clear as mud. Ahem.

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    CW actually did specifically request for you to limit your solicitation posts to one per comments section, until and unless someone else decided to take up the topic with you first. to my knowledge he's never taken that step with anyone else; not even michale has managed to be sufficiently redundant to elicit that response from our host. yet comments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17 in this comments section are in direct violation of that request, as they all occurred prior to russ's response.

    i find your lack of faith disturbing.

    https://youtu.be/F1xAUfdK9FE
    ;)
    JL

  69. [69] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [68] @ D. M,

    Game, set and match. nyp …

    That's that then. So glad that's cleared up.

    ...waiting to hear "clean up on aisle Trump" again, feels like eons since his last outrage.

    LL&P

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who's D.M.?

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dave Mason?

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Yes, CW suggested what you said. I then responded and said I should be able to respond to indirect comments also and pointed out I pretty much already met those conditions. CW agreed.

    14 and 17 fit under this so were not a violation.

    While I could have posted the other comments as one long comment, I decided to post a separate response for each talking point. As each comment was a response to each talking point, that puts those comments in a grey area.

    CW will need to clarify.

    But as CW has still not responded when I did what he asked and have been accused of spamming and trolling even though I did what he said I could do, I really don't care how CW rules on the grey area.

    Excellent clip, though.

    It seemed that Darth Vader was choking the other person preventing him from being able to breathe or speak. Were you trying to compare CW to Darth Vader?

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dolly Madison?

    Yeah, another violation- ON PURPOSE!!!!

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I am pretty sure D.M. was referring to me. And based on JYC's commenting history I assume D.M. was a typo and did not stand for dumb motherfucker.

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JTC (69)-
    Are you saying you miss Michale?

    I thought commenters here would miss Michale like I miss my ex-wife.

    I miss her- but my aim is getting better. :D

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Probably not scoring any brownie points with the MeToo Movement with that last joke.

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    If what I am doing is spamming and trolling then CW would put a stop to it.

    He did.

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    As CW has made his decision that it is not spamming or trolling, whether you agree or not in this forum it is not spamming or trolling.

    Link to that decision by CW, please.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

    I suggest that you pound sand.

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    But I'm glad we agree that opinions as your wish only referred to spamming and trolling which by definition in this forum I am not doing.

    Me neither.

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    no, i'm comparing me to darth vader, i just thought vader would be nicer than what i really want to say.

    good humor is neither good nor humor, discuss.

    JL

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    It was not your affirmation that was not valid in that sentence, it was Listen's comment. An understandable mistake on your part.

    I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    You, Russ and I are three people. I was obviously referring to the millions of people that do not know aboot it. Not an understandable mistake on your part.

    I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (77)-
    He did? Not factually accurate.

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    More like purposely playing stupid.

    About the Founder
    Don Harris

    I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system.

    "Playing stupid" (your term) is infinitely preferable to your condition as defined by you.

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (78)-
    No.

    Asa you seem to be able find my past comments when it suits your purpose you canlook it up yourself.

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    But with you, Russ and I there is 33% of those polled that DO want One Demand. :D

    We already agreed there is "no demand" for "One Demand."

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (79)-
    Testy this morning, aren't we?

    What the matter, you run out Prozac?

  89. [89] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (80)-
    While I'm sure you could find a comment in the past where I did respond to your accusation that I was spamming and/or trolling by saying you were trolling, you might also find a comment by you where you said you would troll me because I was in your opinion trolling CW's blog.

    But I made no such claim in this thread.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    Why does there have to be demand for an idea before it is discussed or entered into the public forum?

    Again, you're mischaracterizing what I said by the use of questions. Here, let me explain it in terms that a guy with "no degrees," "no years of running a successful business," "no experience in political campaigns or activism," and an "average person" could understand -- again, all your definitions of yourself (not mine).

    Political journalists cover the political news and discuss what's happening... not what's not happening.

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (82)-
    How could that be considered false in any forum?

    Listen's comment is the subject of "valid" in that sentence.

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    The idea itself regardless of whether only one person supports it is information. A journalist is supposed to inform citizens aboot ideas.

    Says who?
    _____________________

    The above comment is dedicated to Mikey Cohen, a very nice addition to the "Mueller Snitch Hunt Choir." A capella, Mikey. :)

  93. [93] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (83)-
    How could that be considered false in any forum?

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (85)-
    Perhaps you are not playing stupid.

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    The idea is real whether you like it, agree with it or care aboot it.

    If CW writes about "One Demand," I know a 3-year-old who's going to insist on equal time for their political lemonade stand. You pay $200 for a glass of lemonade and then go vote for Don Lemon. It's better than your "One Demand" because people get refreshed, and Don Lemon might... big might... get elected somewhere like Dixville Notch.

    After CW writes about the political lemonade stand, I have a campaign to rename Dixville Notch. It's called "Turn Dixville Into Dicksville." It's a real idea.

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Probably not scoring any brownie points with the HeToo Movement with that last joke.

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Mischaracterizing what you said by asking a legitimate question?

    Well, let me "mischaracterize" your explanation of what political journalists do by saying that you are basically saying in your answer for why there has to be demand for an idea to be discussed or entered into the public forum is that is the way it is.

    But that doesn't explain why it is how it is.

    "Mommy, why do I have to be a slave?"
    "Because that the way it is."

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (92)-
    I do.

    At the risk of mischaracterizing you with a question:

    Why is an idea itself not information if only one person supports it?

    Because that's the way it is?

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    200 dollars for a glass of lemonade seems a bit extreme- even for that cup in the Geico commercial.

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    While I could have posted my comments as one long comment, I decided to post a separate response for each talking point.

    And that makes it NOT spam.

    Next, I will be NOT trolling the author with my "real idea" for a political themed restaurant called "Bubba Trump."

    https://www.deviantart.com/dearrea/art/Bubba-Trump-Shrimp-co-693951489

  101. [101] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No, Ice Tea!

    (That's from the other lemonade stand Geico commercial.)

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops. The lemonade stand commercial in comment 99 is for NFL Sunday Ticket.

    My bad.

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is it about CW's blog - we lose one overactive spammer and the next pops up.

    Give it a rest Don, CW isn't going to promote OD for either the reasons we have been giving you for a couple of years or whatever; or he has other reasons of his own.

    Most of us have looked fairly at OD, given out feedback and constructive criticism, and now our patience is over. If you aren't going to listen any feedback, but start whining to/about us, it is over.

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    81

    good humor is neither good nor humor, discuss.

    *laughs* I'm getting verklempt.

    Best "Coffee Talk" eva: Mike Myers, Madonna, Roseanne Barr, and surprise guest

    https://youtu.be/oiJkANps0Qw?t=333

  105. [105] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    That should be:

    "...[in my opinion] we lose one overactive spammer..."

    Wonder what those other reasons might be and whether CW will not discuss One Demand for the reasons many of you have so generously provided.

    I have said CW doesn't have to promote it, just discuss it. Is CW promoting Trump when he writes aboot something Trump does or claims and then gives his opinion on that?

    There has been feedback- but the majority has not been constructive criticism.

    False accusations of spamming or claims that I demand that CW promote rather than discuss One Demand are a good example of that dynamic.

    I would like CW to promote it, but discussing it would still be okay.

    I believe that if he were to look at and discuss One Demand fairly (or objectively) that he might to decide to promote it.

  106. [106] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oh and "...and now our patience is over."

    TFB for you.

  107. [107] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I have a comment awaiting moderation. Maybe it's because I necessarily needed three links to make my point.

    On the other hand, if I'm on a troll watch list, all I can say is: a month from election day, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

  108. [108] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    "necessairly needed..." That's repetitively redundant, aint' it?

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    105

    I have said CW doesn't have to promote it, just discuss it.

    He already did. You want him to publish it under a title? I can picture it now:

    *wavy lines*
    *wavy lines*
    *wavy lines*

    "Average Person" with "No Degrees," "No Years of Running a Successful Business," "No Experience in Political Campaigns or Activism" Won't Stop Trolling Me to Discuss His "Real Idea"... "One" Should be Careful What They "Demand"

    My blog is dedicated to "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow. And I believe in both hitting politicians when they err as well as praising them when they do the right thing. For whatever motive, a vote is a vote in Congress.... But that's somehow not remotely good enough for you? Wow.

    Sure, money in politics is a problem. Sure, things could be better. There are indeed ideas for how to achieve these things (many of them, in fact, some more achievable than others). But only the most naïve would call for all other politics to essentially come to a grinding halt until such perfection is achieved. You advocate not just a litmus test, but sanctification, it seems.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/20/gops-swamp-creature-of-a-tax-bill/#comment-112608

    *wavy lines*
    *wavy lines*
    *wavy lines*

    Is CW promoting Trump when he writes aboot something Trump does or claims and then gives his opinion on that?

    He's generally disparaging Trump because Trump is a Giant Gaslighting Trolling Propagandizing Blowhole. You want the same treatment?

    I believe that if he were to look at and discuss One Demand fairly (or objectively) that he might to decide to promote it.

    I believe CW is doing you a favor by not publishing his opinion or discussing you and your "real idea." If you believe otherwise, then you are the true epitome of your stated credentials, those being "average person" with "no degrees," "no years of running a successful business," and "no experience in political campaigns or activism." :)

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ooh, scooby doo ending!

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Still playing stupid?

    "He already did." (discuss it)

    In your opinion.

    In my opinion CW did not discuss One Demand.

    In fact, in the very comment thread that you cite my comments 37 and 38 expose the inaccuracies aboot One Demand in his comment.

    So since CW did not respond to comments 37 and 38, his comment was a statement, not a discussion.

    Though it is possible that CW agreed with comments 37 and 38 and felt no further response was necessarily needed.

    Yes, CW is generally disparaging Trump when it is appropriate which is quite often.

    If CW could disparage One Demand without the distortions he would have done so already, so that doesn't worry me at all.

    But I DO want the same treatment of discussion.

    "If you believe otherwise... credentials...blah, blah, blah...."

    In my opinion (I believe) I have the only credentials that matter. I am a citizen and have an idea that could improve our political process.

    We both have our opinions and beliefs. I believe you have the right to state your opinions and beliefs even when you are obviously wrong, just spouting bullshit and/or playing stupid- all of which is more often than not.

  113. [113] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick- Still waiting for the explanation on why there has to be demand for an idea to be discussed and entered into the public forum.

    Must be that you have no answer.

    ...as always.

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Anyhow, two issues for which there is significant demand are healthcare and immigration. Getting back to cw's talking points, regression on preexisting conditions and immigration policies that don't kidnap toddlers and then deport their parents, both pretty good ideas for motivating voters.

  115. [115] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet (110, 111)-
    Thank you. Kick has certainly been exposed as a fraud.

  116. [116] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet (114)-
    More promises to deal with the symptoms of Big Money in our political process as an excuse to avoid having to deal with the cause of the problem of Big Money in our political process. Promises that are not believable to the 50% of citizens that do not vote in off year elections which motivates many of them to not vote.

    "Fool me once shame on you, fool twice....we won't get fooled again"
    -GWB

    Why are you still being fooled by such obvious bullshit?

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The International Association of Chiefs of Police love President Trump and all that he has done to bring down the violent crime rate and all that he will do to fix the problem in Chicago.

    Wake up if you think Trump will be finished on or before November 2020.

  118. [118] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [118] - Wake up if you think Trump will be finished on or before November 2020.

    I'd put that a little more proactively: Stay awake if you want Trump to be finished on or before November 2020.

    My observation in my moderated comment was, in a nutshell, this.

    When Strzok's gofundme launched, it was a done deal that it would raise its target. It's not there yet.

    When Collins voted on Saturday, it was a done deal the opposition's crowdpac would raise their target. It's not there yet.

    When rage at Grassley peaked on Saturday, it was a done deal they would raise their target. It's not there yet.

    Trump understands what's encoded in human DNA. Democrats rely what's in their minds.

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Democrats rely on what's in their minds.

    I can't say that gives me even a modicum of peace of mind.

    There was a time when I put all of my faith in the Mueller investigation. I don't anymore.

    I am afraid that … two things. Number one, Democrats won't go into the 2020 campaign with the strongest candidate and make no mistake - a strong candidate will be needed to beat Trump. Number two, the Democratic message will not be effectively communicated, let alone be the right message.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wake up if you think Trump will be finished on or before November 2020.

    Wake up if you think any president is "finished" on or before election day whether he wins or loses reelection. :)

  121. [121] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I can't say that gives me even a modicum of peace of mind.

    It shouldn't. Democrats may well choose Warren, a candidate whose main presidential qualification may be that she's a little taller, in heels, than Michael Dukakis.

    The only candidate who can win in 2020 is probably Biden. I agree with you that Gov. Moonbeam would be a good Veep, if he weren't about 112 or so in 2020. If Joe remains in good health, and adds Harris, he will be nearly unbeatable.

    But "NO!" will say the faithful. Because Anita Hill. Because he missed his turn. I have to be getting at 3 and I'm not ready. Continue later.

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, Kick, I realize the Jan 20th date.

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    See you later LB … more to discuss about Biden ...

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Kick, do you have anything to say about Biden?

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    122

    Yes, Kick, I realize the Jan 20th date.

    My answer wasn't at all meant to "zing" you regarding the date of inauguration... quite the contrary. My answer was meant to say that whether or not Trump wins or loses reelection in 2020, he and his spineless minions in Congress can still wreak quite a lot of damage to our democracy unless as many of them as possible are voted out of office... starting in 2018.

    In short: Vote them all out. :)

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    124

    So, Kick, do you have anything to say about Biden?

    My opinion of VP Biden remains intact.

    EM: I'll tell you what, no matter how much longer Trump remains in office, foreign policy and national security will have to be firmly in the wheelhouse of the next president of the United States...

    Again, I agree 100%. Do we perhaps know anyone who fits this description? Say it with me: Joseph Biden. I believe if Joe chooses to run in 2020, he should run on a platform that he will lead our country out of this quagmire and turn over the reins to the presidency after 2 years, with the proviso that his running mate be no older than 55. America needs Joe's experience, but she also needs to make way for a new generation of leaders. Republicans I would trust to lead this nation forward include John Kasich and Marco Rubio (with a big maybe as a qualifier), yet very few others as the GOP we once knew has given way to the Bannonites, nativists, Birthers, conspiracy nuts, white supremacists, paranoids, anti-science uneducateds, misogynists, isolationists, and others who have moved from the far-right fringes into the mainstream and have now taken over the Republican Party.

    I will take Biden/Booker [or Harris or similar younger candidate] in 2020 for the win... one can dream. :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/08/17/ftp496/#comment-124889

    LB is correct that the Kavanaugh confirmation process has cast a shadow on some old wounds from the Clarence Thomas confirmation process... but plenty of time to heal those -- I say hopefully. :)

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Does it have to be a similar younger choice for VP?

    I mean, I wouldn't want to eliminate a great pick based on age.

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Do you kmow what it was that people think Biden did wrong as chairman during the Thomas/Hill hearing? What could/should he have done differently?

    I haven't had time to do my own research on this ...

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just a last quick thought until later tonight …

    How does a Biden/Kasich ticket grab you.

    It would be just like Biden to choose a good Republican … you know, if Jerry Brown has had enough of public life.

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    127

    Does it have to be a similar younger choice for VP?

    Only if you wish to unite the older Democrats and left-leaning Independents who favor a centrist approach to governing with the younger Democrats and left-leaning Independents who favor more robust taxing and spending.

    I mean, I wouldn't want to eliminate a great pick based on age.

    I know you want Brown, EM, but two old white guys [no offense to JB and JB or old people or white guys] is exactly what the righties are likely to offer in 2020. Having said that, there's more than one way to unite a Party of diverse ideas to move the country forward, and I would vote for a shoe before I would vote for a Trumplican in 2020. ;)

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    129

    Just a last quick thought until later tonight …

    How does a Biden/Kasich ticket grab you.

    The candidate from the "magic state" where unicorns "boof" rainbows and a Republican hasn't won the presidency without winning that state? I would vote for that ticket in a heartbeat, and I would wager quite a lot of Republicans who have left the Trumplican Party would unite under that large tent. :)

    It would be just like Biden to choose a good Republican … you know, if Jerry Brown has had enough of public life.

    I believe it would be a wise choice, but that's because I'm a centrist Independent. On the other hand, it might alienate the lefties who would favor a younger running mate with more left-leaning ideas.

    So much time between now and then and a lot to play out, and I haven't lost faith in OSC Mueller because he's already flipped Flynn, Gates, Manafort, Mikey Cohen, and others. It's not easy to pierce the veil of attorney-client privilege unless an attorney and/or his client is involved in the furtherance of a crime or fraud, and Mueller has pierced it and flipped the attorney... and collected a million documents in the process. :)

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    I wonder if the righties who took issue with the Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton for half an hour in an airplane are as outraged with the Rod Rosenstein meeting with Donald Trump on Air Force One lasting multiple hours?

    I would wager they're hypocrites. :)

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    128

    Do you know what it was that people think Biden did wrong as chairman during the Thomas/Hill hearing? What could/should he have done differently?

    I haven't had time to do my own research on this …

    Oops... almost missed this question. Answer is very complicated and one of those "eye of the beholder" type issues depending on multiple factors.

    My best suggestion for now is to watch the HBO movie Confirmation… caveat being it's a product of Hollywood where historical events tend to become dramatized -- and set to musical soundtrack -- beyond the events as experienced in reality.

    https://confirmationhbo.com/?_ga=2.262568843.649241718.1539032014-776763365.1539032014

    There are some additional links with interesting videos and discussions there too. :)

  134. [134] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [132]

    I would wager they're hypocrites. :)

    Can you remember a time when they weren’t hypocrites???

    After I wrote that line, I stopped to consider if I should leave it because I typically dislike hyperbole....but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it wasn’t hyperbole! Seriously, I cannot recall the last time the GOP (as a party) has shown an ounce of integrity. It was well before 2007, that much I am sure. How incredibly sad is that?!?

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    You have good reason to expect the Democrats to nominate the wrong candidate, the Democratic message will not be effectively communicated and that the communication will not matter because it's the wrong message.

    It wouldn't be the first time. In fact, it's a bad habit that is spread throughout the party.

    But don't be afraid. To paraphrase a cartoon of an appropriate name:

    There's no need to fear- One Demand is here!

    (Sweet Polly Purebread would cover One Demand.)

  136. [136] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics so they already recognize the correlation between Big Money contributions and the behavior of the legislators that take the Big Money contributions.

    All legislators take Big Money by your standards. You have yet to demonstrate that the reason people do not vote is due to their hatred of Big Money. Yes, 80% may want Big Money out of politics, but you have absolutely no data to even suggest that if Big Money were removed, more people would choose to vote.

    Even many of the 40% that don't vote at all have a one time or another voted.

    This cracked me up. If you have voted at “one time or another”, then I am pretty sure you cannot claim to be someone who does not vote at all!

    And participation in One Demand in 2018 by citizens that would not otherwise vote does not accomplish nothing. It would get people that wouldn't vote to vote and would be a beginning of a process to bring about change. You know- BASIC DEMOCRACY!

    BASIC DEMOCRACY...as in the choice to not cast a vote? Oh HELL! They’ve been exercising their democratic freedom this whole time!

    Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending to be that stupid?

    I would love for OneDemand to accomplish all that you suggest is possible, the problem is that YOU aren’t doing anything to make it happen at the same you are yelling at CW for not promoting your idea for you!

    What exactly would CW report is happening with OneDemand? How many candidates have signed up? How many volunteers do you have lined up? What type of promotions have you lined up? I am “stupid” for recognizing that OneDemand has accomplished nothing and that it won’t ever accomplish anything unless YOU do something other than harass CW!

    You should rethink calling anyone “stupid” for pointing out the reality of the situation to you!

  137. [137] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [55 and countless others]

    Thanks and right back at ya! NoDemand is not even a well thought out concept, much less a legitimate non-profit organization! He is asking CW to write an article that will have nothing good to say, which benefits neither him nor CW in any way. I can only assume that he continues you to nag CW because it’s easier to do that than to actually put in the work himself and have it fail.

  138. [138] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [135] Give it a rest, Don. Becoming the new in-house troll isn't the stupidest idea you've had, but it's running a close second.

    [121] Democrats may well choose Warren, a candidate whose main presidential qualification may be that she's a little taller, in heels, than Michael Dukakis.

    Owch! Epic burn, man.

    Liz [129] You're beginning to get a bit like ol' Donnie-one-note on the Biden thing. Don't forget that we have 399 million 999 other citizens to choose from too. We don't necessarily have to go with King Lear. Kasich is a party hack, always has been. He just caught standing when the game of presidential candidate musical chairs ended in 2016.

  139. [139] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i didn't know mike dukakis wore heels... ;p

  140. [140] 
    Paula wrote:

    [129] Lis: Biden/Kasich - no, nope, nada.

    Kasich is my Governor. He presided over a massive scandal in which a privatized school company looted millions of Ohio dollars for sub-standard schools. He "plays" the centrist, but other than his correct action on ACA - he accepted expanded Medicare from the Feds - he has been a Republican. He's been useless with the opioid crisis. Since Blotus he's made some good disapproving statements but otherwise he's kept his head down. He's not a leader. His solutions to our Rust Belt woes have been - nothing. And he's had hacks working for him who've tried a couple different voter suppression schemes on his watch.

    I don't think Biden's gonna make it either but we'll see what happens. Biden's got some good qualities but, aside from a few speeches he's basically been MIA since Blotus. He has not been a Resistance Leader. He has not made me feel the least bit more confident we'll survive all this. In that sense he's been about the same as Bernie - uninspiring, unimpressive, helpful around the margins.

    I think the Dems on the Judiciary Committee stood out as putting up the most vigorous fight against Blotus and his GOP enablers to date and I could get behind some of those folks. Elizabeth Warren gets an honorable mention too - she's been more vocal and fearless than Bernie. There might be a few Dem Governors to consider. A lot hinges on whether we get the House next month - and if we get the Senate too -- we'll see more Dems be more aggressive.

  141. [141] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick. Balthy, Listen-
    I have provided a lot of indicators thaty show One Demand can work and that it is an important issue to many citizens, those that vote and those that don't always vote.

    For example, there was a survey with 16 or so issues including things that are often mentioned here as important issues that will attract voters to vote for Democrats.

    Getting Big Money out of politics was one of two issues that was in the top two on the majority of the lists respondents provided. (it's somewhere back in the comments- you can look it up)

    Don't you ever get tired of your cacoPHONY of bullshit claims that you just keep repeating no matter how many times they are refuted?

    Do you only have the ability to act like children or can you really discuss what One Demand actually is like adults?

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I'll defer to you on Governor Kasich.

    And, as much as I would like to see Biden prove the old adage that the third time is the charm, I doubt he'll run. I still think he is the best antidote to Trump.

    Is there any Republican out there who you think would be a good choice for Biden, should he decide to run and get the support he deserves?

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Oh, you better get used to seeing Biden's name in my comments going forward, at least until he declares his non-candidacy. And, even then, I'm pretty sure he'll come up in one way or another.

    Advocating for Biden is the whole reason, after all, that I got involved in this blog and one or two others in the first place, don'tcha know. :)

  144. [144] 
    Paula wrote:

    The ONLY Repub that doesn't nauseate me at the moment might be the Repub Governor of Maryland who has been very liberal and is popular in an otherwise blue state.

    It's important to remember Blotus is where he is because the Republican Party actively supports him. And members of the party have been busily doing dirty things for years to set the stage for this. They have betrayed all the "values" they claim define them to the extent they've just put a sex-offender on SCOTUS. They have a lot to answer for so the idea of some kind of unity ticket like that does not appeal to me at all.

  145. [145] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [139] didn't know mike dukakis wore heels...

    AFAIK, he didn't. But maybe if he had, instead of that stupid helmet, he might have carried a couple more states and lost by less than 300 electoral votes.

    [140] Biden's got some good qualities

    For some reason, I remember when I was talked into Biden's presidential qualifications and political acumen. It was by an AP reporter the night of the 2008 GA primary, at the Vortex bar on Peachtree in Atlanta. He made the case that among all the Dems in the primaries, only Biden and Obama were electable, and Biden was by far the more qualified. We agreed, though, that he had no chance in the primaries, and if the Democratic Party had any political sense, they'd nominate Obama. Neither one of us thought that Biden would be chosen to be VP, though.

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LeaningBlue,

    Neither one of us thought that Biden would be chosen to be VP, though.

    I was advocating for Biden since he announced his candidacy on Meet The Press in 2005 and to anyone who would listen.

    Once he withdrew from the race on a point of personal privilege immediately following the disastrous Iowa caucuses (disastrous for Biden, phenomenal for Obama), I began advocating for Biden to be on the ticket with Obama and often stated that he was on the short list of one. No one else would do.

    So, with respect to predictions on Biden and tickets, I'm batting about 500.

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Thanks for the link - let me know if you come across anything else!

  148. [148] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I began advocating for Biden to be on the ticket with Obama and often stated that he was on the short list

    I thought it should have been Richardson. But, that's mainly because I've felt for a long time that the best way to overcome the problem of Hispanic turnout is with a Spanish speaker to convince the youngsters to take the risk to turn out and to understand their collective interest is to turn into Democrats.

    That, by the way, is why I think Beto is not totally out of the question as a '20 VP, assuming he beats Cruz due to turnout of new voters, particularly Hispanic. (Not top of ticket, because he's not presidential. Yet. But he sure can skateboard, and deliver a speech to a friendly crowd, in either of two languages.)

  149. [149] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Okay, it's late, and soon I'm at risk of turning into a pumpkin. Or, perhaps, a mutantly large persimmon, which is visually indistinguishable from a pumpkin. Good night.

    And, michale, if you are lurking out there, watch out for this hurricane. This thing is going to run over 85 degree water, is facing diminishing wind shear, and it's not inconceivable that it hits as cat 4.

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    140

    Kasich is my Governor. He presided over a massive scandal in which a privatized school company looted millions of Ohio dollars for sub-standard schools.

    Nice post. Sadly, Kasich is allegedly one of the only decent Republicans left... so disappointing.

    Since Blotus he's made some good disapproving statements but otherwise he's kept his head down. He's not a leader. His solutions to our Rust Belt woes have been - nothing. And he's had hacks working for him who've tried a couple different voter suppression schemes on his watch.

    Different in rhetoric only? Ugh.

    I don't think Biden's gonna make it either but we'll see what happens.

    I think Biden's age is going to severely hinder him. The only way I can see him getting the nomination is a "passing the torch" type scenario since people want to vote for someone they believe will be alive to serve. Still, I think Biden is easily the most qualified person on the planet to clean up the Trump stench. :)

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    147

    Will do.

  152. [152] 
    Paula wrote:

    [150] Kick: Still, I think Biden is easily the most qualified person on the planet to clean up the Trump stench.

    Why?

    I get that he's an elder statesman and basically good guy and that he was Veep. But he - and, sadly, Obama - were ineffective in dealing with the Repubs up to and including allowing Mitch McConnell to threaten them out of revealing Russian interference in the election.

    Pretty much all the top Dems underestimated/misunderstood the severity of GOP rot or the genuine threat they represented. Furthermore, a lot of long serving Dems are nostalgic about past comity in the Senate during which they politely laid down for Repubs to walk over them. Not always, but often. Chris Coons went on TV to wax enthusiastic about Jeff Flake's agonizing over Kavanaugh - only to have Flake flake as usual. I like Chris Coons and, had Flake voted 'no' I'd have called it a "win" for Chris Coons. But now I see it as a "Lucy with the Football" and that rules Chris out for top job.

    I want someone who's been very largely informed by this crisis, not people who want to go back to something that is irretrievably broken. Dems coming are going to need to make a lot of changes and turn a lot of what used to be "tradition" into laws.

    I also want someone younger who may not have spent quite so many years being comfortable. However well-meaning, rich folks in Washington never have the urgency for problems that bedevil un-rich Americans.

    I think our older Dems are priceless resources for us and can help rebuild the democracy. But I don't want one at the top.

  153. [153] 
    Paula wrote:

    Liz asks if there's a Repub I could get behind. I thought of one, provisionally: Robert Mueller. But that depend on what he delivers and HOW he delivers it since GOP will do everything they can to suppress his findings.

    And so much hinges on the midterms.

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    152

    Why?

    Biden is the most qualified because he's got the most experience in domestic and foreign policy bar none. He's has first-hand experience dealing with world leaders who are still in power and have been for decades. There's no learning curve that exists with a guy like Biden.

    I get that he's an elder statesman and basically good guy and that he was Veep. But he - and, sadly, Obama - were ineffective in dealing with the Repubs up to and including allowing Mitch McConnell to threaten them out of revealing Russian interference in the election.

    Hindsight is 20/20, but it doesn't rob a person of their experience and their contacts with other world leaders. Biden could hit the ground running and start cleaning up the Trump stench without the necessity of going through a learning curve.

    I want someone who's been very largely informed by this crisis, not people who want to go back to something that is irretrievably broken.

    They're all informed now, and there is no going back. The Republican Party as we knew it is gone. That's why you're seeing more and more people leaving the party as decision time nears. They're out.

    I also want someone younger who may not have spent quite so many years being comfortable. However well-meaning, rich folks in Washington never have the urgency for problems that bedevil un-rich Americans.

    You want Beto! :)

    I think our older Dems are priceless resources for us and can help rebuild the democracy. But I don't want one at the top.

    I hear you, but remember: I'm simply stating that Biden is the most qualified to clean up the Trump stench. I'm also the one saying I don't think Biden can win unless he has a younger running mate and promises to hit the ground running, clean up the Trump stench, and then pass the torch after 2 years to his Vice President. It's the only way I believe he can win. Otherwise, he's not likely to secure the nomination so it won't matter. Whoever wins the nomination -- and hopefully the job -- had better have Clinton (both of them), Richard Clarke, Obama, Biden, etc. on speed dial; they're going to need them. :)

Comments for this article are closed.