Tag: Politics

By on

I know some people who think that Biden bowing out of the election is a bad thing. I think it is genius.

First, and most importantly, what party is now stuck with an aging candidate who often borders on the incoherent. Biden was bad in the debate, but if incoherence is a problem, and I do, then Trump managed to look against Biden because he was marginally more coherent.

Now that Biden is out of the race, all eyes will turn to Trump, and he is a handful. He says whatever the hell he wants to which is what his supporters like about it. It also carries a risk. Often Trump is notoriously undisciplined. He says whatever is on his mind, unfortunately for Trump, this is often ill thought out and incoherent.

So what do you do if you have a troublesome candidate. Well, the Democrats just showed you. Party leaders have to come in, deliver the bad news to the candidate and change course. Contrary to some of the commentary out there, particularly the Republicans — this is a good thing. It is to Biden’s credit that he understood what these leaders were saying and acted on it. No doubt it was an unpleasant experience for everyone involved. But it was done and, for the most part, done well. Biden understood the message and acted on it. There was something more important than Biden running and that was Democrats winning.

Trump, on the other hand, won’t listen to anyone. He routinely ignores advice from his lawyers and his fellow Republicans. Trump has travelled unbelievably far on his brash personality but this very brashness has also created a lot of the problems for him. Sometime it is best just best to keep your mouth shut. Trump can’t do this even if it is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This reveals Trump’s greatest weakness. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else in the room and if someone’s advice doesn’t match up to what he wants to do, he does what he wants to do. So therefore there is no influence on him other than yes men. Quite a bit of Trump’s time is spent cleaning up his own messes.

This was fine when Trump was matched with Biden. Now Trump has a new opposition candidate who will be a younger and more energetic candidate. Presumably, Kamala Harris, but most anyone will do. She will not be having senior moments. She will also be better at listening to advice from senior Democratic advisors which already gives her a leg up on Trump who doesn’t. A 78 year old man isn’t likely to change anytime soon

I don’t think this means Harris is going to handily defeat Trump. It is still a close election. The good news is that the Republicans are more locked into their candidate than the Democrats. The dynamic of the election has changed significantly with Harris and Trump is still pretty tied up in his present behavior.

By on

Elon Musk announced his intentions to give $45 million a month to a pro-Trump Super Pac. If he is true to his word, he will, at least, contribute $180 million to the Trump campaign before the election.

Think about it. He has an extra $180 million free dollars to contribute to an election campaign. This is a fairly large sum of money in anyone’s books. Unlike most people, his donation will not be missed in the least bit. He has billions so it doesn’t matter to him if he loses $180 million dollars.

If Trump wins, there is no way that Trump could pay off Musk other than through favors. Even the best person would have difficultly saying no to a man who gave you $180 million and Trump is far from being the best person. To be fair to Trump, in his crooked understanding of wealth, he probably thinks there is nothing wrong with billionaires draining the public trough any way but this makes it ridiculously easy for him to say yes.

More importantly, if Musk has this amount of money, why not divide it among his own employees instead of investing in a political campaign. $180 million divided among the employees of Tesla and Instagram would bring real benefits to his own employees, encourage other rich people to do the same and it spreads the wealth around a bit to people who can then make campaign contributions of their own.

Musk is free to use this money in any way he wanted yet he choose to use this money to support a political action committee. With all his billions, he would rather gamble with a political candidate that may lose than giving more money to his own employees. Spreading the wealth this way would also give some political power to his employees. Now, because he is such a generous leader, these employees might follow his lead and contribute to the pro-Trump Pac or they may choose to give to the Democrats but it wouldn’t be one man using this money to gain more political leverage.

But Musk would much rather spin the wheel with Trump. To get what exactly? More billions? This disproves this oft repeated notion that billionaires will do the right thing with their money if only left alone. Musk would much rather keep the money which also keeps the political power this money can provide strictly within his hands.

If the government took only half of the $180 million, Musk would still have $90 million to contribute to Trump. Wouldn’t it be good for Musk to help pay off the national debt the Republicans are so worried about and it wouldn’t be a bit of a problem for Musk because he wasn’t planning to put the money back into his business and creating in the first place. Win Win, I say.

By on

The Media’s coverage of Trump’s assassination attempt gives a prime example of what is wrong with the media. They immediately reported the assassination attempt with the announcement when it happened. While this is a good start, it is also, sadly, the high point of the day for reporting on what is actually going on. Then there is a lot of nothing because the news is so fresh that there is no new information. The cops are busy with the problem at hand, but for be it for Media to let something as minor as a lack of information to stop them from talking.

Thus begins the endless repetition of the video of the assassination attempt — showing it as it actually happened, showing it in slow motion, trying to determine if they can figure out anything new with this frequent viewing of the video. They rarely can. So then they interview people who were there and they know little that is new and their stories are remarkably similar. This leads to bringing in experts who then review the videos of the assassination attempt in order to find something new to talk about. they rarely do. Then one interview is interrupted by another interview of someone who is slightly more important than the present interviewee in the hopes that this new person, because they are more important, knows something new. They don’t.

Stuck with a captive audience and nothing to say, the Media then begins to report on what famous people are saying about the assassination attempt. It starts out reasonable enough. We have to tone down the political attacks. Know that in a democracy, our political opponents are good citizens with different opinions and not our enemies. Talking heads shake their heads in agreement about the sad state of political affairs. This isn’t the way the USA should operate. We all agree.

But that doesn’t stop one of the famous people from saying something controversial because the best way to get another call from the Media the next time is to be able to supply interesting sound bites that bring in viewers. The best sound bites are controversial, so eventually some famous person, who doesn’t know anything about the assassination attempt, is going to speculate about some conspiracy or another.

So now other famous people and experts are talking about conspiracies based on no credible evidence other than famous people talking about conspiracy theories. So the Media, purely in the interest of getting the truth out, must report on the conspiracy even though, as far as verifiable information is concerned, the Media has learned nothing new and certainly nothing that would suggest a conspiracy. But why should that stop people from speculating.

The urgency to fill empty air time is more important than the accuracy of information. Keep the audience watching at all costs. Ironically, after dozens of political leaders urging to tone down the rhetoric and the public knowing little more than they did on Saturday, the air is rife with speculation and anger. Fingers are carelessly pointing this way and that. Fortunately, the ever present Media is there analyzing and reporting on this sad sad situation and wondering how did it come to this awful state.

By on

The thing that frightens me most since Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance is the number of Democrats who think Joe Biden is the only Democrat who can beat Donald Trump.

I like Joe Biden, I do. But he isn’t a particularly strong candidate. He has ran for President numerous times and never got past the early primaries. Barrack Obama rescued him from obscurity when he made Biden his Vice-Presidential candidate which left him the highest ranking Democrat eligible for the presidency after Hillary Clinton, another sure thing, by the way, lost. He is old and a visibly frailer man than he was in 2020 which shouldn’t be a particularly surprising circumstance for 81 year old man.

So Biden, this not particularly strong candidate, is the best that the Democrats got to run against the demented Donald Trump. Trump who has serious problems putting together a coherent sentence, who has no real agenda other than his own personal grievances and lining his pocket, who has a history of questionable business practices, a man who can say something one moment and deny that he ever said in the next breath, a man who is publicly on the grift to oil company executives, a man who has little grasp on the complex problems facing this country, a man that many members of his own party can’t bring themselves to vote for, this is the man so powerful that only Joe Biden can beat?

If Joe Biden is the only solution to the Donald Trump problem then the Democrats have a much bigger problem than a fragile Joe Biden. They had four years to line up suitable opponents for Trump and yet they decided to prop up an old man and hope for the best. This reveals a party with a lack of confidence in itself and unprepared for the future. Seriously, if the Democrats can’t beat an idiot like Donald Trump with any number of alternate candidates than politics might not be the best profession for them to be in.

By on

The only question I care about right now is can Joe Biden beat Donald Trump. If he can, I don’t care what physical and mental shape Joe Biden is in. You can also see the problem with this position. If Joe Biden is unable to put all his energies into campaigning for the presidency, how is he going to beat Donald Trump?

A candidate for office is required to give speeches, debate, travel the country, shake hands and kiss babies. This involves a lot of mental and physical energy. Can Biden muster the energy for the long days on the campaign trail necessary to win what will be a close race for the presidency? If he can’t, he must go.

People argue that his debate performance was just one bad night. It isn’t fair to dump a man based on one night. I am afraid it is. A candidate can have a mediocre night and carry on but a terrible night is unforgivable. This is what distinguishes a championship performance from just regular guy performance. A champion will have an off night and still fight through it to look OK and maybe even win the night. Biden had a terrible night.

What about all the lies Trump told. His performance wasn’t much better than Biden’s So what? It isn’t the first time Trump lied and it won’t be the last. Biden should have vigorously attacked those lies. Blaming the moderators for not fact checking Trump is a little lame when Biden, who is actually running for office and has a chance to challenge the lies, fails to do so. Indeed, that is the whole reason Biden was on the stage — to challenge Trump. Why didn’t he?

Then, there are those who say Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. Huh? Are people looking at the same poll numbers I am looking at. And look, if Biden were ahead in the polls, and was going to win reelection, I would vote for Biden if he was in a coma. But that isn’t the case. He is in a close election and, right now he is running behind. The fact is he is getting further behind with each passing day. How exactly is Biden going to change that dynamic?

There needs to be a reality check here on the President. He has served well and I like the man. But he is going into a job interview and he needs to show his best self on a fairly regular basis. A mediocre day can be forgiven, a bad day can not.

Unfortunately for Biden, staying in the race is only going to make his situation worse. The Republicans and the Media will scrutinize his every word, his every stumble, and will keep asking can Biden run the country. His every performance will be studied for gaffs and his message, and more importantly the Democratic Party’s message, will be lost.

If this is truly an important election then the Democrats need to step up and show they are interested in winning. Sticking with a man who is behind in the polls, performing terribly on the stump and has to be in bed by 8PM does not bode well for beating Trump. Then, what choice do the Democrats have than to dump Joe Biden?

By on

More polls are coming out on the 2024 presidential election and pundits everywhere are trying to explain what they mean. This might be a useful exercise if the polls weren’t so damn depressing. But they are depressing. No matter what polls come out, it points to a close election with Biden behind in all the states that need to be won for a Biden victory. It doesn’t really matter why at this point. What matters is can Biden change this in time to win the election. I see no evidence of this.

Nate Silver was looking at the polls and had some interesting thoughts about what to do. The Democrats seem committed to a strategy that insures a close election particularly in regards to the Electoral College. Silver sees the most likely scenario for a Biden win is Biden with 270 Electoral Votes(the minimum number needed to win) and Trump with 268. This result has numerous potential for election stealing complaints with all of the contingent problems those complaints would bring. The better question is there an option?

Obviously, a different candidate might help. But isn’t this a roll of the dice when Biden, at least, has a chance of winning? It is. This, however, misses the point. As Silver noted the Democrats are already rolling the dice with Biden. He isn’t a sure thing and numerous things could get worse with a Biden candidacy and very little can get better. If the Democrats are going to roll the dice, why not roll it on a different candidate that could shake things up for Trump because Biden, at least as of this date, isn’t.

By on

New polls are showing Trump still leading Biden in a close race. Democrats are saying not worry though because Biden leads with likely voters as opposed to registered voters. I guess I shouldn’t worry then, right? Because these experts are never wrong, right? Well, if you ignore President Al Gore and President Hillary Clinton. Somehow I don’t find this comforting because, and I am just speculating here, what if some of those registered voters turn into actual voters. It could happen. Registered voters could actually turn out and vote.

The lack of energy on the Democratic side is disheartening. It is like the election is all wrapped up. They are confident that Trump will do something that will ruin his chances and everything will be just fine. They mean, of course, something like a videotape of Trump talking about grabbing unwilling women by the pussy. Yes that should work, absolutely. Nobody could vote for him after saying something like that. Waiting for Trump to make a mistake or to get convicted of a felony is a terrible strategy. It puts Trump in the driver seat. He has been successfully milking his grievances to get his way for years. I don’t understand it and I don’t like it but it is nonetheless true.

Even more disheartening is Biden doesn’t seem up to the vigorous campaign required for someone is such a tight election. He has disappeared. I challenge you to go to any news web site and check the number of times the name Trump is mentioned with the name Biden. It isn’t even close. Trump is always in the public eye. Yes, a lot of it is bad press but it is press and a lot of people either don’t understand the arguments against Trump or don’t care. We are, after all, talking about low information voters. Either way, the name Trump is on everyone’s lips — friend or foe, Biden not so much.

Surprisingly for a man who needs to change people’s minds about his age, Biden is doing remarkably little to do it. Protecting Biden from public view is a terrible idea. Better that he is bumbling around in front of a camera than hidden away in the White House. Could he do any worse than falling asleep at a trial which hasn’t seemed to hurt Trump in the least. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden. They are both old men. Right now Trump appears to be the more energetic of the two. If there are people who care about this, and, by that, I mean low information voters, then Biden needs to meet the challenge. Isn’t it better to get him out there in order to test the old fellow to see how he does? If he is up to then I am fine with sticking with him. If he isn’t, I would rather discover this now than in August after the Democratic Convention when the die is cast.

But telling me not to worry and trust that the Democratic big wigs know what they are talking about and this is in the bag is madness. True bat shit craziness. Before I can trust you with your speculations, you need to show you can turn things around. Biden’s continuing stagnant poll numbers misses the mark by a mile.

I am worried.

By on

Some wise guy tricked George Santos into congratulating NAMBLA on their anniversary. NAMBLA is an acronym for North American Man/Boy Love Association which promulgates pederasty. Santos, like billions of other people, didn’t know that. Instead of checking on what it meant, he carelessly and stupidly went through with the congratulatory video. What an idiot. Let’s point our fingers at him and laugh. Let’s put it on line and tell everyone about it. Bumbling George did it again.

Sorry, but I am missing the humor of this prank. First, Santos is a lying narcissist who seems willing to do anything to get attention and pretty dim about how to act appropriately. He disgraced himself and the Congress. For this he deserves all the mud slung in his direction. On the other hand, he has fallen and I don’t believe there is anyone left willing to help him up. He is down on the ground and likely to stay there. If the video does anything, it proves that Santos has learned nothing during the past year to help him make better decisions.

That he is still making mistakes shouldn’t be a surprise and to trick him into saying something stupid doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult task to accomplish. He seems mentally ill to me so his continued pursuit of attention, even when it makes him look like an idiot, is pathetic and sad. Goading a mentally unstable person into continuing his self-destructive behavior is mean spirited and unnecessary.

By on

Anti-Israel Protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge causing a traffic snarl in the Bay area. Google employees who disagreed with their company’s contracts with Israel stormed and occupied the suites of top executives. Other than bringing publicity to their cause, these demonstrations seem largely ineffective at changing minds. The major sentiment for people on the other side of the protest is irritation. Why are these people fucking with my day?

There is this notion, particularly on the left, that these brave souls are sacrificing themselves for the greater good. Take it to the streets and when the people see this massive show of popular sentiment, they will join the fight. That this rarely happens is beside the point. There is always the dream that this time it will work.

Demonstrations, contrary to popular thinking, are anti-democratic. Just because I can get 100,000 people marching for my cause, everyone else who isn’t marching must agree and you must do whatever I ask. The problem is that there was million or more people who failed to show up. What exactly is their position? At best, they might agree but don’t think it is important enough to take it to the streets or, at worst, they disagree and find you an irritation. Their opinion is unknown. The only way, at least in a country with democratic processes, is an election. Until then,why should any government change their position based on a couple thousand people stopping traffic.

The underlying fear in large demonstrations is the threat of violence. There are many people in the streets, some of them might be willing to resort to violence, governments might then decide to pacify the crowd by changing their position. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent for any government, left or right, to take.

For example, January 6. A small number of angry demonstrators occupied the congress because they were disappointed in how the democratic processes turned out. They too felt that their numbers had to be acknowledged, that by showing their numbers to legislators that the government will change its position and give the protesters what they want because if you don’t, there are millions of other Americans just waiting for the word from these patriots and this could mean violence all over the country. Indeed, I think the January 6 rioters actually thought they were going to ignite a revolution and were genuinely surprised when nothing happened. Instead, the vast majority of Americans decided to stay home.

Demonstrations are also exercises in moral superiority. You bastards aren’t listening to me so I am going to annoy you until you change your mind. Yelling at people, I have found, rarely gets people to change their minds. In fact, I would bet, it makes a lot of people stand firm on whatever position they have, particularly if that opinion differs from the demonstrators.

Take to the streets if you like. It is your right but I think a better way to spend your time, energy and money is peacefully changing people’s minds and winning elections. I know it isn’t as satisfying as storming the barricades and being joined by the masses you have inspired but, let’s face it, is much more likely to happen through elections than demonstrations.

By on

“I don’t care what they call me as long as they mention my name.”

George M. Cohan

“There is no such thing as bad publicity. “

P.T. Barnum

Missouri state Senator Bill Eigel worries that the vague writing of an Abortion Bill would allow one year olds to get abortions. Why he is worried is a bit of a mystery. One year olds are incapable of pregnancy, so their need for abortions isn’t really an issue here. It won’t happen so it is nothing to be worried about. But, anyway, when has that stopped politicians from making an issue out of nothing.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a one year old girl needing an abortion. She is unable to give her consent in the first place, so she was raped. the very people who would be protected by passage of the bill — victims of incest and rape. Furthermore, and the most important point to consider here, it is impossible for a one year old girl to carry a full term pregnancy to birth. She would need an abortion to save her life. So, if anyone should get an abortion, a pregnant one year old absolutely should.

If it were biologically possible which it isn’t.

On the other hand, Eigel generated a lot of pro-Life points fighting the scourge of one year olds seeking abortions. He also was able to get it without really having to take a stand on anything important. There won’t be any stories about one year olds dying from botched abortions or doctors debating whether to give a one year old an abortion because it will never happen. This, however important it is to you and me, is irrelevant to Eigel and his supporters. Eigel still gets pro-Life points for opposing abortion and, particularly important, defending babies from abortion clinics who would think nothing of aborting non-existent fetuses from one year olds.

The press dutifully reported Eigel’s concerns. The press will report any outrageous statement from any elected official because it might tempt shocked readers into reading their paper. Who wants to read about actual mature women needing an abortion when they can debate endlessly about one year old who will never need one. The only thing that happened here was Eigel got his name in the paper an his reputation enhanced with his voters.

You will all be relieved to know, pro-Choice or pro-Life, that one year olds will not have access to legal abortion. Absolutely nothing was learned from this nor was any debate furthered in discussing it. Why this was a newsworthy event is still a mystery but I am certain that the press would only use their limited space to report on truly important issues. Right?