Buttigieg seeks Jackson redemption

Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign is a confounding mess – he’s raising a significant amount of money that would give him a chance to be a competitive campaigner, yet he has many would-be black voters thinking he’s the devil incarnate.

BUTTIGIEG: In trouble with black voters

So what does he choose to do? He gets himself a spot on the program Tuesday of the Rainbow/PUSH convention held every year in Chicago.

IN SHORT, HE seeks out an audience with none other than the Rev. Jesse Jackson himself – hoping that Jackson will give him the political equivalent of a papal blessing that would get many black voters to quit thinking in terms of Buttigieg as the absolute last of the two dozen presidential aspirants whom they’d consider supporting.

Buttigieg, at 37, is amongst the youngest of the presidential dreamers, and he has attracted some support from the kind of people who want to believe that everybody else is far too old to be in charge of the federal government.

Youth, vigor, somebody who understands (and is fully a part of) the world of the 21^st Century! Which is why he was able to raise some $24.8 million in donations during the second fundraising quarter – more than any other candidate.

He may have the kind of campaign cash that could make him competitive with the Bernie Sanders’ and the Joe Biden’s of the political world. But the man whose political background is serving as the mayor of South Bend, Ind., also is turning out to be the guy that black voters want to see go down to an embarrassing defeat.

AS IN THERE are some black voters who not only want him to lose, they want him to become politically-damaged goods to the point where he’d never be able to run for any government post again in the future.

It stems from an incident in South Bend where the local police were involved in a shooting incident in which a black man was killed.

It didn’t help that the officer was equipped with a body camera and a squad car with a video camera, yet neither one managed to record the incident – which might have backed up the officer’s claims that the man was armed with a knife and was brandishing it.

JACKSON: Being sought for his aid

Also the fact that Buttigieg himself has let himself get bogged down by the whole affair – making himself seem weak and indecisive and potentially helping to cover up details in the whole affair.

SO THE MAN who is openly in a gay marriage who’d like to think he’s the natural choice of all progressive-minded people has one segment of the Democratic electorate wishing he’d drop dead.

And some Democratic political operatives thinking that Buttigieg himself is just too flawed to unite the various factions that comprise the modern-day Democrats.

Hence, Buttigieg seeks redemption in the form of Jesse Jackson. Who had a meeting with the mayor, then allowed him to speak at the Rainbow/PUSH forum gathering.

But the most important part may well be the words from Jackson himself, who said he thinks the accounts many people have heard about what is happening in South Bend are distorted, and that Buttigieg has handled things about as well as any political person could.

“HE’S HANDLED AN awkward situation well by being transparent,” Jackson said of Buttigieg, while also tossing out a potshot against Indiana state law that actually forbids municipalities from having residency requirements for their police officers and firefighters.

SANDERS: Can 'Mayor Pete' beat him?

The fact that cops in South Bend don’t have to live in the city (only within an adjacent county) means local residents don’t necessarily trust them, and view them as something of the equivalent of an “occupying force.”

A description that I’m sure law enforcement types will resent, and one that could come back to bite Buttigieg on the behind if he gets perceived as having too much support from Jackson.

Although for now, I’m sure “Mayor Pete” would gladly accept a Jesse Jackson blessing, if only it results in turning black voters into a segment that eagerly awaits his electoral defeat in the 2020 presidential election cycle.

  -30-

Could college tuition make 25-candidate campaign instead nothing more than a Warren/Sanders brawl?

We’re up to 25 people with delusions that they’re the one capable of running for president as the Democratic Party’s nominee, with most would-be voters dreaming that everybody else is going to come to their senses and drop out – rather than run against their preferred candidate.

SANDERS: Writing off student loans

But just will be the factor that causes many of these political dreamers to “give it up” to take the advice of comedian Samantha Bee and run instead for the U.S. Senate – instead of for the post that offers up a mansion and private airplane as being amongst its perks?

A PART OF me wonders if Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – the senators from Vermont and Massachusetts, respectively – have latched onto the idea that will sway would-be Democratic voters into making this a two-way campaign between them.

While pushing everybody else off to the political sidelines.

For Sanders and Warren are the two who have tried most to make an issue out of a college education becoming more affordable.

Warren has talked about tuition being free at public colleges. While Sanders is now going further in talking about wanting to erase the debt that students incurred in taking out the loans that helped pay their tuition bills.

HIS LINE OF logic is that it benefits no one – and actually defeats the purpose of a better-educated society – if students are perpetually in debt upon graduation.

WARREN: Tuition-free public education?

Writing off all those unpaid loan bills would benefit the students, and actually result in less time being wasted by entities that are trying to collect debts from people who, realistically, can’t afford it.

Personally, I’m not swayed by the idea – largely because I remember back some three decades ago when I was a freshly-graduated university-type scholar.

I managed to repay my loans in full – even though I also made what I’m sure some (such as my father) would regard as the asinine decision to want to be a newspaper reporter. Not exactly the highest-paid of professions we have in our society. 

FURTHERMORE, I SPENT those early-reporter years with the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago – a place that actually took a certain amount of pride in the low wages they paid (my memory recalls starting at $190 a week – which dropped down to $156 weekly once taxes were deducted).

O'ROURKE: Can we write-off Beto yet?

Yes, if I hadn’t had to make that monthly loan payment, I’d have had a few extra bucks. But I did make it. And also have to admit it helped that at exactly the point in time I was finished off with the loans – my future employer gave me a significant pay boost.

Which became the point in time when I could start living a more-adult lifestyle. Maybe I could have had a financially-easier time of it had I made other choices, but those were choices I made -- and I paid the cost, without expecting a financial write-off someday.

Now part of the problem, as I comprehend it, is that college costs are significantly-higher now than they were back in the Age of Reagan. When I look at the costs of college that exist now, I wonder if it would be possible to borrow so much money to afford the tab.

BUT A LARGER part of the problem lies in part with those students who, for whatever reason, wind up not completing college – but took out loans to pay for the years they attended.

BEE: Run for Senate, instead

They’re whacked with significant debt without the potential future earnings that a degree would offer them. Note I said “potential.” There’s no guarantee – as it’s usually only the most promising of students who actually wind up employed to the standard of their dreams.

So I expect Sanders will encounter some opposition from those who think “we paid off our loans, let the deadbeats do theirs.” But there also will be others who will think the theory of “free college” outweighs all others, and will be more than willing to ignore all other would-be presidential candidates just because of it.

So maybe it’s beneficial that the number of presidential dreamers on the Democratic side be reduced. Although I can’t help but be dismayed at the notion that it could be something as trivial as this that causes the ranks to be reduced to a more-comprehendible number.

  -30-

Buttigieg the presidential “flavor of the month,” how long will that last?

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., seems to be the flavor of the month when it comes to the presidential election cycle we’ll go through next year.

BUTTIGIEG: Really a 'new' Obama?

As in people interested in picking a Democrat from amongst the dozen or so currently in the running to challenge Republican Donald Trump are focusing their attention on Buttigieg – who seems to be trying to build up the notion that he’d be the equivalent of another “Barack Obama,” somebody whose election would give them a “first” to support.

BUT WHILE BARACK was the first black man who managed to win the presidency, Buttigieg would be the first openly gay man (and a married one, to boot) who could be elected president.

For all those people appalled at the notion that Trump won the presidency back in 2016 on a campaign of undoing all the “firsts” that Obama had brought our society, I’m sure that picking Pete as president would seem all the more appropriate.

His election could be perceived as undoing all the harm that this Age of Trump has brought upon us.

We’re going to be getting a lot of Obama/Buttigieg comparisons in coming months. The Chicago Sun-Times pointed out this week that several of the people who helped raise money to get Obama started at the beginning are now on the Buttigieg train.

Does 'Mayor Pete" replace Obama, … 

IN FACT, ONE of them on Tuesday is staging a fundraising event for Buttigieg. John Atkinson told the newspaper he’s now fully committed to “Mayor Pete.” Part of the reason is that he figures Buttigieg is from Indiana – one of the Midwestern states solidly in the Trump camp.

Could Buttigieg be a key in Democrats taking Indiana’s 11 Electoral College votes away from Trump – along with those surrounding Great Lakes states such as Michigan and Wisconsin? That could well be the key to a Democratic presidential victory in 2020!

The talk has been offered up that both Obama and Buttigieg are Midwesterners – Great Lakes-types who aren’t tied to the East or West coasts. Both also have their ties to Harvard University.

Superficial ties, they may well be. But compared to many of the reasons offered up by Trump’s backers for supporting him (mostly because they like the way he offends the sensibilities of the majority who voted against him, but weren’t enough to win the Electoral College), they come off as all-too sensible!

… or just a better option to Trump?

I’M WONDERING HOW soon it will be before the reports start getting stirred up about how Buttigieg, in his first few weeks as mayor of South Bend, fired Police Chief Darryl Boykins.

He was the first black police chief, and there are those who think it was because Buttigieg chose to side with white cops who had their own racial hang-ups.

The New York Times already has reported on the issue. But how long until the news organizations that put the ideological spin on their reports (under the guise that it’s everybody else that reports “fake” news) get ahold of this – wanting to let us know that Buttigieg is some form of hypocrite unworthy of our support?

With the conservative ideologues desperately hoping they can stick a knife in the back of the Buttigieg supporters who’d be inclined to think he’s another Barack Obama.

OF COURSE, WE’RE nearly a year away from the primaries where people actually cast ballots for who should get the presidential nominations (it’s March 17, 2020, in Illinois). Buttigieg possibly could have long faded-away as a credible candidate by then.

SANDERS: Will he get Dem nomination?

Particularly if those people who seriously want Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont to be more successful this time around (I’m not amongst them) than he was in the 2016 Democratic primary manage to succeed.

If anything, what people need to be doing is looking to the future – finding someone with a vision to advance our society forward, rather than reverting to the past.

Perhaps not someone offering up visions of being an Obama successor. And certainly not somebody determined to keep wearing that ridiculous cap about “Make America Great Again” by reverting to a vision of our society that offers to exclude so many of us.

  -30-

Democratic Socialists too complex for entity that thinks its purpose is to pick up trash and plow winter snowfall?

It was the running joke of dealing with the Chicago City Council – you’d go to the alderman from the ward up around O’Hare International Airport, interview him, then say you’d spoken to the council’s Republican caucus.

ROSA: Senior of Democratic Socialist caucus

That literally was it.

THE CHICAGO CITY Council was a 49-1 partisan split between Democrats and Republicans. And if one wants to be honest, the Republican wasn’t that different from his Democratic aldermanic colleagues.

It’s the reason that people studying the aldermanic ranks for factions wind up becoming obsessed with race – that often was the breakdown that mattered in figuring out how aldermen would behave.

Particularly back three or so decades ago in the days of Harold Washington, Eugene Sawyer and the beginning of the Richard M. Daley era.

But things have changed, particularly with this now-complete election cycle. What with the development of the presence of the Democratic Socialists of America managing to get some of their supporters elected to City Council seats.

AMONGST THE COUNCIL ranks that takes over next month will be Jeanette Taylor in the 20^th Ward, Bryon Sigcho-Lopez in the 25^th Ward, and Andre Vasquez in the 40^th Ward.

SANDERS: 1st Dem Socialist most heard of

Along with the chance that Rossana Rodriguez of the 33^rd Ward will ultimately prevail in her bid to dump Deborah Mell from the aldermanic seat her father held for so many decades before her (a race that will go down to the final vote count of every single absentee ballot that can be dredged up).

They go along with Daniel LaSpata of the 1^st Ward, who won election outright back on Feb. 26. And Carlos Rosa of the 35^th Ward, who managed to win re-election. He’s no longer the lone Democratic Socialist in the Chicago City Council.

All of which means the council could have six Democratic Socialists in its ranks. Not even close to being able to control things – but enough people to raise up a stink on so many issues that they will be able to force the establishment Democrats (43 in number) to have to listen to them.

OCASIO CORTEZ: Most outspoken?

OR ELSE RUN the risk of seeing the City Council devolve into a clown show of ineptitude. Although some would argue the council has been in such a state throughout much of its history. What else would be new?

Now I know some people are going to overly emphasize the “Socialist” part of the label – and may even come up with distortive rhetoric about Communists taking over the City Council.

Although the one positive aspect of Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont becoming so politically prominent is that it has forced people to figure out just what a Democratic Socialist is. And that many people are intrigued enough by the concept to give them a chance.

While others see the outspoken nature of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York and become offended at her very presence. While some take joy in the irrational outbursts she provokes amongst conservative ideologues.

PERSONALLY, I’M NOT inclined to think any of the City Council’s Democratic Socialists will develop as prominent a public profile as the congresswoman from the Bronx borough of New York – who actually has a growing number of her supporters upset with her for becoming such a nationally-prominent figure that she’s forgetting just where she came from!

Not ready to march the streets of Chicago. Not yet, anyways!

But I have no doubt the ideologues amongst us will still manage to use the new caucus as a reason for their rants. Although it could be a good thing if it forced those ideologues to knock off the irrational rants that try to claim every Democrat is a Communist at heart.

Then again, that’s not likely to occur. Rationality is not all that common – particularly amongst those in our society these days who approve of the Age of Trump in which we now are engaged.

But it’s bound to stir up some feisty debates in our City Council – with the Democratic Socialists taking up the theoretical argument that Capitalism is incompatible with Democracy and the freedoms it purports to give us. Which will really tick off those people who think the purpose of our municipal government is to pick up the trash and plow the streets during the winter months.

  -30-

2020 starts already – Sanders does Chicago in campaigning for president

Bernie Sanders, the Congressman from Vermont who stirred the imaginations of certain people of the Democratic Party persuasion when he ran for president in 2016, kicked off his active campaigning for the party’s nomination in the 2020 election cycle.

SANDERS: Will it ever be Bernie's turn?

And in realizing that Chicago is a significant part of the process for any legitimate Democrat, he’s already been here – making an appearance Sunday night at Navy Pier hoping to stir up the passions of potential voters to take him more seriously than the other dozen-or-so people who have dreams of winning the White House.

ALTHOUGH IN MOST cases, it seems that what really motivates them is being able to have history record their names as the person who “took down” the presidency of Donald Trump.

Too many people are gambling on the fact that the majority that despises the notion of Trump will eagerly accept them as the replacement.

Creating the potential for infighting amongst Democrats that could very well put The Donald (or someone of his ilk, if all the rumors of Trump being willing to resign if he can avoid criminal prosecution are true) right back in the White House.

While I personally despise such a thought and see an overwhelming majority of people who’d like to Dump Trump, I can also see how political chaos could result in Democrats shooting down their own desires.

Do we want Hoosier (Buttigieg) or … 

I’M ALSO PONDERING the large number of Democrats who seem to think everybody else will get out of their way to let them be the one who takes on Trump.

It has far too much potential to create confusion that could cause many people to decide “the heck with it” and find something else to do on the Elections Day of 2020.

Think I’m kidding? Just look at the large number of candidates (14, who actually managed to make it on the ballot) for our recently-completed mayoral election.

We’re down to two now for the April 2 run-off, but there literally were 67 percent of people who cast votes who didn’t want either of the candidates who prevailed. Plus, there were 66 percent of registered voters who didn’t even bother to cast ballots.

… a Tejano (Castro) as nominee?

WHY DO I fear this could be the end result of the 2020 election cycle? A whole lot of people ultimately disappointed because they couldn’t get their act together and decide on a candidate most strong to defeat the Trumpster!

Particularly if it turns out that Sanders, who began his campaigning Saturday in his birthplace neighborhood in Brooklyn, then came to Chicago the next day to try to sway over our voter support, insists he thinks he’s entitled to the nomination.

Out of the belief that he put in his time in 2016, and it’s now his turn! When the reality may well be that 2016 was his turn and he lost to Hillary. Now maybe he should move aside and let more credible candidates make their pitch for voter support.

Now for those people who are thinking that it was establishment Democrats who somehow cheated Bernie of their support, I’d argue it was absurd to think they’d ever back someone who throughout his time in Congress has insisted on using the “Independent” label. Why should Dems be eager to back someone who doesn’t really want to be a part of the political party?

IF ANYTHING, I’D say the fact that Trump was able to so thoroughly undermine the Republican establishment in 2016 is more pathetic than anything that happened to the Hillary/Bernie brawl of that same year.

TRUMP: Could it be 'four more years'

It will be interesting the degree to which people want to re-fight the Bernie Sanders brawl of three years ago. Will they have a desire to move forward? Or get bogged down in the trash-talk that ultimately gave us “President Trump.”

Personally, I’m not sure who to think of supporting. The notion of the South Bend, Ind., mayor, Pete Buttigieg, and his revival of that city has some interest to me – although I also wonder if a mayor is just too low-ranking on the political experience totem pole to take seriously. Why not offer up Gary, Ind., mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson if we're looking for a Hoosier mayor? There’s also former San Antonio, Texas, mayor (and former HUD secretary Julian Castro); whose presence would probably most offend those Trumpites most motivated by their ethnic hang-ups.

Anyway, the process of “making up our mind” begins now. We’re going to have to figure out who we want and what is most important to us. Because if we don’t, it could easily be “four more years” of Donald Trump.

  -30-

Taxman’s taking my money; there’s nothing left for political contributions

I can’t help but laugh at the most recent financial pitches I have received through the e-mail seeking my money.

We may fantasize, but is it worth our cash?

They’re coming to me in this weekend when I have to make my annual accounting to the Internal Revenue Service as to how successful I have been financially as a freelance writer, and I have to “pay up!” my share to the government.

SO THE IDEA that I have anything to spare right now, other than marking that one box on the tax return that asks if I’m willing to kick in $3 to the presidential election campaign fund, borders on being humorous.

Although to tell you the truth, a part of me is so appalled by the way the electoral process turned out this past cycle that I don’t know if I want to make the symbolic gesture that is supposed to benefit all of the general election candidates.

A part of me finds the CHC Bold PAC’s request for as little as a $1 donation to be more worthwhile, although if one reads their e-mail, it is quite clear they’re more than willing to take significantly larger donations.

And, of course, the group that wants to promote Latino political involvement in Congress is using a common tactic – they say their records show I have made “no donation” to their effort.

WHOSE PURPOSE IS to promote the concept of impeaching Donald Trump. Which personally is a goal I think will turn out to be pointless. So I’m not about to give up any cash, and not just because I’m a reporter-type person who never gives to such causes.

Actually, it would be more accurate to brand me a cheapskate than say I’m taking a principled stand. But even though I’m amongst the ranks of those displeased with the behavior of our nation’s 45^th chief executive, I realize that the Republican leadership in Congress isn’t about to dump on the guy whose presence gives them the potential for total domination of our federal government.

Do you really think Las Vegas ...

If the House of Representatives were to vote to impeach and the Senate were to preside over a trial, it would be because the conservative ideologues in charge there would think Trump isn’t being irrational enough in his political thought.

So Impeaching Trump, for those of us with a touch of rationality in our thought, just isn’t worth our time or money.

NOT THAT I’M saying we ought to blindly be following The Donald’s lead. We ought to be letting him know at every opportunity that he does not speak for the majority of our society.

... and Bernie Sanders go well together?

Which is the focus of another pair of e-mails I have received during the past couple of days from the Democratic National Committee – one from the party itself and another from new Chairman Tom Perez.

It seems in exchange for my contribution of as little as $3 (or as much as $100, or more, if I wish), I can be entered in a contest of sorts along with other Democratic Party faithful.

The prize? An all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas (and NOT the one in Illinois – remember the old “Green Acres” episode?) where one can participate in a Come Together and Fight Back rally with Perez and (drumroll, please!!!) Sen. Bernie Sanders.

HE BEING THE Democratic Socialist who, after years of trying to maintain his distance from the Democratic Party, decided he wanted the party’s presidential nomination.

Or, he being the guy who couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in the primary – even though there are some political operatives who want to spin the line that Clinton was the candidate so weak she couldn’t even beat Donald Trump come the November general election.

Should 5 percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all

The party claims they’ll pay the flight and hotel costs of someone to participate in the rally – getting to see the political process in action. Although to tell the truth, the idea of spending time in Las Vegas with the senator from Vermont seems less than enticing.

Even if the IRS (and the Illinois Department of Revenue) weren’t about to take my spare money, I think I would have no problem taking a pass on either of these offers. While I now turn to the wise words of wisdom of George Harrison.

  -30-

It’s hard to say right now who do we hate the most – Trump or Hillary?!?

We’re halfway through the Democratic nominating convention for president and have completed the Republican version of the show, and it’s hard to say which of the two major candidates seeking the White House we have the most contempt for.

 

CLINTON: It's her week to impress U.S.

It’s true that the establishment Republicans made a show attempt at denying Donald Trump the GOP nomination and that Ted Cruz of Texas made a point of publicly snubbing the real estate developer/aspiring politico when he spoke.

YET IT’S NOT like Hillary is getting much more love in Philadelphia.

The people who had delusions early on that the nation would ever come together behind a Democratic socialist for U.S. president seem determined to show that they’re not giving an inch – even though their preferred candidate of Bernie Sanders himself has said they should support Hillary.

It caught my attention when several Sanders supporters took up the same chant that some Republican convention-goers used the week before whenever Hillary Clinton’s name was mentioned – “Lock Her Up!”

As in thinking she belongs in a criminal indictment and ought to be facing the prospect of federal prison time – even though investigators in all the issues that Republican partisans have brought up against her throughout the years have constantly cleared her of illegal activity.

I WENT INTO this election cycle feeling largely apathetic toward the concept of Hillary Clinton as U.S. president and came around to the idea because (A) somebody has to win and (B) all the other mopes on all political sides came across as worse!

I really believe that if we had a legitimate option of letting people vote “None of the Above,” that would be the winner. Of course, someone would still have to take over when Barack Obama’s term ends in January. We have to make our choice of “Who?”

This is going to truly be the election cycle in which the nominating conventions were less about the pep rally aspect and more about how the candidates themselves handled the idea of being confronted with the fact that a majority of America despises them.

Trump gave us the impression last week that he could care less. How will Hillary conduct herself this week?

MUCH IS BEING made of the leaked e-mail messages from Democratic Party operatives – the ones that show party regulars didn’t want anything to do with Sanders as a presidential candidate.

They were firmly behind Hillary Clinton and plotted out strategy to bolster her strengths – or, more accurately, emphasize Sanders’ weaknesses. We’re hearing yelling and screaming from the Bernie people about how unfair it was. Some even go so far as to imply the party’s actions are a criminal conspiracy in and of themselves.

Which is a load of nonsense. Political parties exist to coordinate elections, campaigns and candidates. It would be expected for them to favor a candidate who has been tied to the party for the past four decades – rather than someone who until this election always made a point of running for office as a political independent.

Why would they have considered siding with Bernie? It would make no sense! I'm actually amazed at how convoluted the resistance was toward him; compared to what it could have been!

IT SEEMS PEOPLE are upset that the Democratic Party political structure is not as weak and uncoordinated as the Republicans were. Because let’s be honest, if they could have got their act together there’s no way that Trump would be the GOP nominee now.

Of course, considering that the ideologues of our society have always wanted to spew the thought that the Republicans represent the establishment and that the Democrats were the threat to the natural order, perhaps it is just ironic that in this election cycle perceptions are reversed.

Either that, or we have an upcoming election in which the one-time schoolyard bullies are hoping to restore what they perceive to be a natural order for our society.

Which could make this the election about the serious split in Hillary perception – with many believing she’s some old lady whose time has passed while others are determined to view her as liberalism incarnate. That question will be the real issue to be resolved come Election Day.

  -30-

Positioning selves for political ‘pep rallies.’ Or, how can we Dump Trump?

I’ve only been to one presidential nominating convention – the one held in 1996 by the Democrats in Chicago. Based on that experience, I don’t feel compelled to attend another.

 

Will Dem convention be a Hillary-fest?

The problem is that the events are so heavily staged by the presumptive nominees that there is no “drama,” no “suspense.” They really are nothing more than pep rallies – one step up from those high school-staged events to get everybody all revved up for “the big game!”

EXCEPT IN THIS case, the goal is to get political operatives excited enough to go back home and turn out the vote en masse for their preferred political candidate.

Which would make this year’s presidential nominating conventions to be held in Philadelphia and Cleveland all the more important – since this is the year of “Who Do I Hate The Most?!?”

People who bother to cast ballots will be voting against the person whose presence absolutely disturbs them the most. And I don’t doubt that for every person who is absolutely bothered by the existence of Donald Trump in the political realm, there is someone else who feels equally perturbed about the Clintons – and likely has been waiting for years for the chance to vote against the idea of Hillary for president.

Which is why I’m intrigued by the nitpicking that is taking place these days in anticipation of the nominating conventions. People are trying to make sure that there’s something for people to get excited about.

OTHERWISE THE REPUBLICAN gathering in Cleveland, followed by da Dems in Philly, will be deadly dull proceedings filled with neurotic people filled with so much hate for someone else that they probably will scare people away from being interested.

 

Will Bernie Sanders play nice in Philly?

For the Democrats, there has been much speculation about the party platform – which is a formal list of ideals that Democrats claim to stand for, but then wind up ignoring whichever points they happen to disagree with.

For as Will Rogers once said, “Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they’d be Republicans.”

Democratic political operatives who used their influence to ensure that the Bernie Sanders for president campaign could never go anywhere are now all eager to put together a platform filled with ideals that are “Berned” into the brains of the Vermont senator’s minds – a $15 per hour minimum wage, no death penalty, and prioritizing renewable energy.

 

Is Will Rogers the ultimate political philosopher?

THEY’LL LOOK NICE when written out on paper, but will be largely ignored by Democratic government officials when it comes time to act and create public policy.

It will be a lot of wasted ink being used to write up documents taking stances that no one will make much of an effort to impose – all out of the hopes that the Sanders supporters might actually consider flopping on board with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Rather than just sitting out this presidential election cycle and fulfilling Trump’s most intense fantasies – which is that his overly-vocal band of followers would actually be enough people to win a national election!

But Trump has his own problems what with all the establishment Republican operatives claiming they’re not going to even bother with the convention.

IT SEEMS THE people who originally fantasized that they could ignore the will of all those primaries held in recent months and pick somebody else to be the GOP nominee for president are still conspiring.

It seems they want to be able to tell Trump who his vice presidential running mate will be. Which might be possible, since so many political people interested in having an electoral future are refusing to be considered. We could seriously wind up with a Republican ticket of Trump and Newt Gingrich – the one-time House speaker who managed in his own way to tick off the ideological nitwits of the world.

 

A tainted taco bowl?

The problem is that most people don’t bother to take the vice president into account, unless they’re using it as a reason to vote against the ticket. Which makes me wonder if the GOP establishment types are engaging in their own conspiracy to Dump Trump – and have a running mate of their preference in place to become “Da Prez!”

Does this mean what Trump needs more than anything else these days is an official food taster to make sure his so-called allies don’t try to taint his taco bowls?

  -30-

Just what does a losing political candidate really owe to his victor?

So what should we make of Bernie Sanders, now that it is apparent that the senator from Vermont is NOT about to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee?

SANDERS: Won't wither away

He’s the man who the other day talked of the need for people to unite to ensure that the overly-vocal minority of Donald Trump backers aren’t sufficient to actually win the November presidential elections, even though an acknowledgment that he LOST the primary cycle to Hillary Clinton never actually came from his mouth.

AS REPORTED IN so many places, Sanders talked about his role in determining just what the Democratic candidates will stand for. He talked about his expectations.

Even though one could argue that as the loser, his expectations ought to be that he can slink away into anonymity and won’t face any sort of political reprisals for having the nerve to challenge Hillary – who after all was the pick of Democratic Party establishment officials.

But that just wouldn’t be Bernie’s style. He’s the grouchy old guy (actually older than Hillary – whom some Bernie backers like to think of as some old lady who’s past her prime).

So he’s going to be the one who goes about screaming and screeching what he thinks the party ought to stand for.

BUT WHAT EXACTLY will that amount to?

I could easily envision a scenario in which Sanders is put in charge of some sort of committee that helps craft the official Democratic Party platform statement that sets forth in writing a whole bunch of stances on selected issues that real Democrats are supposed to believe.

Which is about as worthless a task as one could be asked to perform. Because the platform is a document that usually does not acknowledge the wide range of stances that exist on issues. It is something that candidates choose to ignore whenever it suits them.

I can’t see Sanders being content to prepare a document that will be ignored.

BUT WOULD HILLARY Clinton dare let Sanders have any more say within the political party mechanizations? I doubt it!

She’s going to dream of what is the ideal type of political loser – someone who quietly fades away into the woodwork without continuing to try to stir up dissention. She doesn’t need Sanders to become her most outspoken advocate.

But she certainly would want for him to put a gag on himself and not say much of anything. Which is certainly not the style of the man who rose from political obscurity to national prominence to the point where some people are seriously disappointed that he did not prevail in the now-complete Democratic primary elections.

The problem is that if Hillary gave Bernie too prominent a post, he would wind up detracting from her own campaign. You’d wind up having many of those Bernie backers going into the general election campaign cycle convinced the wrong person won.

PERSONALLY, I EXPECT many of those people who felt “the Bern” and were inspired by his oft-vague rhetoric are just not going to bother to cast ballots. There may well be a sense of disappointment that drives down voter turnout.

But this truly is the year of “Who do I hate the least?” being the chief sentiment that guides people if they bother to show up at the polling place later this year.

There are Republican ideologues who have it so ingrained in their blood that a Clinton is a being to be destroyed politically that they won’t be able to conceive of voting for her. While a majority of sane people will wonder what those ideologues were thinking during their primary cycles this year that they could nominate Trump.

Right now, Sanders is meekly claiming to offer support to defeating Donald. It will be interesting to see how he winds up trying to talk himself up in the process.

  -30-

Talk is cheap; would-be voter actions will determine Election Day outcome

President Barack Obama said Thursday he is endorsing Hillary Clinton’s bid to succeed him as president.

The president can only do so much for Hillary

While would-be Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders says he too will work to ensure that Clinton succeeds in her efforts to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States following the November general election.

IT ALL SOUNDS nice. But it could wind up becoming the ultimate evidence proving the truth of that old cliché, “Talk is cheap!”

It’s a whole lot of talk on Hillary’s behalf. But it ultimately will be the actions of the people who choose to cast ballots in the presidential elections who will decide whether Clinton can succeed.

By that, I mean that I fully believe there are a number of younger voters who are now disillusioned because all that cheap talk they have spewed about “feeling the Bern” failed to capture a majority of primary voters.

No matter what they want to believe about Hillary being an old hag whose time has passed and how she’s somehow part of the conservative establishment (even though the real conservative ideologues are spewing rhetoric that is 180 degrees to the opposite – to them, she’s liberalism incarnate!), a majority of Democratic voters have rejected it.

MY POINT BEING we may have some people who wouldn’t have bothered to get involved in the political process if they hadn’t have perceived something in the Bernie Sanders persona that appealed to them.

What exactly that is, I don’t comprehend. Since he’s actually older than she is.

 

Sanders can only help so much

But I could see a whole string of people whom Democrats theoretically would expect to turn out for their candidates deciding that the whole process is nothing but a crock.

Which could depress voter turnout in ways that ultimately benefit the presidential fantasies of Donald Trump. All the people who otherwise would be mortified at the thought of a first lady Melania would think it doesn’t matter much what they do.

THAT IS THE matter that Hillary Clinton will have to address hard and prompt in coming days and weeks. She’s going to have to make the case to people inclined not to care (seriously, developing an interest in electoral politics is something many people do only with the passage of time) to think she is worth their time and effort.

 

Hillary has to win this on her own merits

She’s going to have to answer the question, “Why do you deserve my vote come November? To be honest, she had better have a response more thorough than, “We don’t want Donald Trump in office.”

Personally, I think Trump’s persona and temperament is the absolute last thing anyone needs to have in control of anything. But even I want to hear the specifics of what Clinton can offer our nation, if she is the one trusted with being in charge for a four-year term in the Oval Office.

So Obama can say whatever he wants, such as he did on Thursday when he talks of her “judgment,” her “toughness” and her “commitment to our values.”

JUST AS SANDERS can say he’s now willing to work with Hillary toward an eventual electoral victory. It could wind up that the people who got all worked up about the idea of “the Bern” just won’t warm to Clinton in any form.

 

Or else we get 'President Trump'

Could they become the voters who, in their apathy, wind up giving an electoral victory to the person who theoretically stands for so much they oppose? Which probably is the Donald Trump campaign’s ultimate strategy – depress the voter total to the point where real people just don’t bother to show up.

Clinton, if she wants to win come November, is going to have to reach out to those people. She’s going to have to make a majority want to have her in office.

And if she can’t do that, then she ultimately has no one to blame but herself.

  -30-