That Hillary was flawed w/ baggage is something I specifically wrote (thought maybe not in the above post). And yes--she won the popular vote and came, yes, with a hair's breadth of winning outright! Which proves, among other things, that Trump is really not as menacing a candidate as we often think. Before Biden dropped out, as I listed…
That Hillary was flawed w/ baggage is something I specifically wrote (thought maybe not in the above post). And yes--she won the popular vote and came, yes, with a hair's breadth of winning outright! Which proves, among other things, that Trump is really not as menacing a candidate as we often think. Before Biden dropped out, as I listed to Bulwark podcasts . . . man, it was depressing. They spoke as if Biden had been down 10 points nationally.
So, now, we're absolutely better off with Harris. We'd be better off w/ anyone. Actually, we'd be best off w/ the Biden of 2016 or 2020. His deterioration has been quite rapid.
Anyway, I specifically said Harris going to start off immediately w/a money advantage. Of course. She essentially has the power that any VP running to succeed POTUS has. Just 4 years early.
*However* polling data just simply showed in black & white numbers that other candidates were stronger. Now, that has to be caveated w/ the fact that while the "real" Harris is still somewhat murky, at least she's a household name (maybe barely, though). Whitmer, Shapiro, Moore--they're not.
In 1968 RFK was obviously a household name, but was Eugene McCarthy? He, too, challenged Hubert Humphrey for the nomination. This was a contest after LBJ dropped out of the race that spring.
RFK (Sr., not "Junior" for heaven's sakes) is lionized on the Left. But what did he do? He challenged the presumed nominee, the sitting VP. I fear today that the sitting VP is not going to be truly analyzed. And out of fear of offending those in the Party obsessed w/ identity politics. The day Biden dropped out, the always helpful Rev. Sharpton tweeted that it was "imperative" for black men to stand by her. I'm not a black male, but if I was I think I'd tell Sharpton to take a hike. If someone told me, for example, as a Jew that I *must* support candidate X because of his stance on Israel, I'd be equally offended.
Harris healthy, a household name, and will be swimming in campaign cash. Great. If she is the final nominee, I'll do everything I can in my power and on my limited schedule to help her win.
But there's absolutely nothing wrong--and certainly nothing "racist" or "sexist"--about challenging her. (Not at all saying that *you* suggested there was.) Humphrey--white dude--was challenged my two other white dudes.
There was a lot of talk about a speedy new primary, a convention contest, etc. And then--boom! The powers that be quickly changed their tune and began telling us Harris *must* be the candidate. Why? What 11th Commandment from Mt. Sinai says she "must" be the choice?
That's basically my only gripe/concern.
She'd be so better than Trump that there is no human way to measure it. However, any animal from the D.C. Zoo would also be a better President.
And yes, you're correct I'd say that Team Trump felt they had it made when it became clear Biden actually had become "Sleepy Joe." Harris is not the greatest communicator, but she knows how this thing called "reason" works, so if there is another debate, she should clean the floor with Trump.
I think it's fair to say that RFK would have walked away with it had he not been assassinated, and almost certainly would have beat Nixon, despite the Vietnam war. We'll never know, of course. But history could have been so much different. I truly despised Nixon, for many good reasons, not the least being that he was a head henchman for senator McCarthy's persecutions during his HUA crusade.
Nixon was truly embittered man with a very dark/mean streak. But . . . he was competent. Sometimes, his instincts were spot-on. At least on foreign policy. Because of his anti-communist bona fides, he truly was the only one, or maybe one of only a few, who could have gone to China as part of the overall "detente" policy.
Even if one does not see Nixon as a tragic figure, compared to Trump, man . . . they're almost night & day. Again, Nixon was competent. Nixon was intelligent. Nixon cared about our allies. Nixon would be a "moderate" Republican today. It's insane. In the late 60s, he was hardly the only "Law & Order" candidate, you know? But what do we have today? A convicted felon, 2x impeached, dumb-as-shit, bigoted, sex predator . . . who--oh, by the way--incited a riot that beat up cops and led to the death of one! Very "Law and Order!"
Don't get me wrong, I love alternative history, but its always impossible to "prove" anything. RFK vs Nixon? Wow. Nixon would be so emotionally invested in beating a Kennedy in his second go-around. How would Bobby have been on foreign policy? Could he have executed a more graceful exit from Vietnam? Would the Soviets & Chinese take him seriously? Could he have healed some wounds at home that, frankly, are still with us today? On the last point, I think it's possible. He, too, condemned rioting, lawlessness, etc. so perhaps he could have assuaged the fears of older, largely white Americans while also bringing the left-leaning youth & the civil rights community to the table.
Let's not forget that Nixon expanded the war by bombing Cambodia. I would hardly describe the exit from Vietnam as "graceful." It was anything but. We sponsored a refugee boat family in its wake. He did manage to begin relations with China, I'll give you that. And he also founded the EPA, something Republicans have been desperately trying to dismantle ever since. But I don't consider him a foreign policy maestro or anything even close.
Anyway, my friend, interesting exchange. I look forward to future engagement.
I wrote that a graceful exit from Vietnam might have been possible under a theoretical President RFK.
I knew one of us would bring up the EPA. Nixon at one point also implemented price controls amidst worsening inflation--not that I'm advocating price controls, necessarily--something no Republican would ever think of today. And, again, perhaps it's great to write them off for good, but it shows the state of today's GOP. One can look at a few different ways--one, as seeing Nixon as a moderate or two, instead turning the microscope on today's GOP . . . if today's GOP makes Nixon look even remotely reasonable . . . that's sayin' something , , ,
Keeping in mind that I'd support any animal from the DC Zoo over Trump, I know I'm going to be in a battle with myself to stop looking for flaws with a Harris ticket or "evidence" that she's too "Californian" for good ol' Middle America (no offense to the great state of California, just acknowledging reality here). She's not a "Squad" member, she's not a radical. If she's really on the ball, she will *highlight* her prosecutorial record . . . not walk away from it. Our prisons are overcrowded in part because the wrong people are being locked up. A lot of non-violent drug offenders. But most of the rest truly deserve to be in prison. My unsolicited advice to her would be to harp that.
The Bulwark Podcast played part of an old of hers where she *brilliantly* contrasts her role as a prosecutor with Trump's "role" as a criminal. Golden!
You can't do whatever good you plan to do in politics if you don't get elected in the first place. I sense (could be wrong) that many contemporary Dems don't quite get this yet. The GOP sure does.
It would be great if a Democratic presidency looked like the old "West Wing" show. I used to LOVE that show. One constant theme was that in order to do some of the idealistic work he dreams of, the President still had to play hardball.
Yeah, the West Wing. If only things operated like that . . .
That Hillary was flawed w/ baggage is something I specifically wrote (thought maybe not in the above post). And yes--she won the popular vote and came, yes, with a hair's breadth of winning outright! Which proves, among other things, that Trump is really not as menacing a candidate as we often think. Before Biden dropped out, as I listed to Bulwark podcasts . . . man, it was depressing. They spoke as if Biden had been down 10 points nationally.
So, now, we're absolutely better off with Harris. We'd be better off w/ anyone. Actually, we'd be best off w/ the Biden of 2016 or 2020. His deterioration has been quite rapid.
Anyway, I specifically said Harris going to start off immediately w/a money advantage. Of course. She essentially has the power that any VP running to succeed POTUS has. Just 4 years early.
*However* polling data just simply showed in black & white numbers that other candidates were stronger. Now, that has to be caveated w/ the fact that while the "real" Harris is still somewhat murky, at least she's a household name (maybe barely, though). Whitmer, Shapiro, Moore--they're not.
In 1968 RFK was obviously a household name, but was Eugene McCarthy? He, too, challenged Hubert Humphrey for the nomination. This was a contest after LBJ dropped out of the race that spring.
RFK (Sr., not "Junior" for heaven's sakes) is lionized on the Left. But what did he do? He challenged the presumed nominee, the sitting VP. I fear today that the sitting VP is not going to be truly analyzed. And out of fear of offending those in the Party obsessed w/ identity politics. The day Biden dropped out, the always helpful Rev. Sharpton tweeted that it was "imperative" for black men to stand by her. I'm not a black male, but if I was I think I'd tell Sharpton to take a hike. If someone told me, for example, as a Jew that I *must* support candidate X because of his stance on Israel, I'd be equally offended.
Harris healthy, a household name, and will be swimming in campaign cash. Great. If she is the final nominee, I'll do everything I can in my power and on my limited schedule to help her win.
But there's absolutely nothing wrong--and certainly nothing "racist" or "sexist"--about challenging her. (Not at all saying that *you* suggested there was.) Humphrey--white dude--was challenged my two other white dudes.
There was a lot of talk about a speedy new primary, a convention contest, etc. And then--boom! The powers that be quickly changed their tune and began telling us Harris *must* be the candidate. Why? What 11th Commandment from Mt. Sinai says she "must" be the choice?
That's basically my only gripe/concern.
She'd be so better than Trump that there is no human way to measure it. However, any animal from the D.C. Zoo would also be a better President.
And yes, you're correct I'd say that Team Trump felt they had it made when it became clear Biden actually had become "Sleepy Joe." Harris is not the greatest communicator, but she knows how this thing called "reason" works, so if there is another debate, she should clean the floor with Trump.
I think it's fair to say that RFK would have walked away with it had he not been assassinated, and almost certainly would have beat Nixon, despite the Vietnam war. We'll never know, of course. But history could have been so much different. I truly despised Nixon, for many good reasons, not the least being that he was a head henchman for senator McCarthy's persecutions during his HUA crusade.
Nixon was truly embittered man with a very dark/mean streak. But . . . he was competent. Sometimes, his instincts were spot-on. At least on foreign policy. Because of his anti-communist bona fides, he truly was the only one, or maybe one of only a few, who could have gone to China as part of the overall "detente" policy.
Even if one does not see Nixon as a tragic figure, compared to Trump, man . . . they're almost night & day. Again, Nixon was competent. Nixon was intelligent. Nixon cared about our allies. Nixon would be a "moderate" Republican today. It's insane. In the late 60s, he was hardly the only "Law & Order" candidate, you know? But what do we have today? A convicted felon, 2x impeached, dumb-as-shit, bigoted, sex predator . . . who--oh, by the way--incited a riot that beat up cops and led to the death of one! Very "Law and Order!"
Don't get me wrong, I love alternative history, but its always impossible to "prove" anything. RFK vs Nixon? Wow. Nixon would be so emotionally invested in beating a Kennedy in his second go-around. How would Bobby have been on foreign policy? Could he have executed a more graceful exit from Vietnam? Would the Soviets & Chinese take him seriously? Could he have healed some wounds at home that, frankly, are still with us today? On the last point, I think it's possible. He, too, condemned rioting, lawlessness, etc. so perhaps he could have assuaged the fears of older, largely white Americans while also bringing the left-leaning youth & the civil rights community to the table.
Sadly, we'll never know!
Let's not forget that Nixon expanded the war by bombing Cambodia. I would hardly describe the exit from Vietnam as "graceful." It was anything but. We sponsored a refugee boat family in its wake. He did manage to begin relations with China, I'll give you that. And he also founded the EPA, something Republicans have been desperately trying to dismantle ever since. But I don't consider him a foreign policy maestro or anything even close.
Anyway, my friend, interesting exchange. I look forward to future engagement.
I wrote that a graceful exit from Vietnam might have been possible under a theoretical President RFK.
I knew one of us would bring up the EPA. Nixon at one point also implemented price controls amidst worsening inflation--not that I'm advocating price controls, necessarily--something no Republican would ever think of today. And, again, perhaps it's great to write them off for good, but it shows the state of today's GOP. One can look at a few different ways--one, as seeing Nixon as a moderate or two, instead turning the microscope on today's GOP . . . if today's GOP makes Nixon look even remotely reasonable . . . that's sayin' something , , ,
Keeping in mind that I'd support any animal from the DC Zoo over Trump, I know I'm going to be in a battle with myself to stop looking for flaws with a Harris ticket or "evidence" that she's too "Californian" for good ol' Middle America (no offense to the great state of California, just acknowledging reality here). She's not a "Squad" member, she's not a radical. If she's really on the ball, she will *highlight* her prosecutorial record . . . not walk away from it. Our prisons are overcrowded in part because the wrong people are being locked up. A lot of non-violent drug offenders. But most of the rest truly deserve to be in prison. My unsolicited advice to her would be to harp that.
The Bulwark Podcast played part of an old of hers where she *brilliantly* contrasts her role as a prosecutor with Trump's "role" as a criminal. Golden!
You can't do whatever good you plan to do in politics if you don't get elected in the first place. I sense (could be wrong) that many contemporary Dems don't quite get this yet. The GOP sure does.
It would be great if a Democratic presidency looked like the old "West Wing" show. I used to LOVE that show. One constant theme was that in order to do some of the idealistic work he dreams of, the President still had to play hardball.
Yeah, the West Wing. If only things operated like that . . .