POLITICAL JUNKIES

Hydranne, thanks for the link to 538.com. I get to hear Harry Enten once a week on WI public radio and enjoy it greatly.

Here in Wisconsin, the R's control everything - Gov, Senate, Assembly, Supreme Court - and can pretty much do as they please. They did get a big backlash and had to backpedal in a hurry when trying to gut the state's open records law a few months ago, to shield most legislative correspondence, but the media found out about it. The public hue & cry was intense. But we can't fight things if we don't know about them. The guys in charge get together in secret, then unleash a barrage of bills with minimal notice. They vote during marathon legislative sessions stretching into the wee hours. How can Jane Q. Citizen keep up?

I think you did a wonderful job given the circumstances as well. I also think most of the people ( anti ) do have minds made up and because they are fed mis-information for the purpose of stoking their enthusiasm, it only reinforces their responses. In so many cases it appears to me that many of the anti's think it is somehow against God and Christianity. Never have understood this -- when we were given the breath of life were we not also given free choice so as to make the best decisions we could. So why should mortal man elect to take away what we were all given by our Creator. Excuse me, I'm going to go beat my head on the wall now.

Jackie

Hydranne, I am in awe of the courage, intelligence and strength you displayed today. I don't think I could have done that alone--I figuratively shoot my virtual mouth off online all the time, but in person I'd definitely have needed safety in numbers.

If not for PP, I'd have spent the first five years of my marriage (when I could not go to a campus student health center or afford a private gynecologist) without gynecological care--be it contraception, Pap smears, pelvic exams or breast exams (those were the pre-mammogram days). It was PP that first discovered my hypertension. Never did the thought of abortion enter my mind, except outrage that women who needed it couldn't get it (those were also the pre-Roe days). Though I personally would never have gotten one (not even on the one or two times I'd screwed up my Pill schedule and was late a few days), I thoroughly support a woman's right to have one. (Emotionally necessary=“medically necessary," IMHO). The PP in my neck of the woods back then even offered fertility assistance--"family planning" cuts both ways. The issue of them “selling" fetal tissue is not strictly true. They charge only for their expenses in processing and providing it--a complete wash. It infuriates me that so many conservatives--scratch that, moralistic reactionary absolutists--reason that because they heard something from a source they trust, no amount of objective evidence disproving it can overturn their beliefs. (It goes beyond belief to faith--faith viscerally defies logic, reason and hard evidence). It's one thing to have the courage of one's convictions--it's quite another to have the unshakable courage of one's misconceptions and delusions. They are a testament to the power of circular reasoning: “it's true because it's so, and it's so because it's true." Jackie, if you need a head-banging partner I'm driving downstate....

About PA--AFAIK not all its Republican delegates, even if awarded as a bloc, have the same affiliation, or powers. “Bound" delegates are pledged to the candidate who wins them. “Uncommitted" delegates are pledged on the first ballot but can change their minds until the second ballot. “Unbound" delegates run as individuals, not tied to any one candidate--their voters have to ascertain before the primary for which candidate these folks plan to vote at the convention. They don't even have to commit to a candidate--though almost all have said they'd vote for whoever wins the primary. And they can be “flipped" even before the first ballot.

I am getting so tired of the Bernie-or-Bust crowd. Many of them voted for Nader in 2000 and are so deluded that they don't believe Nader cost Al Gore a single vote. In their revisionist version of history, Gore was a “terrible campaigner" who couldn't even carry his own home state. Leaving aside for a moment that the TN of 2000 was not the TN he represented in the 1980s, “terrible" or “sloppy" campaigner? Does a “sloppy campaigner" win the popular vote--and win it with the largest total to date? Was the Palm Beach County “butterfly ballot" Gore's or even the DNC's fault...or rather, a gross miscalculation by a clueless county election official? How can they ignore that, butterfly ballot and Katherine Harris aside, Nader's vote total in FL was several times greater than Bush's alleged lead over Gore? Revolution happens from the ground up, but it also requires groundwork--a network of legislators sympathetic to it. And these ultra-progressives are so against “the system" that they sit out midterm elections, start getting out their message at least two years too late, and turn their Presidential-year ballots in right after either writing in their failed standard-bearers or voting for third-party dreamers--without bothering to cast their votes for the very Congressional and state candidates who would form that sympathetic network. The either-or binary mindset of millennials (and disgruntled ex-radicals of my generation) simply floors me.

Don't get me wrong: I like Sanders. I voted for him. I think he'd make a fine President. But his characterization of HRC's pro-Iraq-war Senate vote is not fair. The overwhelming majority of Democrats in the Senate were hoodwinked by the Cheney machine (and afraid that voters turned hawkish by 9/11 would toss them out of office as “soft on terrorism"). Sanders voted “no" because he is anti-war. I suspect he still would have voted “no" even if it had been Iraq and not Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 and even if Saddam Hussein were caught on camera stuffing uranium into warheads on the floor of the UN General Assembly. Mind you, nothing intrinsically wrong with unwavering pacifism. But it doesn't legitimate a contention that anyone who isn't a pacifist is a hawk with poor judgment.

I suspect he still would have voted "no" even if it had been Iraq and not Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 and even if Saddam Hussein were caught on camera stuffing uranium into warheads on the floor of the UN General Assembly.

I am cracking up at your comment, Sandy.

Hydranne, I read your entire post. I think you and Sandy should both have political blogs or news columns, you both write so well. Btw, Hydranne, what state do you live in?

Your response to the first reporter was so good. It shows how open minded and intelligent you are, to say you don't feel that those who have a different opinion than you are wrong to protest. You did a great job with all of of your conversations with those at the rally. You may not persuade anyone to change their minds, but you showed that pro-choice advocates aren't crazed maniacs but can engage in meaningful dialog on the subject. I agree that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, and if they feel strongly enough to attend a protest, their minds are pretty well made up.

It seems rather sad that you were the only one to showup to protest their protest. So brave of you and I admire your convictions. As Ruth says, many younger women seem have no idea what the older generation of women have had to fight for in terms of their rights.

Badger, all that republican control in Wisconsin sounds oppressive.

The news today says Sanders will wait to see what the results of Tuesday's primaries bring, and will reevaluate his campaign accordingly afterwards. I thought I heard that Clinton has a double digit lead in PA. Not sure of the other states. Also saw where Sanders does better in caucuses vs. primaries.

I watched it on MTV last night (was just scrolling around & there it was). It would be cool to see it on the big screen!

Kay, what a thought provoking post regarding Sanders/Nader supporters

Trump makes it sound like being Presidential is "an act, an illusion", something to turn on or off....not a reasoned, ethical, educated, functional perspective/way of dealing with issues....

His "Campaign-tainment" is like a teen horror flick.....it's so bad it's painful, but you keep watching it while thinking...."can this BE more stupid"!

Did anyone see the abc interview with Charles Koch (I think Jonathan Karl was the reporter) ? I actually found myself in agreement with with a couple of things Mr. Koch said! This election cycle truly has turned the world of politics upside down. I think I need to re-examine my liberal credentials 🤔

nihahi,


Here is a partial transcript from the abc interview:


And Jon Karl traveled to Kansas, where Koch, who recently wrote the book, "Good Profit," explained why he probably won't back the GOP nominee.


KOCH: Well, I'll tell you why. We said here are the issues. You've got to be like Ronald Reagan and compete on making the country better rather than tearing down your opponents.


And right off the bat, they didn't do it. More of these personal attacks and pitting one person against the other, that's the message you're sending the country. That's the way you should -- you're role models and you're terrible role models.


So how -- I don't know how we could support him.


KARL (voice-over): We traveled to Wichita, the headquarters of Koch Industries, where the 80-year-old CEO, Charles Koch, the ninth richest person in the world, according to "Forbes," works every day, paying with cash to eat in the company cafeteria and taking the stairs to his third floor.


KARL: To their critics, Charles and his brother David are the money manipulators, a powerful and secretive force driving an ultra-conservative agenda with their vast wealth and anonymous donor network.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Billions for big oil.


KARL: When you look back over the years, over the last several cycles, hundreds of millions of dollars in -- in electoral politics, but what have you gotten for that?


KOCH: Well, I've gotten a lot of abuse out of it.


KARL: Yes. you've been called un-American.


KOCH: Yes.


KARL: On the Senate floor.


KOCH: Yes, well, I'm -- yes, I'm out there.


What have we gotten for it?


There have been some good things, particularly at the state and local level. But the national politics is -- has been disappointing...


KARL: Over the last six years, you -- you got government shutdowns, you got a Republican Party that is -- seems to be the center of gravity, is anti-immigration, critical of free trade.


People say you control the Republican Party because of all that money.


KOCH: Well, if I controlled the Republican Party, we would not have a two-tiered system. We would not have a tax code that subsidizes the wealthy. We would get rid of all of that.


So obviously, I don't control anything.


KARL: So many people in the country now look at the American economy and they say that it's rigged -- the rich get richer and it's, you know, a working class person has a hard time getting by. Wages are stagnant. They say it is rigged. It's rigged by those at the top.


KOCH: It is, and that's-- that's in the policy area that's our number one policy objective to change that. What I call it is--


KARL: So you agree that the system is rigged?


KOCH: Absolutely.


KARL: Is rigged in favor of the wealthiest?


KOCH: In favor of companies like ours. Because we have this corporate welfare that benefits established companies and makes it very difficult for somebody to get started.


KARL: Well, and Republicans are adamant about protecting a lot of these tax breaks.


KOCH: Absolutely. No, and I can see why they say, 'Well, there's a tax break over here, we need one here.' Well that's the wrong attitude, we got to get rid of all of them. I don't hear any of the Republican candidates talking about this two-tiered system and getting rid of it. So that's why we haven't supported any of them.


KOCH: We read-- I read, oh, we've given millions to this one, millions to that one, and millions to oppose Trump. We've done none of that. We haven't put a penny in any of these campaigns, pro or con.


KARL: But I'm sure you've been asked to contribute to the Never Trump movement.


KOCH: We have.


KARL: And why not get involved in that? I mean here's a guy -


KOCH: Because that's not what we do. What we're trying to do is build alliances to make the country better. Like we have one with the White House on criminal justice reform. You do it by trying to find areas where you can work with everybody.


KARL: So are gonna sit out this presidential election?


KOCH: Well, we'll see. I mean, when we get a nominee then we'll explore that. And we don't want arm waving. We want to know specifics.


KARL: What did you think when you first heard Donald Trump's proposal to put a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States?


KOCH: Well, obviously that's antithetical to our approach, but what was worse was this we'll have them all register. That's reminiscent of Nazi Germany. I mean that's monstrous as I said at the time.


KARL: And when you hear another top presidential candidate talking about making the sand glow and carpet bombing in the Middle East…


KOCH: Well, that's gotta be hyperbole, but I mean that a candidate, whether they believe it or not, would think that appeals to the American people. This is frightening.


What I agree with are Koch's last two comments, likening registration of Muslims to what happened in Nazi Germany and the idea that carpet bombing the Middle East is frightening if that is what appeals to the American people.

Caryn (not Karen)

Thanks Caryn (apologies for the name misspelling).

I'm still thinking about the Koch Bros. I've never heard much of anything that was that positive where they are concerned. They seemed ( up to this election cycle ) as much of the problem as anything or anyone. Strange that they are trying to defeat -- slash and burn one of their own, though I'll admit who REALLY knows just what D.T. actually is since he has shown a real inconsistency there.

Jackie

To be fair (and I can’t believe I’m saying ANYTHING positive about the Koch Bros.), they are patrons of the arts and huge charitable donors. E.G., NYC’s Hospital for Special Surgery (which specializes in difficult orthopedic surgeries such as high-risk joint replacements and the top orthopedic hospital in the nation) was generously endowed by the Koch Bros.

What I find puzzling is Koch’s insistence that none of the remaining GOP contenders are ideologically or behaviorally acceptable--Kasich is probably the second most archetypally-Koch-friendly Gov., after Scott Walker.

Now on to speculation as to Hillary’s pick for a running mate. I sincerely hope she doesn’t recruit a sitting Democratic elected official--we can’t afford to lose a single one. That’d eliminate Elizabeth Warren (who doesn’t want the job), Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, Tim Kaine and Bill Nelson. Interestingly, the current line on her is that she’d want someone old enough not to want to be her successor (which would eliminate Booker). Those two factors (former officeholder, reluctance to take over her job) would point to, say, Charlie Crist, Howard Dean, Julian Castro, or Deval Patrick--all either out of office but well-experienced, or serving in an appointed position. Castro and Crist are fluent in Spanish, Dean had been the Bernie Sanders of his day but loyal in defeat, and Patrick would go a long way toward increasing the proportion of pro-Dem. black voters from the current guesstimate of only 70% to nearer the 90% considered a slam-dunk.

MrsM, it is probably a reluctance to feeling the need to “watch her back.” (Maybe she’s seen more than a few episodes of “House of Cards,” the “Macbeth" of the new millennium). It was pointed out on “Meet the Press” this morning that Obama and Dubya both picked running mates who no longer wanted to run for President (though Cheney was delighted to function as Pres. without the title--the joke was that Dubya was “an irregular heartbeat away from the Presidency”). Dukakis did the same thing by picking the superannuated Lloyd Bentsen--but that might have played a major part in his defeat (granted, Dukakis also had all the charisma and political instincts of a cinder block).

Goodness, we are in a strange new world when the Koch brothers are the ones making sense!

When conservatives bash the Clintons as a couple, I always raise my eyebrows; what is more 'family values' than a couple who stays together and rebuilds their marriage after one of them really screws up?

I still support Hillary.