Jon Ossoff Can Turn Democratic Dreams into Reality on June 20

The jungle primary for Georgia’s 6^th district laid bare the opportunity and the bungling of the Democratic Party in the Trump Era; with a seat, so winnable the Democrats decided rather than make a truly aggressive push, their candidate would focus on the foibles of the Man-Baby President instead of articulating what it means to vote for a Democrat.

Have we not learned from the problems of Hillary Clinton’s doomed campaign? As April segues to May, it’s still difficult to figure out what Hillary was FOR. Her candidacy was predicated on being more serious than the monkey throwing feces all over his cage. The problem is at least the feces-launching monkey is DOING something. Hillary – despite nearly three decades in public service – basically spent her campaign saying, “I’ve done things that are good but, vote for me because I’m not THAT guy.”

This is not a winning strategy. People want to hang their hats onto something. Voters need the tangible. Republicans have mastered this concept.

In Appalachia automation is not the problem with coal, it’s nimby-pimby environmentalists from Washington who are the reason you’re unemployed!

In education, it’s not that charter schools are for-profit entities with student achievement as a secondary goal, it’s that BIG GOVERNMENT wants to keep tenure for the evil, lazy TEACHER UNIONS.

The most egregious is “women’s health.” Regressives use the guise of “women’s health” to call for invasive gynecological examinations just so women can have access to the birth control pill.

By the way, these same Regressives are virulently opposed to anything more than a blood pressure test for a 70-year-old man needing a refill on his boner pills.

Still – messaging.

Back to GA-06. The question I can’t answer today is what is Jon Ossoff for?

He presents a great package – intellectual, handsome, etc. Sacrificing residency for his fiancé while she finishes med school should appeal to every woman except those who inexplicably think their role is in service of men.

On Hardball, Chris Matthews gave him a rough interview but Ossoff was cooler than a Massachusetts winter. The guy is unflappable. He clearly has the temperament to be in office.

But, I don’t know what he’s for. He described himself as “pragmatic” on Hardball, but that has no meaning.

Look at President Moron Don. That guy, you know what he’s for, even as he completely changes his positions.

Is Ossoff for keeping ACA in place while improving the law? I think so because he has a D next to his name.

Is Ossoff against granting a massive tax cut to the 1%? I think so because Bernie Sanders endorses him.

Is Ossoff for increasing the minimum wage? Seeing as most Democrats are, it stands to reason that so is he.

You see where I’m going.

Now, take a gander at Helmet Head in the White House.

He is going to “repeal and replace” ACA because “it’s going to collapse and people will get hurt.”

That’s tangible.

He’s going to deport brown people because “they’re killers and rapists.”

Again, that’s tangible.

He’s going to construct a “big beautiful wall” so that “America is safe.”

Again – tangible.

Granted, Fat Face’s appeal is directed at the ignorant, uneducated, and flagrant racists. As we learned in 2016, there are a lot of them. Reluctant Trump voters couldn’t fathom voting for a Democrat. When Gary “Aleppo” Johnson turned out to be weirder than everyone thought, there was no protest vote outlet for those disaffected Republicans.

Now look at Bernie Sanders. BUT NO! HE’S A SOCIALIST! WE CAN’T LISTEN TO HIM!

Really? Um, you know Bernie’s pretty popular, right?

61% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the cranky old man from Vermont!

His appeal mirrors that of Donnie Dumbass because they both tell you what they’re thinking when you ask. In Bernie’s case, however, these are well thought out positions developed over a lifetime of work throughout various communities in America. Bernie’s ideas don’t change because his son-in-law just walked into his office.

Bernie is the most popular politician in American, and here are his positions:

•           Need to raise taxes on the “Billionaire class"
•      Free college at all public universities
•      Single-payer health care
•        Federal minimum wage of AT LEAST $15 per hour
•       Aggressive climate change regulations

So, if a guy advocating all this “socialist” stuff has a 61% approval rating, what’s to lose?

For the next eight weeks Jon Ossoff is playing with house money. If he loses, well, he’s SUPPOSED to. Right now, he’s having a moment, and it’s best to emulate the Independent Senator from Vermont.

Whether Ossoff is a true Progressive or a more Moderate Democrat is immaterial. Now is the time to swing for the fences. He needs to truly talk to people and give them something to vote FOR.

Think about it – by turning the election into a referendum about Orange Caligula, he earned 48% of the vote. Now he’s running against a woman ardently opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption that also was the architect of the Susan G. Komen foundation’s public relations snafu with Planned Parenthood.

Ossoff must talk about who he is, what he believes in, and how it will make people’s lives better. Make the issues personal – for example, suburban women in Atlanta probably have children and want a better life for them.

Talk about how a Democrat’s tax policy will open doors for their children.

Explain how ACA and/or single payer health care will ensure no child is sick for a minute because treatment is too expensive.

Make women’s privacy a personal issue and not something where the government needs to be involved.

Based on last night’s results, Ossoff already won. Democrats now must step up the moment and provide a vision of what America should look like. As Tom Perez says, Democrats give a shit about people.

Now we must show how our ideas provide the better life for the people of America. Right now, only Groping Don uses a tangible message.

Jon Ossoff is the man for the moment, now it’s on him to seize it. 

Democrats are Wise Not to Fight Gorsuch

If Senate Democrats succeed in forcing the Republicans to change the filibuster rules to confirm Neil Gorsuch, not only is there another Regressive justice on the court, but if Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, or Anthony Kennedy are unable to serve while unpatriotic Republicans control the Senate then a Regressive majority will have America partying like it’s 1789.

The Court’s balance then becomes four Regressives, two Moderates, and three Pragmatists, bringing the Court to a dangerous place not seen since the ruling in Dred Scott.

Regressive justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and late Scalia all share a judicial philosophy tethered to the late 1700s. In short, they believe in a narrow interpretation of the nation’s founding document based on the original intent of the framers. The best example of their style of ruling can be found in Scalia’s searing dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Scalia plainly ignored the 14^th Amendment when authoring his dissent. A cursory reading of the 14^th Amendment makes clear that all American citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. It’s as plainly written as anything from 150 years ago could be. Scalia’s dissent likened the Majority’s dissertation as work of “hippies” while failing to acknowledge the structural inequality existing in a country where heterosexual couples can enjoy all the rights and privileges of legal marriage while homosexual couples are relegated to “Civil Unions” and “Domestic Partnerships.”

Sounds a lot like having to ride in the back of the bus and drink from different water fountains, eh?

Regressives like Scalia believe that unless the Constitution specifically delineates a legal idea, then that idea is to be left to the people to decide. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, “If men were angels no government would be necessary.” Since Madison wrote the Constitution, he probably understands it’s intent better than the late Justice. The idea of leaving interpretations of legal rights up to voters is galactically stupid – if it were up to voters, then Linda Brown would have spent her academic career in segregated schools; women would not have the right to vote, and the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments never would have been passed.

Regressives fail to understand that people by their very nature are abhorrent, selfish beings who only seek their own advantage regardless of how it affects others. It is legality and morality curbing this impulse. Frankly – anyone who wants to live in a land governed by a Regressive interpretation of the Constitution submits themselves to the tyranny of the voting majority.

Do a Google search on how that’s worked out.

Pragmatists are those who take the original verbiage of the Constitution and apply it to modern issues. These are justices such as Ginsburg, Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan but probably the greatest of all Pragmatist justices is Earl Warren.

Reviewing the differences between Brown v. BOE and Plessy v. Ferguson, the essential differences between the two schools of legal thought are most transparent. Plessy is best summarized as “separate but equal” and as long as facilities for both races are of equal quality then the Constitutionality of Jim Crow is justified. That’s a literal reading of the Constitution – nothing in the founding document states “everyone must have equal access to everything.”

Brown upended that ruling using by applying the Constitutional standard of equal protection and summarized beautifully says “separate but equal is unequal”, e.g. two different sets of bathrooms creates a second class of citizenry. That’s pragmatism. In 1789, it was accepted that African-Americans were slaves and their condition wasn’t to change. Until it did thanks to the Civil War and the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments.

Ditto for gay rights. The founders never conceived of a world where homosexuals could live outside of the closet. Pragmatic readings of the Constitution apply its values to the world as it is today – not as it was in 1789 as Regressives so yearn for. Obergefell v. Hodges is the perfect example of Pragmatism. The law is applied as written to a modern situation.

Moderates, of course, are those who blend the two schools of thought. The reason why John Roberts and Kennedy are in this category is each authored opinions rankling both sides of the judicial spectrum. Roberts earned the ire of Republicans with his masterful opinion on the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

Now we’re left with Gorsuch. He’s clearly a qualified jurist though some of his notable rulings rightly earn the quizzically raised eyebrow. He’s replacing the strident Scalia. Gorsuch is not as nefarious as Robert Bork and frankly appears more pragmatic than Scalia. That being said, to classify Gorsuch as anything besides Regressive is intellectually dishonest.

Ultimately, Democrats are foolish for dying on Gorsuch Hill. Democrats are gambling that by changing the rules of the Senate that Republicans will have a Pyrrhic victory. That’s not the case. Not when there’s a possibility over the next four years that a Pragmatic justice can be replaced with a psychotic Regressive such as Alabama’s Bill Pryor. If you think Gorsuch is scary – Pryor makes the white-haired Coloradan look like the second coming of Louis Brandeis.

Part of politics is picking your battles.

This battle is not the one for Democrats to fight. Let Gorsuch through – he’ll get a 52-48 vote which will be embarrassing enough – and live to fight another day while praying that Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsburg have many days ahead of them.

The Hypocrisy of the Trump Voter

“Reluctant” Trump voters upset by Progressive vote-shaming are beyond paradoxical.

The zeitgeist of the Trump campaign is best summed up as “I don’t care how my actions make you feel – deal with it.” If one voted for Trump – no matter how reluctantly – that vote endorses the massive middle finger to America that was Trump’s campaign and is now the Trump presidency.

A New York Times article posits liberal outrage is fueling Trump approval. Before examining this idea, let’s review these inarguable (but not alternative) facts:

• ·         Donald Trump ran a racist, sexist, xenophobic campaign
• ·         Donald Trump’s most fervent supporters are white nationalists a.k.a. the alt-right a.k.a. Nazis
• ·         Donald Trump’s theme song was “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” despite protestations from the Rolling Stones

Let’s review – if you voted for Trump, you voted for a racist, sexist, xenophobe whose most fervent support comes from modern Nazis; the campaign’s theme is distilled into five words: “Don’t like it? Too bad.”

But now you want to complain that Progressives are being mean because they’re pointing out the guy you voted for is a racist?

Here’s a hint – if you don’t want to be labeled as a racist/sexist/xenophobe/bigot – don’t do things that make people think you are!

Like voting for a racist, sexist, xenophobic bigot!

Obviously, not every Trump voter is a bigot and every Hillary voter is not a person of open-minded goodwill. But own what you did! Acknowledge the guy’s history of racism that started with housing discrimination in the 70’s.

The Times’ article laments how Americans feel as if they can’t talk to each other, how some men are upset because women won’t date them because they’re Trump supporters, and how if you live in certain communities being a Trump supporter is like being gay in the 50’s.

Hyperbole much?

Frankly – the idea of the meek Trump supporter is astonishing, I was sure it was easier finding the Yeti, but the Times found these folks. The crux of their complaint – Progressives aren’t being nice and driving them to embrace Trump more – is farcical.

One guy owned a MAGA hat. He said he was too scared to wear the hat in public. Really?! Then why’d you buy the hat!

I lived in New York most of my life. I’ve been a Red Sox fan most of my life. I wore a Red Sox hat in Yankee Stadium. Proudly. I knew what I was doing and didn’t care. That’s why you buy the hat!

Let’s assume, however, mean Progressives are driving sensitive Trump supporters into the arms of His Orangeness. Does this mean if Progressive are nice these sensitive Trump supporters will get off the Trump train and board the Progressive Express?

If all it takes is a Progressive saying, “I know you voted for a racist, sexist, xenophobic Russophile. But that’s ok – you didn’t mean it. Let’s hug it out”, for you to start calling Congress and opposing the Muslim Ban, Deportation Force, Dismantling of Climate Change Initiatives, Trumpcare and the dumping of coal mine pollution into rivers, then let me say to you as Robin Williams did to Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting:

It’s not your fault.

It’s not your fault.

Son, it’s not your fault.

*holds you while you cry and purge the guilt from your soul*

Better now?

Perhaps my tone puts these Trump supporters over the edge. Maybe that tepid Trumpite resents my sarcasm and condescension.

Here’s the problem: I don’t care.

Donald Trump is morally repugnant. His ideology is one of exclusion and is antithetical to what America is.

Banning Muslims from entering the country is wrong.

Kicking out immigrants who broke a single law because they are too poor to comply with the law is wrong.

Bragging about sexual assault is wrong.

Claiming that all men engage in “locker room talk” is offensive to men who have actually been in a locker room.

Writing a giant “N” on apartment applications to denote black applicants from white applicants is wrong.

Colluding with a foreign power most charitably described as an enemy of the American people is wrong.

Attacking the media because they happen to report what you actually say is wrong.

The bottom line is Trump voters endorsed all the above actions when voting for the man. Your moral conflict is not my problem.

When Booker T. Washington was invited to dinner at the White House by Theodore Roosevelt, it sparked outrage. Senator James Vardaman said the White House was “so saturated with the odor of nigger that the rats had taken refuge in the stable”, and Senator Benjamin Tillman added, “we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back in their places.”

Today, they would be rightly consigned to the dustbin of antiquity and rightfully shamed. At that time people who disagreed with them shouldn’t call them bad names but instead try to win them over.

Referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals, stating that Islam equates to terrorism, bragging about sexual assault, denying housing to people based on their skin color are all equivalent acts to the statements of Sens. Vardaman and Tillman.

Vardaman and Tillman spent their lives advocating white supremacy over African-Americans. In their day, their words and actions were considered brash and populist but not beyond the pale.

Today, their legacy is that of unabashed bigots.

Examine Trump’s words and actions. Today, his language is brash and populist, but apparently not beyond the pale.

So, wishy-washy Trump supporters, if you can’t understand why Progressives are virulently opposed to the man you voted for and the explanation above didn’t clarify it, there’s either no helping you or you’re just not interested in being helped. 

Time For Democrats to Be Patriotic

Branding in American politics is everything – get branded as a liar, or crooked, or low energy, and these charges dog your campaign because the narrative takes on a life of its own. Donald Trump exploited his branding expertise to win the Presidency and in the process exposed a pervasive stereotype that delegitimizes the Democratic party: Only Republicans love America.

Let’s be honest Democrats, since soon after 9/11, every time we saw an American flag on a truck or a home the flag bearer wasn’t to be trusted – they stood against gay marriage, choice, were pro-war, and anti-Muslim.

During the Obama years, these flag bearers were primary conduits of the flagrantly racist birther lie. The American flag’s pairing with the modified Gadsden flag denoted angry, older white people unable to cope with the Head of State being a bi-racial man with the middle name of “Hussein.”

Democrats missed the opportunity to re-brand patriotism.

Republicans used the last 15 years to brand Democrats as people who apologize for America thanks to their abhorrence of the Constitution.

The Trump campaign and Presidency brings the Democrats’ inability to properly brand their patriotism into stark focus.

Here’s the difference: at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate, he flies an enormous American flag. The flag is so large the Town of Palm Beach warned him and eventually instituted daily code violations due to the flag being oversized. Trump’s response was telling the town to send him a bill. 

Democrats chortled at the billionaire’s brashness, but it established his patriotic bonafides.

Quick – name a Democrat wrapping themselves in the American flag?

You can’t.

However, losers see difficulty in opportunity – champions see opportunity in difficulty.

Here’s how that applies to Democrats – it’s time to wrap yourself in the flag and the Constitution. It’s time to articulate what REAL patriotism is.

Real patriotism is not claiming to love the Constitution while using it as a cudgel to deny people the right to vote, equal pay, and civil rights including marriage.

Real patriotism is not flying the American flag and telling people who want to come here to get out.

Real patriotism is not claiming to “support the troops” and excitedly sending them into conflict zones failing to serve the national interest.

Real patriotism isn’t whining about taxes being confiscatory while simultaneously complaining no one helps each other anymore.

Real patriotism has nothing to do with firearms.

What is real patriotism?

Real patriotism is flying the American flag along with the flag of your ethnic origin. E pluribus unum, bitches.

Real patriotism is fighting for equal rights as the Constitution clearly dictates not only in the Preamble but in the 14^th Amendment.

Real patriotism is when you have a little more fortune than others, paying your fair share to help those who didn’t win life’s lottery.

Real patriotism is pushing for equality of opportunity for those in poverty and those marginalized by an unjust system.

Real patriotism is fighting for every citizen to have the right to vote – including ex-convicts who have paid their debt to society.

Real patriotism is exhausting every single peaceful way to avoid sending our military into danger and if they must be sent into danger, it’s something serving humanity.

Real patriotism is knowing your roots as an immigrant and throwing open the doors for those who are looking for the same path your ancestors took.

Have you heard Democrats speaking in these plain terms? Me neither. I don’t have all the answers, but I do know a robust debate on patriotism is needed. The Republican idea of American exceptionalism and exclusivity is antithetical to the American ideal. The framers were men of great intellect but great flaws.

The idea of Constitutional literalism espoused by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul means African-Americans are 3/5 of a person and only white men who own property are allowed to vote.

Doesn’t sound like America to me.

It’s time for Democrats to embrace patriotism. Fly American flags and talk about how this nation is great and will be greater as we move forward and embrace equality for all. Our houses and cars must be adorned with the flag. We must constantly talk about how this country, despite its current political climate, is the best hope for people seeking a better life. Furthermore, we must talk about the Constitution as a living document holding citizens and institutions accountable.

Democrats have done a lousy job being patriotic. Patriotism is not the virtue of the vicious as Oscar Wilde once wrote – instead it’s a love of something bigger than yourself – your country. Loving America and wanting to change America so future generations of Americans don’t struggle thanks to antiquated ideas are not mutually exclusive.

If it was the case that loving America meant keeping it as is, Lincoln never would have freed the slaves.

The Bill of Rights would not exist.

Women would not be allowed to vote.

The Civil Rights movement never would have commenced.

Love wouldn’t be love.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding patriotism is simply this: Republicans long for an America of yesterday because, “those were the days.”

Democrats long for a more perfect union because being patriotic means loving something enough to point out its shortcomings and working diligently to correct them.

Now it’s time for Democrats to wrap themselves in the flag while doing it – for they are the real patriots.