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.