Big silly wigs

Maybe it’s because the political press is mostly East Coast (and mostly Washington DC, and New York City) while I am way out here in LA, but I just can’t seem to understand why they see what happens in England is a harbinger of what happens in America. The US and Britain are two different countries, for one thing, and there is no issue like Brexit facing us, unless you really do think that Trumpmania and Brexit are the same thing, which I simply cannot see at all. I suppose you could go back in our political histories and find parallels, but I would bet that you can find far more times when we did not parallel at all. Indeed this country was founded on a couple of those non-parallels, and why then we assume we are a reflection of Britain bewilders me. It’s as if somehow these terrified people have watched so many British shows on PBS they actually think Downton Abbey and English politics makes sense here. They do not. They do not because we are way different countries.

Is anyone in Canada or Australia seeing Brexit as an immediate threat to political futures in their own nation? After all, the queen is the official Head of state for Australia and Canada, they officially still have to kiss her royal arse. Yes, even Australians. Even French Canadians, in theory anyway. Yet I seem to recall that in Canada the Conservatives lost the recent election there in a landslide. They were wiped out. A far cry from Trumpmania is Canada right now. What are we to make of this? That something is dangerously out of sorts in Canada because Canadian politics is not wound tightly around political trends in the Motherland?

You could say the same for Australia, New Zealand and, well, Scotland. Hell, you could say the same for Ireland. But no one does, because there is no visible causation between this Brexist referendum and anything happening in those own countries. Except, of course, Scotland, who voted completely opposite from the way the media–and the social media–is getting themselves into hysterics about, seeing Trump everywhere in everything all the time. And they wonder how Trump got to where he is. It was all attention he gets in media, which is due in large part to all the attention he gets in social media. People–reporters, wackos, whisperers and those who stare into their iPhones on the elevator–are obsessed with him. Yet consider this–the least significant thing that occurred on Brexit Day was Trump talking about his golf course. Compared to all the hell breaking loose in London markets and beyond, it was nothing. Yet how often have you seen him talking about his new sprinkler system in the news? On Facebook? In a tweet? But how Trump talking about his sprinklers in Scotland means that Trump will be president and Hillary doomed escapes me. Yet the American Right is thrilled, as are the Bernie or Busters….They rant and rave in ecstasies of I-told-you-so’s, how Brexit equals Trump, Hillary is doomed, Obama a failure. Oh God, what hath Britain wrought?

(I heard someone from New York City say they were so terrified of Brexit that they were moving to Canada. That’s right, moving into the British Commonwealth to escape Great Britain.)

So is Brexit important? Of course it’s important, but it’s mostly important to the United Kingdom (while there still is a United Kingdom) and the European Union. But what does it mean for American politics? Very little. It hasn’t been until the advent of social media that people began obsessing over English politics like it was our own. But each of our constitutions is so different–their’s isn’t even written, for one thing. Our party systems are different, and our voters have little in common besides a language we can mostly understand except on Are You Being Served. The differences are fundamental. Hell, their judges wear wigs. Big silly wigs.

Oh well, I suspect that in an ever shifting 24/7 news cycle, with so much profound copy needed on an hour’s notice, one grasps at coincidences and finds why they are not coincidences at all. Any two coincidences can be connected somehow, even if that connection is ludicrous, at best.

The National Rifle Association and the Senate it paid for.

The list of ayes and nays from Here Are the Senators Who Just Voted Against Closing Gun-Purchase Loopholes in Slate:

Votes on gun bills

Looking through the names of Republican senators, I can see maybe a half dozen who are from states in which yesterday’s no votes on assault rifle restrictions could theoretically be used in an election to beat them. Only six or seven at the most who might possibly find their no vote yesterday an issue come re-election. But that us all, no more than six or seven. Not even voting no on legislation to prevent known terror suspects from buying an AR-15 will likely prove to be the least bit on an incumbrance to anyone else. Indeed, all the remaining Republican senators in this list who voted no are from states in which their vote yesterday would likely be of no consequence whatsoever.

On the other hand, had any of them voted with the Democrats yesterday it would have had potentially disastrous consequences. Because the National Rifle Association could decide to back a primary challenger to the hilt, beginning with a negative ad campaign years ahead of any election. Indeed, years before there was a primary challenger. The NRA could begin seeding the field with negative advertising, viral messaging, robo calls and social media chatter two, four or even six years ahead of time, preparing the straying senator’s state for his eventual demise at the hands of a bright young NRA loyalist. No matter how popular an incumbent senator might be, he can be beaten in a primary, particularly a midterm primary, and in particular a midterm primary runoff election with a very low turnout. Ted Cruz emerged from one of the lowest turnout run off elections in the entire history of Texas, helped along mightily by the NRA. Nobody else could stand the guy, but they liked him.

The NRA has a high success rate with this sort of thing, with a cold eyed willingness to use their nearly limitless funds and resources to go after any Republican who strays. Not that most Republican senators today would even if they could. It’s not that they are cowed by the NRA (as are many Democrats in states with a large NRA membership, among them Bernie Sanders). Most of those Republican senators became senators by being ideologically in tune with the NRA when they won their first primary. And a lot of them got into office by winning primaries against incumbents judged too weak on gun rights. The National Rifle Association doesn’t like to spend its membership’s hard earned cash on candidates who don’t deep down agree with the NRA on the issues. On every issue in fact. They have been very effective at using the GOP primaries to cull those not 100% enamored of uncompromising second amendment rights. The GOP in congress is, as a result, much more hardline on nearly zero restrictions on assault weapons (and open carry, etc.) than 90% of the American public.

Incredibly, the GOP in congress is even more fanatical on Second Amendment Rights than is the bulk of the NRA membership. The legislation voted down by all but two Republican senators yesterday was actually in line with the wishes of the great majority members of the NRA. But the membership is not the threat in a primary. The NRA leadership is the threat. They dole out the money. They write the attack ads. They get the members worked up. They are the absolute masters of single issue political campaigns today because in any given state on voting day they can deliver their members living in that state, en bloc, to their preferred candidate. No one bucks the NRA if they can possibly avoid it.

The NRA has been equally effective in electing true believers in statehouse races. Thus all those surreal instances of states enacting laws that are
so pro-gun it seems insane, and with very little prodding from the NRA. Very little is needed (in Vermont a sixteen year old can purchase and conceal carry a handgun without parental permission; in Florida and Oklahoma it is illegal to prevent an employee  from bringing a gun to work; in Indiana and North Dakota an employer can be sued if he asks an employee if he owns a gun; in Michigan legislators passed a bill allowing concealed carry in schools, bars, daycare centers and churches, though why I do not know.) The candidates who made it through the Republican primary process in those states and got elected are already 2nd Amendment fanatics with deeply held beliefs about gun rights far beyond the pale of what most Americans consider necessary or safe. Or, sometimes, even sane.

At the same time, I can see several here among the list of Democrats who would find the NRA’s anger over this vote to be potentially very dangerous in a midterm election, when Democratic turnout is low and conservative Republican turn out is high. In every case where a swing state has a senator who is extremely pro-NRA–Joni Ernst of Iowa, for example–that senator was elected during a midterm where hardline conservatives flocked to the polls while everyone else stayed home. Midterms with very few exceptions swing to the party out of power. So when a Democrat is in the White House, a lot of very pro-NRA senators are elected in the midterm elections. Senators elected under those circumstances will give the NRA very little concern. They are one of their own, after all.

And while the specific methods used by the National Rifle Association to maintain this coalition in defense of NRA issues are unique, there is nothing unique about an interest group–which is what the National Rifle Association is, an interest group interested only in guns–maintaining such a fearful grip on legislative loyalties. After all, as Republicans love to point out, the AFL-CIO once maintained power in the Congress in much the same way, and any member of congress who went against them could expect an enormous infusion of money, resources and, on election day, votes going to his opponent. Much as the NRA’s influence is relegated to Republican states and districts, mainly rural, so was organized Labor’s influence limited to Democratic states and districts, mainly urban. But it was just as powerful as the NRA is now, and it wasn’t the US opened up its economy to exporting jobs overseas (I’ll blame Reagan, those there’s more than enough responsibility to go around) that union power was reduced….and with it, the number of elected Democrats in congress. Power shifted. The NRA saw the vacuum and filled it and has since never lost a vote on gun control. Not even after a school massacre with a dozen dead babies or an office Christmas party with dead people under the mistletoe or a nightclub full of so many dead you could dance on their bodies and never touch the ground.

Yet all the public wants, and keeps wanting, in poll after poll, is to make it harder for hate filled lunatics and terrorists to buy assault rifles. The sort of assault rifles designed for the military to kill attacking soldiers as quickly as possible, but in the wrong hands can slaughter a room full of innocent people before the cops can get there. But the NRA is adamantly opposed to any such restrictions, and the NRA knows that their allies in Congress would never betray them, no matter how many people die. And the ones who secretly think about betraying them look at Ted Cruz and remember who it was that help put him there.

Maybe when all those Hispanics in the southwest driven into the Democratic Party by Republican nativists begin voting in large enough numbers we’ll see the GOP grip on the Senate begin to wilt. Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and especially Texas are vital to Republican power. Lose them and the Republicans lose their majority in the Senate. And without a Republican majority in the Senate, the National Rifle Association loses its veto power over gun control legislation. Then, and maybe only then, will the overwhelming majority of the American public finally get legislation to keeps assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and psychos, even if they have to pry that law from the NRA’s cold dead hands.

Mitch McConnell gun

Xavier Becerra for vice president

A lot of veepstakes talk in the air. Personally, I’m hoping Hillary picks Xavier Becerra. It’s true that Liz Warren (my second choice) would help bring some of the angrier Bernie voters on board. And it’s true that Corey Booker (my other second choice) is a helluva man. No kidding. Rescued a man from a burning house, literally. Hard to top that. But both he and Warren are senators, and we need every senator we can get. And both are also future and exceptionally qualified presidential candidates, and being veep is rarely a path to the oval office without somebody getting shot first. So I’m loathe to pluck someone out of the Senate. It doesn’t help any that both Massachusetts and New Jersey have Republican governors who would not replace either with a Democrat.

Corey Booker’s base is solidly Democratic and already vote at a higher rate than anyone else in that Democratic base….including nice white middle class Democrats. (Indeed, boomer/gen-x black women have the highest rate of voting of all Americans.) And to pick Liz Warren to draw Berniecrats seems a little unseemly. Most of them are going to come over anyway, and a fifth will vote for Trump whether or not Liz Warren in on the ticket. There’s no doubt that selecting the eminently qualified Elizabeth Warren would be interpreted, unfairly and wrongly, as pleading for Bernie votes. Still, that is how many would interpret it, Hillary pleading for votes. Begging even. And a presidential candidate should never beg. Jimmy Carter begged the voters once. He never recovered.

Xavier Becerra, though, not only rewards one of the key components of Hillary’s winning coalition, but it would dramatically increase the amount of Hispanics who will vote on election day, always a weak point for the Democrats. There were already record numbers of Hispanics registering to vote in the primaries this year, such was their fear and loathing of Donald Trump. With Xavier Becerra on the ballot, the son of Mexican immigrants much like a certain Indiana judge, versus Donald Trump, who has called everyone from Mexico to potential rapists and degenerates, the number of Mexican American voter registrations will sky rocket. This would not only help the Democrats beat Trump this year, but would have profound long term implications for political power in the south west. If Hispanics began voting at the same level as whites, a lot of crazed Tea Partiers and redneck sheriffs can kiss their political asses goodbye. At last there would be a price to pay come election day for all that Republican nativist ranting.

Becerra could turn the southwest into an electoral vote nightmare for the GOP. The increase in Mexican-American voters coming out for a second generation immigrant a heartbeat away from the presidency will deliver Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico to the Democrat column, turn Arizona into a swing state and even force the Trump campaign to spend its limited resources in Texas, where the Hillary campaign will make a huge effort if only because the Republicans will have to spend so much money fighting it (Texas with its seventeen media markets is very expensive for statewide TV advertising.) Becerra on the ticket will give an increased edge in Illinois, make things that much harder for Trump in Florida, and dramatically increase fundraising in California. And above all, it puts Trump’s vicious anti-Mexican bigotry (and his prejudice in general) in the front row seat all campaign long. With Becerra on the ticket, Trump will be a racist 24/7.

And besides all that, Becerra is thoroughly qualified, smart as hell, and a nice guy. He was our congressman for years, and come to think of it, he actually knocked on our door once. As did his brother. The man walked the precincts, old school.

Yeah, Xavier Becerra for vice president

End of pitch.

Trump surrogates

The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell tends to slip into a left wing Fox News vibe with he a wimpy Bill O’Riley. Uncool. That being said, Trump needs to come up with better surrogates. I mean wow, these guys are losers. A minister raving about greed and why it is a good thing, hence Trump is a good thing. Lawrence gets to be morally superior by asserting that greed is not a good thing hence Trump is not a good thing. Like I said, Bill O’Riley level stuff. But where did they get this idiot Trump surrogate? I mean is it really that bad? Probably, but still. Perhaps MSNBC could pay somebody to play the devil’s advocate. Jack Nicholson maybe. Is he working now? That restaurant scene from Five Easy Pieces would work anywhere, I think. You can hold that between your knees, Rachel.

I remember when there was an infinite supply of empty blondes to sing Trump’s praises. Not a lot of guys, just all these blondes. Not much upstairs, maybe, but lots of leg. Perhaps The Donald is a leg man. Now he seems to be a whoever will show up man. I think there were more Trump surrogates before it was discovered that his campaign didn’t even have enough cash on hand to fill a shopping cart at Whole Foods. Maybe they could fill one at Smart and Final, despite the name. Or Votes 4 Less. Or Ralph’s, being that is what Lance Priebus is doing nightly, then smiling weakly, hoping no one asks him why Trump’s Make America Great Again hats were made in China. I tried and tried to find someone in America who could make hats, Trump said, but I couldn’t. Sheesh, Hillary has a guy who looks up hat makers for her. Bernie had hippies who knitted their own. Yet here the Donald is googling hat makers, American. It’s enough to make his blonde surrogate on CNN cry again. But then that was long ago, during a Republican debate, when Marco Rubio was saying mean things about Trump’s penis and Keyleigh’s eyes welled up with tears.

kayleighmcenany2

Piñata

Saw my first Donald Trump piñata last night. My buddy Pope Romero went after it with a vengeance. Trump was dancing on the clothes line and Romero closed his eyes and swung and caught the Donald square in the mid section, whoomp. Innards went flying. Swung again, whoomp, right on the back, and more dulce innards went flying. The next blow did Trump in and his insides exploded, candy everywhere, tootsie rolls and rubbers (“because he’s a dick”) and lots and lots of lollipops (“for all the suckers voting for him”). The crowd cheered and made for the candy. That last swing was for all of us who couldn’t be here Romero said, only half laughing, then dropped the bat to fill his pockets with Trump’s sweet insides.

Bernie Sanders is still a candidate for the nomination but not the kind of candidate who actively seeks the nomination but just the kind of candidate who can’t stand the idea of conceding ever, so he won’t.

Asked if Bernie Sanders is actively seeking the nomination, his campaign manager Jeff Weaver says no. Is the campaign still polling super delegates? No. Asked 12 hours later if Bernie Sanders is still a candidate for the nomination Jeff Weaver says yes.

For a campaign that is different than all the others because it tells the truth, it says, truth seems to have become very relative. It’s hard to see what advantage Bernie has by maintaining the fiction that he is still a presidential candidate when he cannot possibly be one because there are no more delegates to be had and he is not trying to flip any super delegates. But many of his core supporters, the true believers, the ones who have been the most dedicated donors even when they couldn’t afford it, those people still believe in their heart of hearts that Bernie can and will the nomination. And as long as Bernie has not conceded, the campaign can still continue to raise money from these people. Doubtless donations spiked after his speech last night. You have to wonder just how much of this equivocation nonsense–he is not actively seeking the nomination but is still a candidate for the nomination–is because they were flat broke after the California primary. Maybe they couldn’t pay the bills and meet whatever payroll remained, the fate of most failed political campaigns. But then no campaign ever collected donations the way Bernie’s does, in smallish dollar amounts via social media. As long as they have that dedicated base of followers they have money coming in, provided that base still thinks Bernie is actually seeking the nomination. Is that what is happening? Is that why Jeff Weaver takes such pains to state that Bernie is still a candidate? Maybe, maybe not. It’s impossible to tell since they stopped releasing monthly donation totals a couple months ago. For a campaign that began so idealistically, it’s a rather unseemly finish.

He spent part of his speech last night saying how important it was to defeat Trump. But you do not defeat Trump by donating to the Bernie Sanders for President campaign. You do not help other progressive candidates by donating to the Bernie For President campaign. You don’t take back congress or statehouses or state legislatures by donating to the Bernie Sanders for President campaign. You don’t fund ballot initiatives to stop open carry or legalize marijuana or provide homes to the homeless by donating to the Bernie Sanders for President campaign either. It’s hard to tell just who you are benefiting by donating to the Bernie Sanders campaign. Sometimes campaigns wind up existing only to feed themselves, aimless organizations serving no purpose other than collecting funds to collect more funds. I don’t know if the Bernie Sanders campaign has reached that point yet, but I am starting to wonder. Because right now, for all political intents and nomination purposes, the campaign serves no function at all. As current events and filibusters pass it by, the campaign seems to be just spinning its wheels, going nowhere and making money doing it.

don't quit bernie

Bernie’s final campaign rally, Washington D.C. (Photo by Molly Riley, Getty Images.)

The Incredible Vanishing Bernie

What a difference a week and a string of defeats can make. Bernie Sanders has completely vanished from the Huffington Post. Hillary is all over the place, but it’s as if Bernie never existed, either in headline or picture. Trump is everywhere in the Huffington Post, scary as hell. Hillary is everywhere, being presidential. As is Obama, being president. Republicans are all over the paper being cowardly (with an especially bad picture of Mitch McConnell). The National Rifle Association is on there too, being eerily silent. But no Bernie being anything. He was once all over the Huffington Post, every single day, in pictures, headlines, and in columns singing his praises. But that was a long, long time ago, just last week. Now I scroll down and down and down but there is no sign of Bernie Sanders, even though today was the final primary of the Democratic race. Clinton Wins the Washington D.C. Primary a headline says. Bernie didn’t make the headline. I keep scrolling and finally think I see a picture of Bernie Sanders, but it’s actually Larry David. Curb Your Enthusiasm, it said, returns for a ninth season. No mention of his Bernie Sanders shtick. No mention of Bernie at all.

Bernie Sanders exits, stage left.

That was a helluva speech Liz Warren gave. It’s unfortunate it had to be today, though, and not tomorrow, because I would have loved to have seen Bernie Sanders’ speech at RFK stadium. He was a couple minutes into it, subdued, almost pensive, like an immense weight was upon him. Where was he going with this? How would the crowd respond? I was transfixed. Suddenly it’s a split screen, and Liz Warren came walking out onto a stage, beaming. Bernie, exhausted, was speaking but you couldn’t help but be distracted by the electricity in Elizabeth Warren’s stride. Bernie was telling the crowd that his campaign is doing something different. It is telling the truth, he says, as he has said a thousand times–when the audio switches without warning to Liz Warren and Bernie is cut off mid-sentence. We hear Liz Warren launch into one of the greatest speeches in our modern political history. It was that good. Bernie’s stump speech was forgotten. None of the talking heads even mentioned he had been speaking. They were all about Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It’s like Bernie was never even there. Bernie Sanders, the man who had upended American politics, who had dominated every Democratic conversation. Bernie Sanders, who is all anyone could talk about yesterday. Bernie Sanders, who held the fate of the nation in his hands. But through the magic of live television it seemed like Warren’s star had risen, instantly, and Bernie’s had waned, just as instantly. Was it intended that way? Who knows. But it did make for exciting television. Will it have an electrifying effect on Bernie voters? No doubt, especially the under thirty young women who had been so loyal to Bernie Sanders and not so crazy about Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren had changed the political demographics instantaneously. Liz will definitely win over the Millennial women for Hillary, a young under thirty journalist said, if not the Bernie Bros. Bernie Bros. She rolled her eyes saying it, as if ill mannered, foul mouthed Bernie Bros were suddenly a relic of an older, more primitive time. Angry young men with no respect for women in a women’s world.

But this was not the way this should be happening. I’d been waiting for hours for Bernie’s speech. It was supposed to be a major speech. All the news networks were waiting for it. It was to be broadcast in its entirety. This was to be one of the most significant speeches by the single most significant politician of 2016. “How Bernie Sanders’s day in Washington got eclipsed by Democratic unity” said the headline in the Washington Post. It had all happened so fast. If only somebody could have worked the timing out, coordinated the two events, but perhaps they just were determined to have Elizabeth Warren scorch Donald Trump before she endorsed Hillary this afternoon. And scorch him she did, beautifully, rehearsed to perfection, leaving a pile of cinders where once a big loutish billionaire had been.

There was a lot of stagecraft today, that was obvious, the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton campaign and Elizabeth Warren’s every move choreographed to perfection, without a wasted motion. Smooth and perfect. Political tai chi. Meanwhile Bernie, good honest Bernie, truthful Bernie, crusading Bernie, is left looking like William Jennings Bryan in Inherit the Wind, somehow immediately dated, a relic from an earlier time when he left crowds spellbound and chanting his name. Bernie’s speech today seemed divorced from reality, said the usually sympathetic Huffington Post, scolding him for pretending his campaign was not over. But you had to scroll way down to find that story, it was buried far beneath Elizabeth’s Warren’s enormous photo and name in huge red letters. Scroll down past Marco Rubio’s picture, and a bit further on, between an article on mosquitos and an article on a hit and run driver, was Bernie’s small picture and smaller font, an afterthought. “It would be extraordinary if the people of Washington, our nation’s capital, stood up and told the world that they are ready to lead this country into a political revolution” Bernie told the smallish crowd, just a fraction of the turnout he’d gotten in Los Angeles only days before. But Tuesday’s Washington D.C. primary, would be the last stop in the political revolution, and he will lose it like he lost the South, by a huge margin. Bernie knew that. He had told President Obama just that morning he understood the math. But he was putting on the show for the true believers spread out on the lawn before him. They cheered, they swooned, they knew the catechism by heart. Stay in the race, they chanted. Some said they’d write in Bernie Sanders on the ballot come November. He smiled wanly. It’d been scarcely forty eight hours since the California primary, but that seemed like another time.

bernie-sanders-floated-elizabeth-warren-when-asked-about-vice-presidential-contenders