But first:

Was Kavanaugh truthful and forthcoming under oath?  Herewith a compendium that argues otherwise.  (A couple of the items are truly quibbles; but the rest?  Seems to me a Supreme Court Justice should be, in temperament and integrity, beyond reproach.  And ideally, not someone with a nationally televised record of despising Democrats or Republicans.  It’s a job interview, not a trial.  If the employer has some serious doubts, he or she, —  or in this case, we — should move on to an applicant about whom there would be no serious doubts.  Especially when hiring someone for a lifetime.  That may not be entirely fair to the applicant.  But that’s just one person’s disappointment.  At stake is the well-being, over the next 30 years, over hundreds of millions.)


Next:

Randall B: “My wife and I went to Fahrenheit 11/9 tonight, due in great measure to your encouragement. Given your DNC experience, I am really interested in your take on his indictment of the Democratic party. If you agree with his criticism, what course of action would you recommend to a loyal, but concerned, Democrat? If you do not agree, why not?”

☞ Great question.  (I had thought of addressing this in the initial post, but wanted to keep that brief.)

Two things jumped out at me.

First, the film makes it look as though the election was stolen from Bernie, and that’s just not the case, as I’ve written here, mainly (Not Rigged!), but also here and here.

The DNC had zero to do with Hillary backers’ giving her a two-year head start (“Ready for Hillary“) over Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee. Had Bernie’s folks also begun bus tours in 2014, things might have been different; but as it was, Hillary got nearly 16 million votes to Bernie’s 12 million.  And I think it’s hard for anyone to argue that by the time the voting started, Bernie’s candidacy was not all but universally known.  It was — rightly — nightly national news.

Second was the general portrayal of the DNC as — while maybe not as bad as the RNC — basically a corporate tool.  But that’s just not true.  Most of the DNC’s 450 or so members are neither corporate nor particularly affluent.  And its chair — where most of the decisions get made — is a Latino champion of labor.

Of its eleven other officers, only one is a straight non-Hispanic Caucasian.

And only one is a Wall Streeter.

And if you read his bio — as I hope you will — I think it will leave you feeling pretty good that [Understatement ON] he’s no Wilbur Ross [OFF].


Finally:

Democratic donors frequently ask, especially in a non-Presidential year when there’s no single standard-bearer: what’s the Democratic message?

But as former Congressman Steve Israel argues, “A message that resonates in downtown Brooklyn, New York, could backfire in Brooklyn, Iowa—which happens to be located in a Republican district that’s now highly competitive.”  We don’t need a single message.

Yes, it would certainly be great if we Democrats had better discipline, repeating the same two or three short, simple mantras over and over.

E.g.: “The incredible Obama recovery was so strong, even Trump hasn’t yet killed it . . . though with his massive borrowing to cut taxes on the rich he’s certainly laying the seeds of the next crisis . . . ” (Already that’s too many words.  I get it.)

But there’s no magic slogan that will power the massive blue wave needed to pull the country out of its tailspin November 6.

We just each need to votevolunteer, and give.


Have a great weekend!

 

 

Comments are closed.