It's hard to believe how well Bernie Sanders is doing in recent polling. Not only is he a serious contender for the office of POTUS, but this "Democrat" (he was elected to the Senate as an Independent) has amazingly high ratings against GOP competition.
A recent article notes that Sanders is either ahead of (or virtually tied with) all the top 3 GOP candidates.
SANDERS: 48%
BUSH: 47%
SANDERS: 48%
WALKER: 42%
SANDERS: 59%
TRUMP: 38%
Too bad that the election couldn't be held today.... It'd be nice to see an independent voice cause some trouble in Washington. But people are following Trump for the same reason - they feel betrayed by Washington, and Trump has become a "rara avis" - a rich populist who speaks with the emotional style craved by many working class conservatives.
- - - - - -
Hillary Clinton is still the most likely Democratic candidate for POTUS, even though she has a very high dislike rating. The "powers that be" prefer HRC to Bernie Sanders (or Trump) because they represent real change. Hillary may say that she stands for progressiveness, but hardly anyone believes her. Most people (even Democrats) see her as a Machiavel - a dangerous person.
But what happens if HRC becomes the Democratic candidate? An article in the Washington Post indicates that she has a lot to worry about. Americans tend to elect presidents with whom they'd like to have a drink. (Obama in my opinion is a noted exception.) Other research has shown that Americans vote for the best looking candidate, and not the most competent candidate. This means that younger GOP candidates would have another edge over her. Sadly, even the New York Times says that HRC has a lot of problems with this presidential run - the article may be hinting that she might not be the Democrats' best candidate without openly stating this. (The Times leans left of center these days.)
- - - - - -
Yet, I see an interesting possibility. What if Trump is able to bully his way to the top of the GOP heap, and stay there against all the wishes of the GOP nomenklatura? And, to make this more interesting, what if Bernie is able to leapfrog Hillary to the Democrats' nomination, against the wishes of its nomenklatura? Who is most likely to win? Given that Trump is a blowhard that has no idea of how to run a country according to law, would that be enough to get disaffected Republicans to consider a Democrat? Only time will tell....
I'll bet that most police officers hope that all encounters go as smoothly as this one appears to have gone. Sadly, this is not the case - and we have had an incident in the news as of late, where one driver apparently pulled over to let a police car go by, and it turned into an escalated incident where the driver was arrested, placed in jail, and found dead in her jail cell.
- - - - - -
As I read about Sandra Bland's incident with the police, I was appalled that the police department didn't bother to follow proper procedures in this case. And then, seeing the video of her arrest, I was further appalled by (what appears to be) a cop who was looking for an excuse to hassle a person, simply because he had a bug up his ass.
The initial incident could have been handled with much more diplomacy, if the police officer had been properly trained in tools of easing tension and had used those tools properly. Could you imagine if someone had been with her in the car and was carrying a legal handgun, as is common in Texas? Would there have been as much a commotion about a questionable death in a jail cell had someone in the car been armed?
- - - - - -
To me, Sandra Bland's arrest and later death was a crime, but what really did happen? I can not trust the police - the video seems to indicate that the police officer was being overly aggressive, while Bland was simply trying to exercise her rights. Does any police authority have the automatic right to arrest someone without telling that person why he/she is being arrested? Something is very wrong here. And to make things even worse, she died in the jail - with the autopsy showing results that could have been caused by a death other than suicide.
Thanks to the internet, we are finding out about much more abuse of power by police forces over the past year or two. And this is a good thing. When the police and government have lost the trust of the average person, authoritarianism can't be far behind. Let's pray that I am wrong about this....
About a year ago, I was talking with one of my friends, and she told me of an experience her sister had with a famous TV personality. At that time, I said that I would be waiting for more evidence to come out - and it did.
- - - - - -
This week, if Bill Cosby's reputation isn't shot, it soon will be, given everything being published in the media. Oh, how the mighty hath fallen! When the talk about Cosby mentions him giving pills to women, and the President (in no uncertain terms) defines what rape is, I do not expect that this man will be able to rescue his reputation. But stranger things have happened before.
Years ago, 3 term Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC was convicted on drug charges, and after serving his time, was elected to a 4th term as mayor. It is amazing how many people with criminal records have been elected to public office - in the United States, and elsewhere. It's as if we expect our politicians to be criminals, and don't demand much more from them.
In many ways, we get what we deserve - we often vote out of tribal loyalty, and then complain when things don't change. I will never vote a straight party line ticket. But I will vote against a party line. Let's say that I am pro choice. In this case, I would not automatically rule out a GOP candidate who has shown himself to be pro-choice. And if I were pro-life, I'd consider a Democrat who is pro-life. In short, I don't let the two-party system define me, and I hope that it defines the choices of fewer people in the long run.
- - - - - -
Why is it that the two party has worked so well for so long, and then failed so miserably in recent times? In the past, both major parties had an equal balance between conservatives and liberals - in regard to social agenda. There was only a mild bias towards or against business in each party, and one that wouldn't stop people like Theodore Roosevelt from acting against the worst of business excesses. Today, as a result of Nixon's GOP "Southern Strategy", there are fewer social liberals in the GOP , as well as fewer social conservatives in the Democratic party. This has forced the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of major social decisions - much more so today, than in the past.
In a way, the Supreme Court's role as an arbiter is a good thing. The two political parties reflect two extremes in our society which can never be reconciled. One side believes that the social order must be maintained, no matter how unjust it is to any one individual or group. And the other side believes that the rights of the individual (when in doubt) trumps that of the larger community. This divide can be defined in other ways, such a slow/fast lever defining the rate of societal change. And it has been defined as a rural vs. urban divide. But with each of these definitions, very few things bind the two sides of society together.
- - - - - -
If we look at the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations, a casual observer can see the hypocrisy in both tribes. And it's hard to get anything useful done when the leadership of the country is delegitimized by calling the person a criminal (as int he case of Bush) or an illegal alien (as in the case of Obama). Both tribes are equally responsible for this problem, as they have made anyone who makes an overture to people in the opposing party into pariahs.
Yet, when we look back at Bush's presidency (I think he was a poor president), one finds someone more than willing to appease his party's base. Did he get much done? Not as much as it may seem, as we (luckily) had a Democratic congress to check and balance his political instincts. (And now, the GOP can check and balance Obama's excesses.) His legacy, as I see it, will be the unrestrained and unnuanced response to terrorism, and not bothering to finance his wars properly - as we did in all of our country's other wars. (Does anyone remember WW2 war bonds?) To me, it was the Bush administration who was responsible for the unchecked loss of domestic privacy (with unwarranted searches and seizures), the unchecked use of torture (waterboarding, etc.), and the 2008 financial system "almost" collapse. The public (and much of the GOP) is right to consider him a pariah....
- - - - - -
My question is: Who should be a pariah? Is it just any person who commits a heinous act for which he/she should be ostracized from polite society? Or, does tribal loyalty have a part in answering that question. I feel that Bush was a decent man who was playing in the wrong league - and allowed a lot of bad things to happen. Should he be a pariah? One thing I know, I will not be watching any reruns of Bill Cosby's shows anytime soon....
Donald Trump - a man so filled with ego, he has no doubts about himself, even when he's totally wrong about things. He's a man who knows, that if you say a lie often enough, many people will consider it to be the truth - especially when they want to hear that lie become truth.
- - - - - -
As I write this, American businesses are slowly disconnecting themselves from their business relationships with Trump. NBC/Universal has decided not to show the Miss Universe pageant on its networks, Macy's has decided to stop selling Trump branded goods, as well as other businesses keeping their distance from this, the loudest clown in the GOP Clown Car (The GOP's 2016 POTUS Candidates).
Sadly, he's saying what many in the GOP base really wants to hear - illegal immigrants from Mexico are taking American Jobs and are part of the criminal class. Although he walked back his words, the not so hidden meaning was - most Mexicans are criminals who need to be pushed back over the border, something which is furthest from the truth.... And this has gotten the GOP mainstream worried, as Trump recently reached #2 in the polls. The last thing the GOP wants is to lose the Latino vote for the long term - and Trump's pandering to the base is hurting long term GOP prospects with the Latino population..
Most of the GOP Clown Car is afraid to deal with racism in the party's base. Recently, they ducked the issue of whether the Rebel flag should be flown in South Carolina, claiming that is was a local issue and that the flag reflected "Southern Heritage". Yet, a majority of South Carolinians (including GOP members) supported taking down the flag. Why such a disconnect between the population of South Carolina and the people who want to be our national leaders? To make things worse, when the issue was brought up in the US Congress, regarding the flying of the Rebel flag in Federal parks, the GOP leadership tried to duck the issue - so that they wouldn't anger the racists in their base who continue to vote them into office. This is a bloody shame!
- - - - - -
But back to Trump....
Many Americans want a president who can run this country like a business. But if Trump were to run it, we'd have a legacy of failure. His casino ventures didn't do well, his air-shuttle flopped, his vodka is forgettable, Macy's has dropped his clothing line, NBC/Universal has terminated their relationship with his Miss Unvierse pageant, and the only thing he has going for him is the magic of his name tacked onto a real estate deal. Trump has licensed out his name on a large number of real estate deals, and to me, his quality control seems to be lacking. Can you imagine how he'd screw up this country?
- - - - - -
Sadly, the clown car keeps moving along, and there is not anyone who I'd really feel comfortable voting for in this race. Too bad that Kinky Friedman and Jesse Ventura aren't running - either would get my vote.....
