Here’s a tweet from Ana Navarro that has so many things wrong with it I thought we should dissect it together:
Where to begin?
Well, first, there hasn’t been even one primary yet so we have no idea if Democrats are as clueless as Trump voters in 2016.
Second, implied in her plea is that we don’t select another Hillary Clinton. But we have learned in the last two years that Hillary was a good, experienced and successful candidate. She lost because of a massive fraudulent operation carried out by the Russians and others to mischaracterize her and make her email “scandal” to be the equivalent of pedophilia and mass murder. It was meant to sow distrust and it worked brilliantly. And there was absolutely nothing the dedicated hard working canvassers or the candidate herself could do about it.
Third, those same uncommitted and confused voters are still going to be easily confusable in 2020. It is their nature. I have canvassed them and found them to be the most frustrating voters I’ve ever met, particularly middle aged white women. They are as impenetrable as any wall Trump could build. I’m not saying they’re stupid. I’m saying that there is an internal logic flaw that is easily exploitable by whoever gets there first to tell them how the wind is blowing. Let’s just call them The Herd.
If Ana really wants Democrats to win in 2020, she should straighten out the media. That’s the entity that should be more careful about how it influences The Herd. Ana should know this. Once the media has set a narrative, it’s hard to change it. And if the media wants a photo finish horse race, it will find ways to make the election nail bitingly close. That should make Ana very nervous, not the Democrats.
Fourth, there is nothing even remotely normal about the Trump presidency. We don’t like him. Regular Republicans don’t like him. He’s an international embarrassment and generally dangerous. But what I think I’m hearing in Navarro’s plea is that we nominate someone like Reagan and I’m here to tell her that it ain’t never going to happen. The two parties differ in values, priorities and philosophy. The best we can do is nominate someone who wants to improve the country and represent all of us, not just the left.
I’d like to remind Navarro that if Republicans we’re not in charge of government in the last 30 years, they sabotaged any duly elected Democrat who was. They insisted time and again that Democrats negotiate in a bipartisan manner and put everything on the table. Some things can’t or shouldn’t be compromised or pieces cut up and discarded just because Republicans feel oogy about them.
If times are as desperate as Ana thinks they are, and I wouldn’t disagree, her best shot is to suck it up and make a sacrifice in 2020. Howard Schultz has no political experience and if Mike Bloomberg gets in the race, the Democrats will not vote for him. If she thinks everyone else will go for another NY billionaire for president, she should repeat the term “NY Billionaire” a few times to see how it sounds to Joe Bagodonuts in East Jabip, Ohio.
Yes, Ana, 2020 is not going to be fun for you and your friends, just like it wasn’t fun for us in 2000 or during Clinton’s impeachment over a blow job (really?? We impeached a president over oral sex and Trump is a Russian asset and Republicans are quiet?). It wasn’t fun for a large swath of Democrats in the Obama years who saw him cave to pressure to be just the kind of president YOU want. Someone who doesn’t like confrontation, is incapable of doing thought experiments on his policies, puts everything on the table and gave away the treasury to the Wall Street financiers. It wasn’t fun for us when Hillary Clinton lost. The most experienced presidential candidate we’ve ever nominated “lost” to an ignorant toddler. That REALLY sucked. I’m still not convinced that the Rust Belt elections weren’t hacked. It will always be an open question for me.
Rest assured, Ana, we aren’t going to nominate someone like Trump or Kucinich or Sanders. Hopefully, we’ll nominate someone to the left of Obama, who was really a moderate Republican, and you’ll just have to get onboard. But let’s be clear about something: if you and your friends sit it out and Kamala or Lizzy or Kirsten or Amy loses, it will be you who will “SCREW IT UP”.
Now, chill.
Filed under: General |
The Confluence 
When we take this country back, we must restore the Fairness Doctrine, and aggressively use the anti-trust laws to break up the media conglomerates.
Hopefully, that will be enough.
If not, we may be compelled to junk Thomas Jefferson in favor of Karl Popper, who wrote that free societies cannot afford to tolerate hate propaganda (the “Paradox of Tolerance”), and stifle the haters directly.
As recently as four years ago, I probably never would have typed that last sentence.
Also, some way must be found to extend the Fairness Doctrine to the social media platforms.
Absolutely correct, IBW – and a vigorous application of antitrust law to some of the “tech” (I put that in quotes because neither Twitter, nor Google, nor FaceBorg are really technology companies) companies would be a damned good idea, too.
Sorry, IBW, but everybody occasionally has the urge to silence those they think are wrong. Actually doing that will be the end of the republic, no matter which side does it.
Again, as little as four years ago I doubt I would ever have entertained such thoughts.
My mind is going to some strange places these days.
I also now oppose populism in all its forms. Not only do I think the Democratic Party should retain the “superdelegate” system, but also that the GOP should adopt it. I doubt that a GOP which used the SD system could ever have nominated Benedict Donald.
2016 shattered what pitiful remnants of faith I retained in the intelligence and morality of the average non-elite white American. (Disclosure: I am a non-elite white American.)
While I was waiting for my son to finish his workout, I watched the segment of “60 Minutes” with Howard Schultz. Because the television’s volume was off, I had to read the closed captioning. As he talked about running as an independent, I worried that he would do to the Democratic candidate what Ross Perot did to the Republicans in 1992.
In reading the interview, my impression was that Howard has a lot of hubris to believe that he could win.
The difference between Mike Bloomberg and Howard Schultz is that Bloomberg had political experience as mayor.
Living in Illinois, billionaire Bruce Rauner (R) won the election to be governor in 2014 and served as governor from 2015 to 2019. He came in with a “turn around” agenda that he expected to be implemented on his say so. The legislature had Democratic majorities in both houses and were not going to weaken worker’s comp protections. The stalemate meant that the state did not have a budget for more than 2 years. It harmed small business that provided services to the handicapped. The state had to borrow to pay bills and the state was in worse shape in terms of debt when Rauner left.
Having Rauner as governor was a taste of government by CEO. So I’m not surprised by Agent Orange’s belief that he gets to dictate to Congress.
When the Democratic Party annointed Obama in 2008, even though the primary vote totals were close, it discounted the importance of experience.
For a long time, many presidents had experience as state governors before becoming president.
I really hope that someone talks to Howard about the damage he could do by what is a third party candidacy. It’s too important to get Agent Orange out.
Yes to everything you said! I saw the interview and I was thinking that he’s got the same gigantic ego as Trump with the only difference being that he’s been successful in running his business. That does not qualify him in any manner to govern. In fact, he even said the same things Trump did, “DC out of touch”, “I’ll surround myself with smart people” and “Democrats are promoting horrible ideas which American people reject”.
Ugh.
Schultz is just another businessman who thinks “only he can fix it!” The last thing we need is another old white guy jumping to the front of the line and because of a huge ego, thinks he will have the ability to govern. He’s just another trump of a different color. Surely America has not been dumbed down to the point that they won’t see that he is.
I think the biggest problem with guys like this is that they think “executive experience” in the private sector, with a captive Board of Directors (and a golden parachute) is somehow equivalent to executive experience as a political leader in a democratic society. They also think the objectives of government and a private business are similar enough that “running government like a business” is a good idea.
Exactly. One can tell that Benedict Donald expected to govern as a dictator, rather like the elected dictators of the old Roman Republic, or like his master, Sith Emperor Putin.
The thing is, Trump couldn’t even run his business (unlike Schultz who was actually successful at it).
Yes, RD, chill is right 😊
Mr. Rainbow just brought us another gem 😍
PS, my daughter was at Kamala’s kick off event in Oakland yesterday, I am awaiting her report.
“Trump: Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz ‘doesn’t have the guts’ to run for president.” In other words “PLEASE RUN!!!! Please split that vote and get me re-elected!” He has the mentality of a 1st grader. Good Lord …
Ana Navarro is a very conservative Republican. She just doesn’t like Trump. Same with George Will, Rick Wilson, and the other so-called “Never Trumpers.” They either dislike Trump because of his classless vulgarity, or because they seem him as ruining the “honorable” Republican Party of the Bushes, Reagan, Nikki Haley, and the rest. In other words, they are willing to take one defeat in order to bounce back with four more victories after that. And all the miserable things that happened during the reign of Reagan and Bushes, they were for. So they are not our friends; although if they want to vote for a Democrat this time, we will be happy to take it. But their problem is that they are so arrogant, that they want to tell us whom to pick, as if they had some right to do so.
And of course it is more than implication about Clinton. Will said on TV a month or so ago, than “she was the only biped on earth who could have lost to Trump.” Strange, since he routed every one of the Republicans in the primaries. As far as Russia massively conspiring with him; and all the help from Facebook and the rest, that doesn’t compute to Will. She was five points ahead even with all that, until Comey somehow sent a letter about “new emails,” which was of course completely literally wrong, and immensely damaging. All those Republicans entrenched in SDNY FBI, and all the Republicans in the media, were part of this. Democrats virtually never win a presidential election by 5%, and she would have. Hillary ran as good a campaign as Obama did in 2008, she just didn’t have the benefit of the economy collapsing under the Republicans two months before the election. When the Mueller investigation comes out, we will see just how awful the plots and lies against Hillary (“she had a stroke,” “she is losing her faculties”) were. But somehow for some people, none of it changes their basic dislike of her. And if they won’t blame themselves or their own right-wing noise machine, or their failure to vote, for her, they must blame Hillary herself.
I’m pretty much inured to the fact that Democrats are going to do what they did in 2008; nominate the person who gives them tingles with dramatic speeches. I’m not much for speeches, particularly when the candidates don’t write them. Peggy Noonan made Reagan seem like a right-wing poet. Democrats haven’t gotten that much smarter, they still want someone who will rhapsodize about equality, diversity, taxing the wealthy. They are all good things, but in the political realities, only so much can be done. Plus, words only get one so far. I would want someone who can politically maneuever through the jungle, who can handle the Republicans; and most important of all, who can actually shine in the day-to-day demands of the job, which include meeting with world leaders, representing America on the world stage, crafting and cementing important global agreements. But I don’t think that many Democratic voters, particularly millennials, want to look at things in that way. They would rather see it as another awards show. I think that we will either get Biden, out of nostalgia for the Obama regime, or Harris, the new shining object, as even Obama described himself in retrospect. The rest of them do not have the charisma to get enough votes. We’ll see, of course, but it is the likelihood.
For my part, I would absolutely want Hillary to be the nominee, because she would make the best President, which is what it is supposed to be all about. If not Hillary, then I really don’t know. But after witnessing the Obama, presidency, as superior as he was to the evil Republicans, I am sure that we need a President who can at least potentially face a myriad of world challenges, while still managing to improve things domestically, and stopping the Republicans from obstructing and squelching all of it. History shows us that the job is much tougher than it may look to many voters How many great Presidents have there been? We desperately need a “third term” Democratic President, and we have only gotten one in 150 years, mostly because the right-wing conspiracy manages to pervade the media with falsehoods about what the previous Democratic President did, and what the new candidate will do. Two terms is not enough, not with the Republicans as they are, and the Supreme Court as it is.Those are things I think we should be considering. Obama got two terms, did some good things, some only by halves; and much of it has been destroyed in only two years under the Republicans. That cannot happen again if the country is to survive.
William speaks for me!
I, too, bristled when I saw her tweet. Of course we know she isn’t a Democrat, but way to pass the buck. If you want Trump out of office, for Pete’s sake DO something about it. Don’t just tell us we shoulder the responsibility and wait until November 2020.
As for the Herd, that is a concern. With more folks getting their news on social media, where the worst, most partisan information lives, it’s bound to get ugly again.
👏 bravo! These pundits need to get off their asses and start demanding that the REPUBLICANS don’t screw the WORLD up any further and that they call for their Russian puppet to resign already.
So sick of the lies and the twisted narrative about Hillary. Hillary didn’t lose because of Hillary. She’s a populist candidate and has broad support. The media failed at exposing the Russian propaganda during the campaign despite Hillary’s warning.
If they nominate Bernie I’ll stay the fuck home. And I fear the bros will be out in full force with the “Benie could’ve won” BS (no pun intended) and that people are going to fall for it.
Seagrl,
Remember that a large portion of the so-called “Bernie bros” were Russians! Also, his home state paper implored him NOT to run. Let’s hope he realizes that his time has passed and decide against it. BTW, why hasn’t he been working on his “revolution” since the 2016 election? Keeping that alive should be more important than his running for president, one would think, if he is truly dedicated to the cause. Biden should stay home too. His record in running for president is abysmal and he, too, shouldn’t let his ego get in the way of doing what’s best for the country.
Why don’t Bernie and joe fund raise for the person who gets the democratic nomination? Hillary did that while she was running for president. These guys don’t want to do the work, they just want the glory and the applause, just like trump.
Not sure why women are so high in this poll and, men,…WTF?
I used to believe that Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot, but I do believe now that the right has used our perceived lack of cohesiveness against us and caused division. The one thing that Republicans agree on is that no matter what – if their candidate says the right things (you know, like I’m going to outlaw abortion or we’re going to bring jobs back to the rust belt), they’ll hold their noses and vote for him or her. My own mother in law, a very religious person, voted for trump because of that and because she had been brainwashed that Hilary Clinton is a horrible person. I already see Democrat friends bitching about “too many old white men” running in 2020. I want to shake them and tell them that we need to stick together to beat the orange asshole, but I have decided this time not to expend my emotional energy on people like that.
I’ll admit to harboring a grudge against Biden over both the bankruptcy bill and the treatment of Anita Hill during the Thomas confirmation. Even though I supported Bernie in 2016, I really don’t think we should be fielding an octogenerian in 2020. Even so, there isn’t a single Democratic candidate (declared, undeclared, or just mentioned frequently) whom I woudn’t support against Trump. I just hope we don’t spend the entire primary process generating sound bites for the Republicans to use in the General. The circular firing squad is our greatest weakness.
I’m with you RD. Republicans need to worry about them own selves and quit trying to tell us who to nominate. I don’t have a candidate but I’m keeping an open mind. Hopefully the party learned their lesson from Obama and won’t be nominating someone who spouts pablum. Nancy Pelosi has shown the party the way with her treatment of Trump.
Nancy did a damned good job during the shutdown.
Yes, it would be nice if we could make sound, informed decisions to pick the best candidate to do the job and get it done, but i feel like i am trapped in high school once again and it is going to be either the jock or the babe because the smart kid is boring.
“[T]hose same uncommitted and confused voters are still going to be easily confusable in 2020. ”
In a lot of cases, I’m really afraid this is true. I recently saw a set of December 2016 and January 2019 interviews with registered Pennsylvania Democrats who voted for Trump (same voters in each case) and it was pretty discouraging. Only a couple expressed regrets at their decision. Several were absolutely impenetrable – the most startling was a middle-aged woman who voted for Obama both times and then for Trump because Obama hadn’t done anything to help employment in her rural county (which had been affected by plant closures due to the recession). Since Trump’s inauguration, she had lost her own job, not been able to get another, lost her house and moved into a trailer and she *still* claimed Trump was doing a great job with the economy and was sure she’d vote for him again.
I just don’t know how you reach someone like that.
Can we win without people like that?
If no, then I don’t know how we reach them.
If yes, then fuhgeddabowdem.
Well, that depends on what you’re interested in. If you’re just interested in winning for winning’s sake, then we might not need that woman – although I have to point out that we *lost* her because we (well, Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress) failed her and her community. If all you care about is attaining *power* then you can certainly let people who aren’t your constituents go to hell. If you care about *governing*, then you have a responsibility to them.
I’d like to think we’re about governing (and governing *well*). If we’re not, then we’re really no better than Trump.
When your opponents are fascists, 👿 then hell yes, winning isn’t everything, it’s the ONLY thing.
May I remind you that this segment of the society abandoned the Democratic Party and liberalism BEFORE the stagflation of the 1970s, BEFORE jobs began to be shipped overseas, BEFORE conservatives began to rig the economy so that the 1% got the gold mine while the rest of us got the shaft?
When they began abandoning the DP and liberalism in the late 1960s, they were still enjoying the most broadly prosperous economy in human history. Why did they do it?
Because in order to court the newly independent, overwhelmingly non-white nations of the “Third World” more effectively, the USA, as leader of the Free World, was compelled to make good-faith efforts to end racial and ethnic discrimination in our country. Liberalism, the political philosophy which crushed fascism (alas, its zombie corpse shambles again) and established prosperity and a social safety net, asked of the Good White Real Amurkans NOT that they give up that prosperity, but only that they share that prosperity and that safety net with non-white fellow citizens.
How did non-elite white Americans react to that?
A majority, or at least a critical mass, of non-elite white Americans began throwing a tantrum that has lasted some 50-odd years now.
Sorry, Propertius, but I lack your saintliness. I cannot love these people, or feel compassion for them; indeed, I loathe them, and–may the Ascended Madoka forgive me–I yearn to see them reap the whirlwind the have sown.
To turn to popular culture, you’re Professor Xavier, and I’m Magneto.
You still think the MAGAty normals can be salvaged. I say they are evolutionary rejects, and (to switch franchises) may Areinnye claim them.
If that makes me a monster, then so be it.
RD can confirm that I once called myself by the name of the figure in this gif. I abandoned the name, because I feared becoming this thing indeed. Part of me wants to reclaim that name, and wear it with pride.
*sigh* they have sown.
I hate TurdPress.
“May I remind you that this segment of the society abandoned the Democratic Party and liberalism BEFORE the stagflation of the 1970s, ”
Not this woman. Lifelong Dem, voted for Obama twice. In fact everyone in that series of interviews was a Dem who crossed over in the General.