January 22, 2019

Toxic MAGAsculinity

Covington Proud. That whole school needs to be disinfected.



Beginning with the teachers that allowed this to happen



Everyone of those kids should've been disciplined harshly. But they're kids and they need to be taught better. So really, I'm wondering why the grown up coaches and administrators who didn't stop this barbaric behavior weren't fired immediately.

January 22, 2019

"I shouldn't have said 'tapes' ": the Rudy Giuliani of Rudy Giuliani fuckups

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/um-tapes

Read the whole thing, buu-uut...

RG - Rudy Giuliani
NYR - New Yorker reporter

RG: But I can tell you, from the moment I read the story, I knew the story was false.

NYR: Because?

RG: Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the e-mails, and I knew none existed. And then, basically, when the special counsel said that, just in case there are any others I might not know about, they probably went through others and found the same thing.

NYR: Wait, what tapes have you gone through?

RG: I shouldn’t have said tapes.

January 7, 2019

I'm the social studies equivalent of a grammar nazi. And I'm Beto-curious.

I don't like it when people propose who they want nominated for President and Vice President. I'm the political science equivalent of a grammar nazi. You might as well tell me "Your going to love this soup" or "I would of preferred less salt on my margarita."

I assume when people tell me their opinion, it's because they at some level want me to consider joining their opinion on who we should nominate. But when you say "I want a Biden-Beto ticket" or "I want a Warren-Harris ticket" or "If we don't nominate Clooney-Gottfried I'm moving to Sweden," you're pretty much announcing you don't know how the system works. I'm not going to respect that much your opinion now. I would of preferred you stuck to just one name if your trying to persuade me.

Here's how it actually works: We vote (or caucus) for who we want for president and then whoever gets the nomination nominates a VP nominee. We've been doing it like this since 1960 in the Democratic Party. But when people say "This time we need to nominate X and Y," they're expressing an opinion on a topic over which they literally will have no say or sway.

I came to this topic because I keep seeing articles like this: "Biden and Beto May Team Up for a 2020 Presidential Run" (spoiler: no serious person is actually talking about this) as well as comments in different forums where people make this speculation. I assume the thinking behind this is someone thinking either "I think this would be a good balance" or "Dems should nominate the candidate I want, plus this other person who'll plug the appeal hole my candidate lacks." It could be a "I like both of these candidate" but I doubt that's true, since a clear primary preference is being expressed.

The Biden-Beto suggestion is particularly irksome. And I say this as an enthusiastic fan of Joe Biden. I love the man. I still look at old Barack and Joe memes and give a little wistful sigh after my giggles die down, pining for what could have been. I supported him wholeheartedly in 1988 and again in 2008 until he left the field. But when people say "I want Biden-Beto" they're saying "I want Joe in his prime" or "I want a Joe who appeals to the kids." They're pining for the past. I may be old, but I'm not so old that I've forgotten that this party only leads when we look to the future (and this party only wins when nominate fresh young faces).

But as a Beto O'Rourke fan too, I don't like it. Yall don't know what a cool breeze of excitement he brought down here to Texas. He got so many crossover votes and newcomer votes and independent votes because he seems so hopeful and incorruptible and so much his own man. He gave off the cuff speeches; he refused PAC dollars; he called for universal healthcare and defended kneeling for the Pledge in the most conservative counties in Texas. His appeal is of a man who can't be bought. So it strikes me as irksome if someone hints that his freshness and appeal can be at least rented out through the next election. The second you put Beto in the number two slot, he loses his Betoness. As an understudy, he'd need to tow someone else's line. This works against his strength as a leader.

And I probably sound like I'm saying I'm supporting Robert Francis O'Rourke for the nomination. But I'm not; not yet. I'm torn between two other candidates right now, but I will confess to being Beto-curious. I can't quantify it yet, but he has an "it" factor that both my other leading maybes have had in the past. If I'm feeling flush I may even donate a bit to all three.

Still, don't appeal to me by naming your preference as number one and my candidate as number two. That never works. Besides, I don't really see the advantage of naming Beto O'Rourke for a VP nomination to any candidate. His cross-the-lines appeal worked when he was running at the top of the ticket here in Texas last year. He may have lost statewide, but across many purple counties he had incredible coattails, kicking across straight Democratic sweeps for county offices and US House seats. People follow him; people raise record fund-drives for him; this is what makes him different. But all that goes away when he moves into the #2 slot.

Traditionally the VP nomination goes to someone who can shore up the main candidate's vulnerabilities--geographically, demographically, or experientially. But Beto is from an unwinnable state (spoiler alert: I still cry a little bit when I think about this). He has far less traditional experience in his CV than many other white males he'd be contending with for the VP slot. If our nominee needs a white male (spoiler: she won't; objections to having two women on the ticket are ignorant) there are many more better known white senatormen and governormen to plug in. If our nominee needs to swing Texas, our nominee won't really need any help winning at all. Plus Julian Castro can get you there with a lot more executive experience to boot.

The "hole" Beto patches for Democrats is youth and enthusiasm. Beyond that, there's no compelling logic for him to be included on the national ticket. He's shy on experience, as it should be with any young candidate (think Bubba and Barack). He doesn't have a unique economic message like Elizabeth Warren, nor a compelling law and reform record like Kamala Harris, nor does he swing a critical state like Sherrod Brown, nor does he rescue people from burning buildings like Cory fuckin Booker. So if anyone of these contenders nominated Beto, it would be a tacit admission that "I don't appeal to young voters." This would be one hell of an admission of unpopularity--a vulnerability we absolutely don't want our nominee to have.

I'm just venting here. I've named a fat number of potential nominees in this rant. I'm glad I wrote it down. I think we're unusually blessed this election cycle, candidate wise, and I have ABSOLUTE confidence that whoever we nominate will be a winner. I think the most important thing we can do as Democrats is support positive campaigns and--most importantly--do NOT tolerate any Democrat or "Democrat" sewing discord in our discussions. Whoever we nominate will need a united front behind them because our democratic republican form of government is literally under attack, from within and from outside our shores.

I have nothing negative to say about any candidate. I don't have time or tolerance for the usual 'hit pieces' that crop up every four years. If your posts attack our candidates, you're part of the problem. Don't be. Sell your candidate, but don't tear down the others. We've seen the damage that can do.

January 3, 2019

Does Trump wear adult diapers?

Cause I wouldn't want to start a thread speculating about that if it wasn't true.