markpkessinger
markpkessinger's JournalTrump's Grandiose Delusions
Years ago I had a distant relative, now deceased, who suffered from grandiose delusions. In his younger years, it seemed like it was merely a case of a grossly inflated ego (he was convinced of his own superior intelligence). As he got older, that morphed into a belief that he was the object of every woman's desire (trust me, he wasn't). Eventually, he had a full psychotic break, replete with delusions of his own divinity.
Sound familiar?
Never, ever in my wildest dreams did I imagine such a person would occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One might think Trump voters would begin to question their own political judgment, but . . . I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen!
I want to live in Elizabeth Warren's America
I absolutely love this op-ed from the New York Times!
By Farhad Manjoo
t’s early, but this much is true: Elizabeth Warren is running the most impressive presidential campaign in ages, certainly the most impressive campaign within my lifetime.
I don’t mean that the Massachusetts senator is a better speaker than anyone who has ever run, nor a more strident revolutionary, nor as charismatic a shaper of her public image. It’s not even that she has better ideas than her opponents, though on a range of issues she certainly does.
I’m impressed instead by something more simple and elemental: Warren actually has ideas. She has grand, detailed and daring ideas, and through these ideas she is single-handedly elevating the already endless slog of the 2020 presidential campaign into something weightier and more interesting than what it might otherwise have been: a frivolous contest about who hates Donald Trump most.
Warren’s approach is ambitious and unconventional. She is betting on depth in a shallow, tweet-driven world. By offering so much honest detail so early, she risks turning off key constituencies, alienating donors and muddying the gauzy visionary branding that is the fuel for so much early horse-race coverage. It’s worth noting that it took Warren months of campaigning and reams of policy proposals to earn her a spot on the cover of Time Magazine. Meanwhile, because they match the culture’s Aaron Sorkinian picture of what a smart progressive looks like, Beto and Buttigieg — whose policy depth can be measured in tossed-off paragraphs — are awarded fawning coverage just for showing up male.
Continue reading at The New York Times . . .
A note of appreciation for Mayor Pete . . .
I am supporting Elizabeth Warren, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I wanted to express my appreciation for the way Pete Buttigieg handled himself in the Fox News town hall. Butiigieg answered every question that was put to him in a straightforward manner that wasn't at all cagey. What's more, he deftly evaded every rhetorical trap Chris Wallace tried to snare him with.
On a very loaded question about late-term abortions, Buttigieg beautifully flipped the paradigm. He said (and I am paraphrasing here, not directly quoting): "We're getting all hung up on where to draw the line, but in doing so, we're missing the crucial question of who gets to draw the line. I trust women to draw the line." It was the best possible response anyone could have given to that very loaded question.
When Wallace tried to trap him into a rivalry with Warren over his decision to appear in a Fox News town hall, he said (and I quote): "A lot of people in my party were critical of me doing this, and I get where that’s coming from, especially when you see what goes on with some of the opinion hosts on this network. I mean when you’ve got Tucker Carlson saying that immigrants make America dirty. When you’ve got Laura Ingraham comparing detention centers with children in cages to summer camps,” there is a reason why anybody has to swallow hard and think twice before participating in this media ecosystem.”
That answer was a stroke of brilliance, in that while being confident in his own decision to appear in a Fox News-hosted event, he managed at the same time to validate Elizabeth Warren's decision not to do so. I came away feeling glad that Elizabeth Warren made the decision she did, and equally glad that Mayor Pete made the decision he made.
Whatever happens in 2020, I predict that Mayor Pete has a very bright future in national politics! (Oh, and I think he'd make an ideal running mate for Elizabeth Warren!)
Those who have dismissed Warren as "unlikable," "unrelatable" or "unelectable" . . .
. . . really need to take another look.
Democrats who have bought into the idea that Elizabeth Warren is "unelectable" really need to take another look. In terms of laying out a clear and coherent policy agenda, she is miles ahead of any of the other candidates. A number of candidates have now joined her stance against appearing in any events hosted by Fox News, but it was Elizabeth Warren who led the way, and made such a compelling case.
She is leading the way in her development of economic policies. One of those policies, a plan to reach out to small business owners to get them to understand that their interests and those of giant corporations are fundamentally different (see The Atlantic, "Elizabeth Warren Has a Theory About Corporate Power" ), is a real innovation for a Democratic candidate. And in response to the outrageous abortion laws just passed in Georgia and Alabama, she has come out with a bold plan to protect a woman's right to choose.
This is what leadership looks like, folks.
Democrats MUST move forward on impeachment, even knowing Senate Republicans will likely acquit
. . . because if they don't, the bar for presidential conduct will have been forever lowered, and House Democrats will have been just as responsible for that lowering as Trump himself.
And another question we should be asking about Covington
Although I have seen suggestions by some that the action by Covington Catholic High School is a violation of the Church's tax exempt status, I don't believe that is the case. Tax exempt status allows such organizations to engage in political advocacy for or against issues or causes; they just can't advocate for specific candidates.
BUT . . .
The question this brings to mind for me is this: Is it appropriate for a school run by a religious organization to enlist minors (il.e., the students in its charge) as pawns or footsoldiers for the religious oragnization's sociopolitical advocacy? Some will say sending these kids to the demonstration was about teaching the kids civic engagement. But if that's the case, I would ask, what about any students who may quietly disagree with the school's (and the church's) position on the issue in question (abortion, in this case)? Are such students permitted to civically engage the issue on their own terms, free from any fear of academic sanction or disciplinary action by school authorities? if not, then these students are not being taught about civic engagement, but are being used -- indeed, exploited -- by the Roman Catholic Church for its own purposes.
But then, the Roman Catholic Church is rather expert in exploiting children, so . . .
My response to David Brooks and to all other Covington defenders
I posted this initially as a response to David Brooks' column in The New York Times today, a column melodramatically titled, "How We Destroy Lives Today."
New York, NY 56m ago
Having watched both the original video, and the video that the supporters of these kids claim is a vindication of them, I see nothing in the latter that in any way justifies their behavior. The claim is that the boys had been provoked by another group. Perhaps they were, but. . . provoked to do what, exactly?
They claim that the young Mr. Sandmann was "standing his ground." Really? Against what challenge? What I see in the video are two groups, one of the high school students, who are milling about, and the other the native American man and his group, who seem to be moving through the park in the course of their protest, and this is what brings the two into close proximity. Normally, in a free-flowing public setting such as this, there's an automatic give and take of space as people try to move through such a crowd. But for this young man, any such "give" is apparently too much to ask. And so this young man chooses to maintain nearly chest-to-chest contact, his face a foot from the man's face, staring directly at him and smirking. The student has said he was smiling to demonstrate that he and his friends were friendly and accepting. Sorry, but the totality of his smirk, his stare, and his chest-to-chest stance constitutes a body language the meaning of which is well known to any male over about the age of 8. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate, and those kids deserve to be called out on it.
I think there are a lot of very well-meaning people who have been hoodwinked by a clever right-wing spin machine!
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,392
