If you are going to cite outsider presidential candidates benefiting from a long campaign cycle, then you should also include Donald Trump. The Republican Party establishment would have shut him out if the process were quick.
Also, a leading contender at one point for the 2016 Republican nomination is Jeb, not Jed.
Agree. They tried many times in 2016 to get rid of Trump but they couldn't. I watched those debates and one by one they just kept falling and he kept staying. Jeb was the Republican Party's guy, and he couldn't catch on either (Bush Overdoes). I remember one debate in 2016 where Trump said he donated to every person sitting on the stage, and not one person on stage deigned. It seemed like a combination of Trump, Twitter, timing and money because Trump won without the Republican Partys support. Would not have happened 4 years earlier. Now he's like the Republican's Booger, goes from finger to finger but you just can't get rid of him. I am sure there are many Republican's would love to get rid of him but can't now, it's his party. Just a very unusual time. If you went back in time like 10 years ago and told downstate people, hey, gotta guy for you your gonna love, he lies all the time, he's from New York City, he's rich, he humps porn stars, married 3 times, his kids are punks, he's nothing like you and you're gonna love this guy, they would think your nuts...some of the things we witness in life..
I'm convinced that if the idiot rich Republicans who stupidly wanted yet another Bush in the White House had come to their senses & instead supported Kasich, the fat traitor would've lost the primaries!
Republican voters wanted something different. They claimed to be tired of corporate politicians who all talked and looked alike while not doing anything for them. Trump was an idiot who wrestled Vince McMahon and was on reality television. He had almost zero political baggage. He was definitely different. Ah, the value of hindsight! If we had only known then what we now know!
The problem for both parties is the primary process, not the length. Ranked choice voting would fix a lot of the problems. The caucus vs primary thing is weird. The rules for getting on a ballot are screwed up and engage far too many lawyers. And each party intentionally supporting an opponent that they believe is a loser. Gerrymandering also reduces the incentive to participate in primaries for the 'out' party for both candidates and voters. But the biggest issue is low voter turnout. So, we get what the majority of voters choose to sleep through.
We need to look at the big picture. What qualifies someone to be president? I'm not talking about what's in the Constitution. Probably all of us here are qualified in that respect. Yes, I know the basics of calling in political favors to get a party behind someone. Then the candidate has to con the voters. Yeah, I know that's a really negative way of putting it. But it's true. No truth telling politician would ever get elected because right from the start he or she would piss off half or more of the voters. So ultimately what are we looking for. We want someone with successful experience running something. That's often why governors, in charge of states, often do better than members of a Congress, just one member of a group. We want someone with personality that can make inspiring speeches. That really helped JFK get elected. The less baggage the better. Being a non entity is better than having attack points for the media and the opposition. It worked for Harry Truman, not to mention having a boss that died. After that, each of us has our own own qualifications. That's okay. That is supposed to be what America is about. It's unfortunately skewed by our modern technology and the difficulty in finding the truth, exacerbated by those backing a candidate by pushing lies. I have a fantasy that will never be fulfilled. After the primaries and the convention, two candidates will get together in a room. They will shake hands. One of them will say to the other "Best of luck to you. You've had an honorable career and would make a great leader. I respect you. I simply like my ideas better than yours. But we'll each run on our principles and let the voters decide. Either way, it will work out. Good luck!" We try to teach our kids this lesson. Why should it be different for supposed grownups?
I hoped like crazy she would pick Walz. I think he's perfect, not because of the dad-joke folkiness (though it is charming and disarming) but because he is really good at talking about progressive idea and how they are good for all Americans, even those who live in red states and vote for Trump.
Do yourself a favor and go listen to the interview he did on the Ezra Klein Show podcast (NY Times) a few days before he was chosen and tell me he is not impressive.
I wish every election cycle were just 100 days. Election fatigue is a thing and in this country, we have some sort of election pretty much every year. That's one of the reasons voter turn out is low in local elections.
I don't watch much OTA television so I don't see many of the nastygram campaign ads but the ones I have seen are much worse than anything I saw growing up.
It's a shame that marvelous Ella Jenkins hasn't been more widely and consistently celebrated in Chicago for all these decades (although Studs Terkel did his best). "Unsung" is, ironically, both the right word for that situation and utterly wrong for the woman who has brought the joy of singing (as opposed to listening to someone else do it) to Chicago children by the 1,000s? 10,000s? More?
Eric, you wrote "But I remain nervous to see how Harris and Walz will handle tough questions in news conferences and in-depth interviews."
Perhaps this is not of genuine concern for you as Harris appears to intend to continue the Biden policy of avoiding press conferences. In the 3 weeks since she has been annointed as the successor candidate to Biden, Harris has not made herself available for unscripted questions from any journalist.
This is probably not a surprise as Harris would be challenged to explain why she presently disavows many of her long-held positions like ending fracking, instituting a mandatory single health care system that would eliminate private health insurance, decriminalizing border crossing, a mandatory gun buyback program, etc.
GovTrack, which evaluates officeholders based upon their voting records, had rated Harris as the most liberal US Senator in 2019, and the second most liberal US Senator in 2020 behind only Bernie Sanders. So I guess questions about previously held positions are going to be very inconvenient for someone whose voting record is to the left of Elizabeth Warren, but is now attempting to reinvent herself as a centrist.
(Perhaps in addition to tracking the White Sox losing percentage, you could have an over/under competition for us to guess how many more days Harris can get away with avoiding a press conference or any unscripted questions from journalists.)
Aside from Harris actual positions on issues, she is terrible at responding to questions. She looks confused, provides word salad, and provides lame dodges, even in friendly softball interviews. They may be depending on Walz to carry the load, since he seems to be very good, at least in the friendly forums. But he has also shown a testy side and made some dismissive comments about non-progressives. We will see if he gets any tough questions or in-depth interviews.
Trump has yammered about the size of his crowds, brought back the "stop the steal" trope, and tried to piggyback on Biden's prisoner exchange deal with Russia.
Hi Michael - Yes, Trump has the ability to make me cringe more often than not when he opens his mouth, and he does not seem to realize that obsessing about 20/20 is a losing proposition for him. But, give Trump credit where credit is due in that he regularly makes himself accessible to reporters and will take any and all questions on an unscripted basis as he did so just the other day for over an hour.
Harris by contrast as been stonewalling with the exception of 77 seconds of a couple questions of the pool reporters traveling with her the other day. There is a lot she needs to explain in terms of which Biden policies she intends to continue and which she will do differently. She said the other day at a rally that inflation would be her top priority on day one, and she needs to explain exactly what he is going to do about it, and how it would differ from what has been done during the current administration. It is no secret that she is attempting to reinvent herself and appears to be disavowing many of her publicly stated policies, and voters are entitled to hear more about this.
Harris has agreed to only one debate so far with ABC, and Trump has proposed two additional debates with NBC and Fox News. The American public will benefit from multiple debates to hear first hand from the candidates.
So what if he's available to reporters, all he does is lie to them, such as the lie about the helicopter that almost crashed & claimed Willie Brown was on it, when Brown flat out states he's never been in a chopper with the fat traitor1
I think that very few people vote for a presidential candidate base on the VP candidate. The VP choice is a message to voters about the openness of the presidential candidate to concerns beyond their base. In this campaign the VP choices are reenforcing choices to energize the base and do little to appeal to the undecided. It seems that both campaigns are betting on better core turnout and low independent instead. Vance is clearly Trumpian. Walz is left progressive, which reenforces Harris as left progressive. Now both campaigns will focus on 'fear them more than us'. Yippee. I thought that the Dems needed a younger Biden clone to appeal to the center. So, I am worried about their ticket.
I've been hearing about Tim Walz for several years from my brother and sister-in-law in Duluth. They think he walks on water. Last week they actually were hoping he wouldn't be picked because they don't want to lose him as governor. Since then I've heard the same thing from niece in Minneapolis.
'Sorry, but no, this presidential campaign season is too damn short'. sorry, but i disagree. i get EZ's point about the current model surfacing 'non-establishment' [my wording, not his] nominees.
but, at the very least, the primaries and party conventions are way too early, and shd be pushed much later into election year.
i recommend regional clustering of primaries - e.g., NE, SE, MW, W [like the NCAA MBB tournament] - which would be rotated quadrennially. 1st one in april, 2nd in may, 3rd in june, 4th in july. conventions in mid/late Aug. campaigning starts Labor Day weekend.
On the weirdness of MAGA and its candidates. What makes them weird is their insistence on controlling everybody else’s life. Most Americans have a “live and let live” approach to life. A woman wants to get an abortion? That’s her business. A gay couple wants to get married? That’s their business. A transgender person wants to transition to the opposite sex? That’s their business. An immigrant wants to come here and improve their life. That’s his or her business. MAGA, on the other hand, wants to prohibit all women from getting an abortion, wants to prohibit all gay people from getting married, wants to prohibit all transgender people from transitioning, and wants to prohibit immigrants from coming here to improve their lives. Steve Schmidt, a former Republican who managed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006 campaign for Governor of California and John McCain’s 2008 campaign for President, had this to say, which I think is quite perceptive:
“Understanding that weirdness animates MAGA and is a repellent to most Americans is key to understand in this moment. There is a natural aversion towards judgement for tolerant people, particularly in a live and let live culture. Privacy, individualism, honesty, integrity, boundaries and respect have always been important American pillars. They were key ingredients in the great melting pot that turned scores of millions into Americans. They were foundational pillars in pioneer culture and remain embedded in America’s DNA. So many Americans are so deeply disconcerted about Trump because his weirdness is so manifestly un-American.”
It’s like the issue MAGA is raising now about Governor Walz signing legislation which some think requires schools to have tampons in the boys’ bathroom. Live and let live. If you’re not a transgender boy, and you don’t need to use a tampon, don’t use one. But why does MAGA want to prevent all transgender boys from having tampons available to them? Authoritarianism or fascism is the system that seeks to control everybody’s life.
"Which some think?" Either the legislation does or it doesn't. In any case, the cost of requiring them in every school in Minnesota must be astronomical. And it would be benefiting what, an nth of a percentage of a percentage of boys? That is ridiculous and wasteful. All it signals is his burnishing his progressiveness.
The Minnesota law doesn't specify in which bathrooms the menstrual supplies must be located; instead, it requires school districts to develop plans to ensure all students who menstruate can access free tampons and pads. I think it’s a good law. About one in four teenagers who menstruate struggle to pay for period products, according to a 2023 study from the advocacy group Period. If a student starts bleeding in the middle of a school day, and they don’t have anything, it would be terribly embarrassing for the student who probably wouldn’t learn anything that day. As to what you call the “astronomical costs” of supplying period products for transgender boys, you appear to contradict yourself (like so many “conservatives”). You say that there are very few transgender boys. Then you say that the cost of supplying them with period products is “astronomical.” You can’t have it both ways. By the way, I suppose you are against school lunch programs too?
If the law is interpreted to mean products must be available to people using boys' bathrooms, then yes, costs of installation are bound to be astronomical, across an entire state, particularly one with a very large urban area(s). And yes, I believe usage would be low in a boys' bathroom. I'm not at all against having products avilalable in girls' bathrooms (not sure how I stand on having them be free, though, I must admit; I'll have to think that over). I'm not against free lunches either though I know that, over the years, there's been a lot of stigma attached to those who receive the free lunches and I hope there have been ways to avoid identifying those students developed over the decades. My girls are all in their 30s. It's been a lot of years since I've been involved in any school districts.
Thus far, between the corrections coming out of the Harris campaign about him chairing a committee on veterans' issues (oops! Sorry, he was ranking member), his rank (oops! We were wrong) and his "carrying a gun in war" (oops! he didn't), between letting Minneapolis burn for several days while the mayor begged him to call in the National Guard and what I've gleaned of his policies, I'm not impressed with the so-called Tampon Timmy.
So you are not against free lunches. You’re not sure if you are against free period products for cis-gender girls, but you know you are against free period products for transgender boys. Do I have that right?
I am delighted with Tim Walz. I loved his quote: “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” A little common sense and kindness goes a long way.
Pretty much -- you have that right! And I think I had a pretty reasonable point of view. I believe, from everything that you say, that you have a much broader view of what should be provided in life than I do. I think I have a lot of common sense and I know, from my own life, that I very much try to practice kindness b/c I believe it is in very short supply. Where we differ is that I think we have to think about cost. I'm not sure how YOU think these benefits should be paid (I don't think you've ever indicated this on this forum but boy, I sure could be wrong), but you think they should be part and parcel of American life, nonetheless. I always enjoy another point of view.
I take Beth's point, and Milton Friedman's, that there's no such thing as a free tampon, but I think we agree that that's not what this is about. It's obviously about tampons in the boys' room, something that seems a little ... hmm.
I confess to misgivings about having our VP pick identified with such an initiative. I'm a big supporter of trans rights for all the reasons you say. Mind your own business. Live and let live. Meaning and satisfaction in life is personal, and there are lots of ways up the mountain. What's it to you, you damn controlling, intolerant, stick-up-your-butt squares? However, like most I think, I don't take the trans activist line, often intolerantly expressed, on two significant points -- kids and sports -- at least not 100%.
Much of this -- honestly, really, truly -- comes from a place of what I flatter myself is a principled belief in sex equality. I worry that "girl" and "woman" and associated pronouns are being relentlessly coded for kids as -- inherently, necessarily -- the equivalent of traditionally feminine gender expression.
As in, I want to be a "they" or a "he" because I don't want to be a "she" because I hate "she" with every fiber of my being -- "she" is cute, weak, submissive, ugh!, or maybe some other sort of idealization -- because I implicitly buy into the sexist, misogynistic conflation of sex with Neanderthal male-gaze Barbie-ish traditional gender norms and conventions from 70+ years ago that never completely die. My feed is telling me that if I feel that way, I'm really down deep a boy. "Woman" or "girl" means, for me, something alien to me, because I'm not that, can't be that, and don't want to be that. I want to opt out of that. Why won't you let me?
But mightn't that be wrong? Mightn't that be deeply wrong? That conflation is just the sort of attitude I thought we conquered some decades ago. If feminism means anything -- through all the waves -- doesn't it mean fundamentally that "girl" doesn't necessarily equal "girlish"? I thought the idea was, girlish is fine -- choice! -- but very much not required, very much not inherent in what it means to be a woman. Same for guys. Sex isn't a stereotype, a silly and fraudulent one for most people.
Is there really zero tension between that accomplishment, that unimpeachable progressive accomplishment worth celebrating, on the one hand, and the massive recent rise in girls and women identifying as queer (even if they're not sexually attracted to women at all), non-binary (though sex for humans, like any other mammal, is pretty much binary), or boys, on the other -- identifying, in other words, as anything but that awful, shameful, unspeakable thing they sort of just are -- women?
I'm an ignorant person on this stuff. I don't really get it. Markers of identity mean next to nothing to me personally. Maybe that's unusual. But they do strike me as superficial -- not meaningless, of course, but not very deep either. There's a lot about contemporary culture that disorients, puzzles, and troubles me. One thing is the seemingly ever-increasing endorsement/glorification in entertainment of crassness and nihilism. Another, though, is what seems like an overweening obsession with identity, with just that surface-level stuff. I perceive people saying, "I'm my own person!" while at the same time saying, "i'm one of those!" I guess it was ever thus for kids figuring out their own sense of self. But one grows up. Then might be the more advisable time for medical interventions.
I don't want to diminish the trans experience. As I've said before, I know those who transitioned and it was just what the doctor ordered! At the same time, I don't have faith that our institutions are being wise or careful about it when it comes to kids, and I'm not sure it's an important or good thing for the State of Minnesota to actively endorse, to add the voice of government to that phone feed pushing the idea that the solution to your adolescent angst is that you're really a menstruating boy.
I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts. Consider all of the above a question more than an assertion.
You tell ‘em Joanie. If there’s one thing I cannot abide, it is people whose whole purpose for existing appears to be the need to control other people’s lives.
A terminally ill or depressed person wishes to end his or her life? That is their business. Someone chooses to buy a firearm or amass a gun collection? That is their business. Your personal physical fitness regimen does not include taking a Covid vaccine? Your business. A patient with chronic pain and his or her doctor wish to treat the condition with opioid painkillers? Their business. Someone wants to dress up as a certain character or person for Halloween by slathering on a little shoe polish to darken their complexion so that they might more closely resemble whomever it is that they’re dressing up as? That person’s business, and no one else’s.
You would think that anyone making any of the above choices would certainly be operating within the boundaries of a “live and let live” ethos, but as we all know, regrettably, they are not.
I’m not talking about busybodies. I’m talking about fascists. And I’m not talking about the necessary restrictions on liberty that are a requirement of living in a civilized society. I’m talking about controls over other people’s lives that are not necessary to protect the life, health, and safety of others.
“…necessary restrictions on liberty that are a requirement of living in a civilized society” does a lot of heavy lifting, as does the loosey goosey use of “fascists”.
Since objection to gay marriage meets your definition of fascistic, that means pretty much every Democratic candidate there has ever been for president has been a fascist at some point. Why did you vote (as I assume you did) for the openly fascist Barack Obama in 2008? Maybe you voted for Hilary in the primary that year. She was fascist back then. It is true that by 2016 she changed her tune after holding her finger to the wind and discovering it to be politically expedient, but still.
Outlawing gender transitioning would certainly seem kind of fascistic, but given that no one’s really trying to do that, I don’t think that creeping fascism is really much of a threat there.
I get that you’re the kind of person that just doesn’t like the idea of immigration laws or their enforcement, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t necessary. Any nation that wishes to maintain its sovereignty must observe its borders and regulate immigration. Is Canada a fascist country? How about Sweden? France? Finland? Austria? Maybe a better question is, which countries aren’t fascist.
To your point about the maintenance of a civilized society, what’s civilized about telling someone who is in agonizing pain and suffering that they are legally prohibited from ending that suffering, or able to rely on medical assistance in doing so? What’s civilized about the DEA sticking its nose into doctor/patient confidences, revoking medical licenses and having doctors and patients alike thrown into prison just because the decision to treat pain with narcotics is considered to be apostasy in the agency’s current holy war?
I assume that you are being disingenuous, and that you actually understand what you appear not to understand, all in service of a rhetorical exercise. I’m really not interested in playing that game. Been there. Done that. MAGA is following the fascist playbook of the 1930s. Speaking to the people about a fictionalized period of national greatness. Blaming certain minority groups (described as vermin or poisoning the blood) for destroying that greatness. Promises to restore the national greatness that has been lost by curtailing the liberties and influence of these minorities. Attacking the legitimacy of the free press. And other aspects. The Republican Party has become a fascist party. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Ask someone who is MAGA what are the policies of the Republican Party that you favor. You will get support for rounding up millions of undocumented workers in concentration camps and then deporting them, preventing transgender people from transitioning (at any age), doing away with abortion, doing away with marriage equality. There is nothing positive about their message. It is retribution for the Untermenschen, and restoration of white heterosexual, cis-gender, male privilege. So, no, it’s not failing to support marriage equality in the years before marriage equality was achieved that makes Republicans fascists. It’s the whole stew I described above which includes wanting to do away with marriage equality after marriage equality was achieved.
The amount of money spent on these long campaigns is ridiculous. Shorten the process, save money or use it for something positive. Oh and get rid of the Electoral College, another waste.
In the 80s, my kids were zipping around Ella Jenkins in the North Side park. I am delighted to see her celebrate her 100th birthday.
If you are going to cite outsider presidential candidates benefiting from a long campaign cycle, then you should also include Donald Trump. The Republican Party establishment would have shut him out if the process were quick.
Also, a leading contender at one point for the 2016 Republican nomination is Jeb, not Jed.
Agree. They tried many times in 2016 to get rid of Trump but they couldn't. I watched those debates and one by one they just kept falling and he kept staying. Jeb was the Republican Party's guy, and he couldn't catch on either (Bush Overdoes). I remember one debate in 2016 where Trump said he donated to every person sitting on the stage, and not one person on stage deigned. It seemed like a combination of Trump, Twitter, timing and money because Trump won without the Republican Partys support. Would not have happened 4 years earlier. Now he's like the Republican's Booger, goes from finger to finger but you just can't get rid of him. I am sure there are many Republican's would love to get rid of him but can't now, it's his party. Just a very unusual time. If you went back in time like 10 years ago and told downstate people, hey, gotta guy for you your gonna love, he lies all the time, he's from New York City, he's rich, he humps porn stars, married 3 times, his kids are punks, he's nothing like you and you're gonna love this guy, they would think your nuts...some of the things we witness in life..
I'm convinced that if the idiot rich Republicans who stupidly wanted yet another Bush in the White House had come to their senses & instead supported Kasich, the fat traitor would've lost the primaries!
Also, the media, both mainstream and cable networks, shamelessly pandered to Trump and promoted his lies. They're still at it.
Republican voters wanted something different. They claimed to be tired of corporate politicians who all talked and looked alike while not doing anything for them. Trump was an idiot who wrestled Vince McMahon and was on reality television. He had almost zero political baggage. He was definitely different. Ah, the value of hindsight! If we had only known then what we now know!
The problem for both parties is the primary process, not the length. Ranked choice voting would fix a lot of the problems. The caucus vs primary thing is weird. The rules for getting on a ballot are screwed up and engage far too many lawyers. And each party intentionally supporting an opponent that they believe is a loser. Gerrymandering also reduces the incentive to participate in primaries for the 'out' party for both candidates and voters. But the biggest issue is low voter turnout. So, we get what the majority of voters choose to sleep through.
Caucuses should be outlawed, as they are discriminatory against those who can't go to them, due to work, illness, child care.
We need to look at the big picture. What qualifies someone to be president? I'm not talking about what's in the Constitution. Probably all of us here are qualified in that respect. Yes, I know the basics of calling in political favors to get a party behind someone. Then the candidate has to con the voters. Yeah, I know that's a really negative way of putting it. But it's true. No truth telling politician would ever get elected because right from the start he or she would piss off half or more of the voters. So ultimately what are we looking for. We want someone with successful experience running something. That's often why governors, in charge of states, often do better than members of a Congress, just one member of a group. We want someone with personality that can make inspiring speeches. That really helped JFK get elected. The less baggage the better. Being a non entity is better than having attack points for the media and the opposition. It worked for Harry Truman, not to mention having a boss that died. After that, each of us has our own own qualifications. That's okay. That is supposed to be what America is about. It's unfortunately skewed by our modern technology and the difficulty in finding the truth, exacerbated by those backing a candidate by pushing lies. I have a fantasy that will never be fulfilled. After the primaries and the convention, two candidates will get together in a room. They will shake hands. One of them will say to the other "Best of luck to you. You've had an honorable career and would make a great leader. I respect you. I simply like my ideas better than yours. But we'll each run on our principles and let the voters decide. Either way, it will work out. Good luck!" We try to teach our kids this lesson. Why should it be different for supposed grownups?
I think there is something deeply weird about Vance shadowing the Harris/Walz campaign in a pathetic attempt to, what? Downstage them?
1. Harris event in Eau Claire yesterday
x.com/jake__traylor/status/1821238502589071585?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WAD%3A+"The+coach+vs+the+couch"&_kx=9TFxybzuu7yXJ7FU9HEV0UKSEpZIcuNWNyOM7bOaFPV3WxVEOKONVzd78EUtFHBo.VVEwpW
2. Vance event in Eau Claire yesterday
x.com/MaggieLynnG/status/1821189979172991197?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WAD%3A+"The+coach+vs+the+couch"&_kx=9TFxybzuu7yXJ7FU9HEV0UKSEpZIcuNWNyOM7bOaFPV3WxVEOKONVzd78EUtFHBo.VVEwpW
I hoped like crazy she would pick Walz. I think he's perfect, not because of the dad-joke folkiness (though it is charming and disarming) but because he is really good at talking about progressive idea and how they are good for all Americans, even those who live in red states and vote for Trump.
Do yourself a favor and go listen to the interview he did on the Ezra Klein Show podcast (NY Times) a few days before he was chosen and tell me he is not impressive.
Loved comparing your Walz jokes that never happened to your Vance jokes that never happened.
I wish every election cycle were just 100 days. Election fatigue is a thing and in this country, we have some sort of election pretty much every year. That's one of the reasons voter turn out is low in local elections.
I don't watch much OTA television so I don't see many of the nastygram campaign ads but the ones I have seen are much worse than anything I saw growing up.
Hot to Go is ok. But come on. Good Luck Babe is more of a banger. And the bridge is amazing. And really let’s one know of Chappell’s LGBT vibe
“ When you wake up next to him in the middle of the Night….. with your head in your hands…. and nothing more than his wife…I told you so….”
It's a shame that marvelous Ella Jenkins hasn't been more widely and consistently celebrated in Chicago for all these decades (although Studs Terkel did his best). "Unsung" is, ironically, both the right word for that situation and utterly wrong for the woman who has brought the joy of singing (as opposed to listening to someone else do it) to Chicago children by the 1,000s? 10,000s? More?
Eric, you wrote "But I remain nervous to see how Harris and Walz will handle tough questions in news conferences and in-depth interviews."
Perhaps this is not of genuine concern for you as Harris appears to intend to continue the Biden policy of avoiding press conferences. In the 3 weeks since she has been annointed as the successor candidate to Biden, Harris has not made herself available for unscripted questions from any journalist.
This is probably not a surprise as Harris would be challenged to explain why she presently disavows many of her long-held positions like ending fracking, instituting a mandatory single health care system that would eliminate private health insurance, decriminalizing border crossing, a mandatory gun buyback program, etc.
GovTrack, which evaluates officeholders based upon their voting records, had rated Harris as the most liberal US Senator in 2019, and the second most liberal US Senator in 2020 behind only Bernie Sanders. So I guess questions about previously held positions are going to be very inconvenient for someone whose voting record is to the left of Elizabeth Warren, but is now attempting to reinvent herself as a centrist.
(Perhaps in addition to tracking the White Sox losing percentage, you could have an over/under competition for us to guess how many more days Harris can get away with avoiding a press conference or any unscripted questions from journalists.)
Aside from Harris actual positions on issues, she is terrible at responding to questions. She looks confused, provides word salad, and provides lame dodges, even in friendly softball interviews. They may be depending on Walz to carry the load, since he seems to be very good, at least in the friendly forums. But he has also shown a testy side and made some dismissive comments about non-progressives. We will see if he gets any tough questions or in-depth interviews.
On the one hand:
Trump has yammered about the size of his crowds, brought back the "stop the steal" trope, and tried to piggyback on Biden's prisoner exchange deal with Russia.
On the other hand:
Harris had not held a news conference yet.
Is that roughly where we are?
Hi Michael - Yes, Trump has the ability to make me cringe more often than not when he opens his mouth, and he does not seem to realize that obsessing about 20/20 is a losing proposition for him. But, give Trump credit where credit is due in that he regularly makes himself accessible to reporters and will take any and all questions on an unscripted basis as he did so just the other day for over an hour.
Harris by contrast as been stonewalling with the exception of 77 seconds of a couple questions of the pool reporters traveling with her the other day. There is a lot she needs to explain in terms of which Biden policies she intends to continue and which she will do differently. She said the other day at a rally that inflation would be her top priority on day one, and she needs to explain exactly what he is going to do about it, and how it would differ from what has been done during the current administration. It is no secret that she is attempting to reinvent herself and appears to be disavowing many of her publicly stated policies, and voters are entitled to hear more about this.
Harris has agreed to only one debate so far with ABC, and Trump has proposed two additional debates with NBC and Fox News. The American public will benefit from multiple debates to hear first hand from the candidates.
So what if he's available to reporters, all he does is lie to them, such as the lie about the helicopter that almost crashed & claimed Willie Brown was on it, when Brown flat out states he's never been in a chopper with the fat traitor1
I think that very few people vote for a presidential candidate base on the VP candidate. The VP choice is a message to voters about the openness of the presidential candidate to concerns beyond their base. In this campaign the VP choices are reenforcing choices to energize the base and do little to appeal to the undecided. It seems that both campaigns are betting on better core turnout and low independent instead. Vance is clearly Trumpian. Walz is left progressive, which reenforces Harris as left progressive. Now both campaigns will focus on 'fear them more than us'. Yippee. I thought that the Dems needed a younger Biden clone to appeal to the center. So, I am worried about their ticket.
“Too-short campaign season” is a manifest oxymoron.
I've been hearing about Tim Walz for several years from my brother and sister-in-law in Duluth. They think he walks on water. Last week they actually were hoping he wouldn't be picked because they don't want to lose him as governor. Since then I've heard the same thing from niece in Minneapolis.
great selection of QotWs today! i voted for 8 of the 10.
'Sorry, but no, this presidential campaign season is too damn short'. sorry, but i disagree. i get EZ's point about the current model surfacing 'non-establishment' [my wording, not his] nominees.
but, at the very least, the primaries and party conventions are way too early, and shd be pushed much later into election year.
i recommend regional clustering of primaries - e.g., NE, SE, MW, W [like the NCAA MBB tournament] - which would be rotated quadrennially. 1st one in april, 2nd in may, 3rd in june, 4th in july. conventions in mid/late Aug. campaigning starts Labor Day weekend.
too much, too soon in the current model.
On the weirdness of MAGA and its candidates. What makes them weird is their insistence on controlling everybody else’s life. Most Americans have a “live and let live” approach to life. A woman wants to get an abortion? That’s her business. A gay couple wants to get married? That’s their business. A transgender person wants to transition to the opposite sex? That’s their business. An immigrant wants to come here and improve their life. That’s his or her business. MAGA, on the other hand, wants to prohibit all women from getting an abortion, wants to prohibit all gay people from getting married, wants to prohibit all transgender people from transitioning, and wants to prohibit immigrants from coming here to improve their lives. Steve Schmidt, a former Republican who managed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006 campaign for Governor of California and John McCain’s 2008 campaign for President, had this to say, which I think is quite perceptive:
“Understanding that weirdness animates MAGA and is a repellent to most Americans is key to understand in this moment. There is a natural aversion towards judgement for tolerant people, particularly in a live and let live culture. Privacy, individualism, honesty, integrity, boundaries and respect have always been important American pillars. They were key ingredients in the great melting pot that turned scores of millions into Americans. They were foundational pillars in pioneer culture and remain embedded in America’s DNA. So many Americans are so deeply disconcerted about Trump because his weirdness is so manifestly un-American.”
It’s like the issue MAGA is raising now about Governor Walz signing legislation which some think requires schools to have tampons in the boys’ bathroom. Live and let live. If you’re not a transgender boy, and you don’t need to use a tampon, don’t use one. But why does MAGA want to prevent all transgender boys from having tampons available to them? Authoritarianism or fascism is the system that seeks to control everybody’s life.
"Which some think?" Either the legislation does or it doesn't. In any case, the cost of requiring them in every school in Minnesota must be astronomical. And it would be benefiting what, an nth of a percentage of a percentage of boys? That is ridiculous and wasteful. All it signals is his burnishing his progressiveness.
The Minnesota law doesn't specify in which bathrooms the menstrual supplies must be located; instead, it requires school districts to develop plans to ensure all students who menstruate can access free tampons and pads. I think it’s a good law. About one in four teenagers who menstruate struggle to pay for period products, according to a 2023 study from the advocacy group Period. If a student starts bleeding in the middle of a school day, and they don’t have anything, it would be terribly embarrassing for the student who probably wouldn’t learn anything that day. As to what you call the “astronomical costs” of supplying period products for transgender boys, you appear to contradict yourself (like so many “conservatives”). You say that there are very few transgender boys. Then you say that the cost of supplying them with period products is “astronomical.” You can’t have it both ways. By the way, I suppose you are against school lunch programs too?
If the law is interpreted to mean products must be available to people using boys' bathrooms, then yes, costs of installation are bound to be astronomical, across an entire state, particularly one with a very large urban area(s). And yes, I believe usage would be low in a boys' bathroom. I'm not at all against having products avilalable in girls' bathrooms (not sure how I stand on having them be free, though, I must admit; I'll have to think that over). I'm not against free lunches either though I know that, over the years, there's been a lot of stigma attached to those who receive the free lunches and I hope there have been ways to avoid identifying those students developed over the decades. My girls are all in their 30s. It's been a lot of years since I've been involved in any school districts.
Thus far, between the corrections coming out of the Harris campaign about him chairing a committee on veterans' issues (oops! Sorry, he was ranking member), his rank (oops! We were wrong) and his "carrying a gun in war" (oops! he didn't), between letting Minneapolis burn for several days while the mayor begged him to call in the National Guard and what I've gleaned of his policies, I'm not impressed with the so-called Tampon Timmy.
So you are not against free lunches. You’re not sure if you are against free period products for cis-gender girls, but you know you are against free period products for transgender boys. Do I have that right?
I am delighted with Tim Walz. I loved his quote: “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” A little common sense and kindness goes a long way.
Pretty much -- you have that right! And I think I had a pretty reasonable point of view. I believe, from everything that you say, that you have a much broader view of what should be provided in life than I do. I think I have a lot of common sense and I know, from my own life, that I very much try to practice kindness b/c I believe it is in very short supply. Where we differ is that I think we have to think about cost. I'm not sure how YOU think these benefits should be paid (I don't think you've ever indicated this on this forum but boy, I sure could be wrong), but you think they should be part and parcel of American life, nonetheless. I always enjoy another point of view.
I take Beth's point, and Milton Friedman's, that there's no such thing as a free tampon, but I think we agree that that's not what this is about. It's obviously about tampons in the boys' room, something that seems a little ... hmm.
I confess to misgivings about having our VP pick identified with such an initiative. I'm a big supporter of trans rights for all the reasons you say. Mind your own business. Live and let live. Meaning and satisfaction in life is personal, and there are lots of ways up the mountain. What's it to you, you damn controlling, intolerant, stick-up-your-butt squares? However, like most I think, I don't take the trans activist line, often intolerantly expressed, on two significant points -- kids and sports -- at least not 100%.
Much of this -- honestly, really, truly -- comes from a place of what I flatter myself is a principled belief in sex equality. I worry that "girl" and "woman" and associated pronouns are being relentlessly coded for kids as -- inherently, necessarily -- the equivalent of traditionally feminine gender expression.
As in, I want to be a "they" or a "he" because I don't want to be a "she" because I hate "she" with every fiber of my being -- "she" is cute, weak, submissive, ugh!, or maybe some other sort of idealization -- because I implicitly buy into the sexist, misogynistic conflation of sex with Neanderthal male-gaze Barbie-ish traditional gender norms and conventions from 70+ years ago that never completely die. My feed is telling me that if I feel that way, I'm really down deep a boy. "Woman" or "girl" means, for me, something alien to me, because I'm not that, can't be that, and don't want to be that. I want to opt out of that. Why won't you let me?
But mightn't that be wrong? Mightn't that be deeply wrong? That conflation is just the sort of attitude I thought we conquered some decades ago. If feminism means anything -- through all the waves -- doesn't it mean fundamentally that "girl" doesn't necessarily equal "girlish"? I thought the idea was, girlish is fine -- choice! -- but very much not required, very much not inherent in what it means to be a woman. Same for guys. Sex isn't a stereotype, a silly and fraudulent one for most people.
Is there really zero tension between that accomplishment, that unimpeachable progressive accomplishment worth celebrating, on the one hand, and the massive recent rise in girls and women identifying as queer (even if they're not sexually attracted to women at all), non-binary (though sex for humans, like any other mammal, is pretty much binary), or boys, on the other -- identifying, in other words, as anything but that awful, shameful, unspeakable thing they sort of just are -- women?
I'm an ignorant person on this stuff. I don't really get it. Markers of identity mean next to nothing to me personally. Maybe that's unusual. But they do strike me as superficial -- not meaningless, of course, but not very deep either. There's a lot about contemporary culture that disorients, puzzles, and troubles me. One thing is the seemingly ever-increasing endorsement/glorification in entertainment of crassness and nihilism. Another, though, is what seems like an overweening obsession with identity, with just that surface-level stuff. I perceive people saying, "I'm my own person!" while at the same time saying, "i'm one of those!" I guess it was ever thus for kids figuring out their own sense of self. But one grows up. Then might be the more advisable time for medical interventions.
I don't want to diminish the trans experience. As I've said before, I know those who transitioned and it was just what the doctor ordered! At the same time, I don't have faith that our institutions are being wise or careful about it when it comes to kids, and I'm not sure it's an important or good thing for the State of Minnesota to actively endorse, to add the voice of government to that phone feed pushing the idea that the solution to your adolescent angst is that you're really a menstruating boy.
I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts. Consider all of the above a question more than an assertion.
Cheers, Jake
You tell ‘em Joanie. If there’s one thing I cannot abide, it is people whose whole purpose for existing appears to be the need to control other people’s lives.
A terminally ill or depressed person wishes to end his or her life? That is their business. Someone chooses to buy a firearm or amass a gun collection? That is their business. Your personal physical fitness regimen does not include taking a Covid vaccine? Your business. A patient with chronic pain and his or her doctor wish to treat the condition with opioid painkillers? Their business. Someone wants to dress up as a certain character or person for Halloween by slathering on a little shoe polish to darken their complexion so that they might more closely resemble whomever it is that they’re dressing up as? That person’s business, and no one else’s.
You would think that anyone making any of the above choices would certainly be operating within the boundaries of a “live and let live” ethos, but as we all know, regrettably, they are not.
Busy bodies. Weird indeed.
I’m not talking about busybodies. I’m talking about fascists. And I’m not talking about the necessary restrictions on liberty that are a requirement of living in a civilized society. I’m talking about controls over other people’s lives that are not necessary to protect the life, health, and safety of others.
“…necessary restrictions on liberty that are a requirement of living in a civilized society” does a lot of heavy lifting, as does the loosey goosey use of “fascists”.
Since objection to gay marriage meets your definition of fascistic, that means pretty much every Democratic candidate there has ever been for president has been a fascist at some point. Why did you vote (as I assume you did) for the openly fascist Barack Obama in 2008? Maybe you voted for Hilary in the primary that year. She was fascist back then. It is true that by 2016 she changed her tune after holding her finger to the wind and discovering it to be politically expedient, but still.
Outlawing gender transitioning would certainly seem kind of fascistic, but given that no one’s really trying to do that, I don’t think that creeping fascism is really much of a threat there.
I get that you’re the kind of person that just doesn’t like the idea of immigration laws or their enforcement, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t necessary. Any nation that wishes to maintain its sovereignty must observe its borders and regulate immigration. Is Canada a fascist country? How about Sweden? France? Finland? Austria? Maybe a better question is, which countries aren’t fascist.
To your point about the maintenance of a civilized society, what’s civilized about telling someone who is in agonizing pain and suffering that they are legally prohibited from ending that suffering, or able to rely on medical assistance in doing so? What’s civilized about the DEA sticking its nose into doctor/patient confidences, revoking medical licenses and having doctors and patients alike thrown into prison just because the decision to treat pain with narcotics is considered to be apostasy in the agency’s current holy war?
I assume that you are being disingenuous, and that you actually understand what you appear not to understand, all in service of a rhetorical exercise. I’m really not interested in playing that game. Been there. Done that. MAGA is following the fascist playbook of the 1930s. Speaking to the people about a fictionalized period of national greatness. Blaming certain minority groups (described as vermin or poisoning the blood) for destroying that greatness. Promises to restore the national greatness that has been lost by curtailing the liberties and influence of these minorities. Attacking the legitimacy of the free press. And other aspects. The Republican Party has become a fascist party. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Ask someone who is MAGA what are the policies of the Republican Party that you favor. You will get support for rounding up millions of undocumented workers in concentration camps and then deporting them, preventing transgender people from transitioning (at any age), doing away with abortion, doing away with marriage equality. There is nothing positive about their message. It is retribution for the Untermenschen, and restoration of white heterosexual, cis-gender, male privilege. So, no, it’s not failing to support marriage equality in the years before marriage equality was achieved that makes Republicans fascists. It’s the whole stew I described above which includes wanting to do away with marriage equality after marriage equality was achieved.
The amount of money spent on these long campaigns is ridiculous. Shorten the process, save money or use it for something positive. Oh and get rid of the Electoral College, another waste.