Category: political challengers

Categories
ideological culture political challengers

Madame Guillotine

guillotine, Kidman, Senate,

A Maine woman running for the U.S. Senate has chosen for her campaign logo the guillotine.

Yes, she calls herself a ‘democratic socialist.’ Well, on Twitter it is ‘DemSoc.’

Her name . . .

No, start again. On the campaign Twitter page the candidate’s “preferred pronouns” are listed as “they/them.” So, their name is Bre, and they proudly promoted the new logo on February 5th: “I was gonna wait until tomorrow to show off these beauties, but Trump got acquitted and I feel like folks could use something to look forward to.”

But . . . why?

For my part, the blood running in the streets was my least favorite part of the French Revolution, and I would, uh, downplay it, no matter how murderous I might ever feel. 

You know, were I a DemSoc.

Upon being challenged with its most famous historical use, she had a . . . politic . . . response: “I’m aware of the French Revolution, and how the story ends. A guillotine t-shirt reminds others about it in hopes that we’ll all be motivated to address the very serious problems with our government before a similarly violent uprising becomes inevitable.”

When asked who it was for, she replied, “More of a ‘what.’ The guillotine is for the plutocratic & kleptocratic norms that have undermined our democratic process. We have to develop ways to subvert the stranglehold of wealth on our government. There will not be a more convenient revolution. The symbol is a reminder.”

I wonder what she would say if her rivals chose as campaign logos the hangman’s noose and the electric chair.

But hey, her, er, their guillotine is attractive, and, because it lacks a drop of red, emphasizes the ‘democratic’ part of ‘democratic socialism’ . . . by hiding the blood.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

guillotine, Kidman, Senate,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies political challengers

Dem Noodles

Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, Citizens United, free speech, money,

Though skipping Iowa and New Hampshire, Michael Bloomberg’s advertisements are ubiquitous on television and YouTube seemingly everywhere in America.

“New Hampshire voters to Steyer: Make it stop!” reads a Politico headline sparked by that taller, poorer billionaire’s unbearable barrage of spots.

At Reason, Eric Boehm notes that Bloomberg and Tom Steyer — both very rich and both running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency — are proving that money cannot buy elections. “Given how Bloomberg and Steyer have struggled to gain traction despite their willingness to set fire to their respective campaign war chests, it’s a bit ironic to hear some of their Democratic primary opponents repeatedly bemoaning the influence of money in politics.”

But Senator Elizabeth Warren’s complaints about the two billionaires are almost certainly just playing to partisan prejudice, which has been seeded for years by the left’s relentless complaints about the Citizens United decision.

Eric Boehm argues that the reality is the opposite of the propaganda: overturning Citizens United would make it easier, not harder, for rich folks to game the system. 

But in Free Speech America, the Bloomberg and Steyer advertising efforts are proving unimpressive. “While it is foolish to rule out any electoral outcome in a world where Donald Trump is president,” Mr. Boehm writes, “voters have responded to both Democratic billionaires with a resounding meh, and there seems to be little reason to think that will change next year, no matter how much money the two candidates pour into the race.”

You don’t eat spaghetti by pushing wet noodles. You gotta entice voters to slurp down your message.

Bloomberg and Steyer, the very soggiest of noodles, are living proof..

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, Citizens United, free speech, money,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Defamed by the Devil

Tulsi Gabbard,

Challenged to a push-up contest at a town hall campaign meeting in New Hampshire, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) hit the floor and won.

The presidential candidate (polling at 5.4 percent in the Granite State) probably will not win the nomination, alas.

Or her lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.

Lawsuit?

Yes, a slander suit against the author of What Happened.

It is one thing to publicly call out Mrs. Clinton for her prevaricative snipes — but sue her? 

Boldness, at the very least. 

Would you dare to stand directly in Hillary’s way? 

Not to give credence to old #ClintonBodyCount conjectures, which connected a number of strange deaths in close proximity to her and her husband’s transit through the firmament of power, including old and more recent “suicides” . . . but the hashtag #TulsiDidntKillHerself is now trending on Twitter.

The lawsuit — dubbed a publicity stunt by David Frum in The Atlantic — involves Hillary’s public speculations (or conspiracy theory, if you will) that Tulsi is a “Russian agent.”

“Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain,” explains the lawsuit, filed in the State of New York. “In October 2019 — whether out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated — Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard. She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent.”

I am not a lawyer, but . . . while Mrs. Clinton’s insinuations-and-worse were malicious and almost certainly untrue, perhaps even diabolical, in our politics lying is the norm and hardly legally actionable.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tulsi Gabbard,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Reality TV 2020

Reality TV, cat,

It shocked some, surprised virtually all — save Scott Adams — when mega-branding braggart, businessman, and reality TV star Donald “You’re Fired!” Trump slapped his way to a trifecta, winning in decades-long bastions of blue — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin — en route to his “landslide” Electoral College win.

How could a candidate viewed negatively by 61 percent of voters mere days before the election possibly win? 

Well, consider the alternative: Hillary Clinton’s negatives were 52 percent in that same poll. Moreover, two-thirds of voters harbored “doubts about her trustworthiness.” 

Entering Trump Year IV, the president’s approval rating remains under water, and, following the House impeachment, he’s being tried in absentia in the Senate. Plus, the Democrats get to choose a low-negatives/high-positives candidate to run against him.

What could go wrong?

Everything.

Except for promising to give away free stuff to everyone, it’s all very unsettled. Even The New York Times, “in a break with convention,” if not reality, has endorsed two candidates: Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Klobuchar? She’s stuck in seventh place in New Hampshire. 

Four candidates vie for the lead two weeks before Iowa and three weeks before New Hampshire: former Vice-President Joe Biden, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senators Sanders and Warren. “Sleepy Joe” tops the latest Iowa poll while self-declared socialist Bernie leads in New Hampshire — and pushes ahead of Biden nationally. 

And to meet Sanders’ surge? 

Mrs. Clinton. 

Being lovable. 

As always.

Of the current Democratic front-runner, “Nobody likes him,” Hillary sniped, channeling her inner Mean Girl. “Nobody wants to work with him, he’s got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Cluster-yuck 2020 is Reality TV at its best.  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Reality TV, cat,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
political challengers

Vermin Competition

Vermin Supreme,

Should Lincoln Chafee invert a boot and place it on his head? 

It might help him compete. The famous Republican turned Democratic politician from Rhode Island — former U.S. Senator and Governor, both, and sometime presidential hopeful — has filed to run for the presidency.

But as a Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party started out nearly fifty years ago as a venue for libertarians disgusted with Richard Nixon and the Republican Party to make a pitch to the American people to abandon the lying, thieving, murderous statism of our times and swap it for freedom. In the words of its first presidential nominee, philosopher John Hospers, the idea was to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.”

The Libertarian Party has pulled in supporters from left, right and center, but mostly from the GOP, as seen in a solid one third of its past presidential runs: 

  1. former Republican elector Roger MacBride (1976)
  2. former and future Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul (1988) 
  3. former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr (2008)
  4. former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (2012; 2016)

The Libertarians are an earnest lot, trying to get the attention of earnest American voters by putting up men with political credentials. In the case of Gary Johnson’s last campaign, the strategy “paid off” with over 4.4 million votes. The LP attracts ambitious politicians and publicity seekers who do not quite fit in with the two parties, in no small part because Libertarians have done a great job of obtaining all-important ballot status in most if not all 50 states in presidential elections.

Libertarian Party members have so far avoided non-political celebrity candidates, such as the late activist and actor Russell Means (1988) and gonzo millionaire John McAfee (2012). Chafee would be the first Democratic pol to get the nomination. But he is running against some strong libertarian activists (Kim Ruff, Jo Jorgensen, Jacob Hornberger, et al.) as well as a return bid from McAfee (who also happens to be on the run from the IRS). 

A parody candidate calling himself “Vermin Supreme” and running on a joke (and quite anti-freedom) platform (mandatory ponies for everyone!), has just won the Libertarian position in the New Hampshire Primary’s non-binding preference poll — 26 to Chafee’s 4, perhaps because he wears a boot on his head.

Tough competition for Chafee, who seems only a little more libertarian than Vermin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Vermin Supreme,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture political challengers

Discriminating Democrats

Democrat, Democratic, candidates, presidential, president, debate, race, quota,

In ten days, the Democratic Party will hold a presidential debate that, according to the rules established by the Democratic National Committee, includes six qualified candidates all of whom are white.

Which is apparently not the right color.

“Of course, there is nothing wrong with Democrats selecting a white presidential candidate to represent the party,” writes David de la Fuente at The Daily Beast. “But that should be up to the voters, and not the DNC by means of their debate inclusion practices.”

Those “practices” or rules seem straightforward enough — at least, they did . . . until the results were not to the liking of some. To earn a place on the Dec. 19 debate stage, a candidate must have garnered donations from 200,000 individuals, while also reaching 4 percent or higher in four recognized polls, or 6 percent in two polls.

The six qualified pale-faced candidates are: former Vice-President Joe Biden, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), billionaire activist Tom Steyer, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

A seventh candidate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, a woman of color, had also qualified for the debate stage — before she dropped out of the race.

Not yet able to jump all the hurdles? African-American Sen. Corey Booker (D-N.J.); Asian-American entrepreneur Andrew Yang; and Samoan-American Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). They have all reached the donation requirement, but not yet met the polling threshold. 

I wish them luck, especially my favorite, Gabbard. 

Still, the choice is rightly up to Democratic voters. If enough speak up for Booker, Yang or Gabbard in polls, “diversity” will obtain its place. 

If not, should Democrats use a racial quota system?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Democrat, Democratic, candidates, presidential, president, debate, race, quota,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
political challengers

One of Us?

Tim Eyman, governor, Washington State, democracy,

As the Democratic Party presidential campaign began heating up earlier this year, one of the stars faintly streaking across the sky was Washington State Governor Jay Inslee. In the over-populated ranks of presidential wannabes, he stood out not for being exceptionally nutty, but for so memorably presenting the new Nut Normal of America’s oldest political party.

In August he dropped out for lack of support, but that doesn’t mean his political career is over. He is back in his home state demonstrating the case for term limits. 

That is, he is running for a third gubernatorial term.

Fortunately for Evergreen State voters, there are alternatives. Indeed, one in particular: Tim Eyman.

I mention Eyman often enough that I could almost get away without introducing him now. He is arguably the most effective user of initiative and referendum in the country — offering common-sense issues a majority of voters favor, especially tax limitation and reduction measures.

On his campaign website he sports a sweatshirt emblazoned with “Let the Voters Decide,” which is so democratic it almost makes you wonder why the state’s Democratic Party isn’t embracing him.

But we know why — the very last thing Democratic political machines want is democracy!

Running as neither an R nor a D, Mr. Eyman’s campaign slogan is “One of us as Governor!”

And considering the popularity of his many initiative measures designed to combat their elected representatives’ love of raising taxes and “fees” — especially on automobiles — as well as the way politicians in Olympia (including that ultimate insider, Inslee) freak out over the very name “Eyman,” it promises to be a very interesting and entertaining race.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tim Eyman, governor, Washington State, democracy,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights media and media people political challengers

The Silence Option

gatekeeper, Twitter, Facebook, censorship, political advertising,

“While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers,” Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said last month in announcing a complete ban on political advertising for candidates or issues, “that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.”

But is it the risk to “the lives of millions” that is at issue here?

Really?

Pressure for social media companies to police “renegade” voices came mainly from the left . . . in Congress and major media. These are the groups with the most to lose by the free flow of political debate, as spurred by paid political advertising, which is what challengers often use to break through the incumbents’ natural advantage. 

Congress is filled with incumbents, by definition.

Major media sees itself as gatekeeper for political discourse, and feels threatened by an unregulated online culture.

Accordingly, Twitter’s ban received rave reviews from the political left. “Good call,” progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded. A spokesperson for former Vice-President Joe Biden’s campaign called it “encouraging.”*

“Good,” tweeted Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (also sort of a presidential candidate). “Your turn, Facebook.”

But Facebook is thankfully not bending to pressure.

“[I]f Facebook were to cut off political ads, it could end up undercutting the scrappy, first-time candidates . . .,” reports The Washington Post. “Voters are more likely to see Facebook ads than television ads from challengers, according to the findings, published in a working paper whose first author is Erika Franklin Fowler of Wesleyan University.”

“Online advertising lowers the cost and the barriers to entry,” Fowler told The Washington Post.

Which is bad for the political establishment because it is good for challengers, the outsiders.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*  Perhaps the ban encourages top Democrats for the same reason the president’s campaign manager sounded the alarm: “This is yet another attempt to silence conservatives since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known.”

PDF for printing

gatekeeper, Twitter, Facebook, censorship, political advertising,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Billions Of, By and For Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg, president, democracy,

Might Gotham’s gun-and-Big-Gulp-grabber-in-chief catapult to Commander in Chief? 

Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, “is actively preparing to enter the Democratic presidential primary,” writes Alexander Burns in The New York Times.

Bloomberg’s estimated $53 billion could financially pummel even Democratic candidate Tom Steyer, working with a mere $1.6 billion. 

“More billionaires seeking more political power surely isn’t the change America needs,” chimed in Faiz Shakir, presidential campaign manager for Vermont socialist and Senator Bernard Sanders. 

Billionaires are the really evil ones. 

Millionaires? Not so bad anymore. 

In 2016, Bernie badmouthed both “millionaires and billionaires” . . . until found to be a millionaire himself — worth $2.5 million to be specific. 

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mr. Sanders’ rail-against-the-rich presidential rival, offered Mayor Bloomberg her “Calculator for Billionaires” — showing how much those sorts of people would have to pay per her Wealth Tax. 

No mention of what her own family, worth $12 million would pay.

Bloomberg’s entrance into the race is expected to hurt former Vice-President and multimillionaire Joe Biden the most, both appealing to the more “moderate” wing of the Democratic Party.

Still, Bloomberg is no Democrat messiah, however. He’s not particularly popular. In fact, Bloomberg’s last political campaign for a third term as New York mayor ten years ago was “the most expensive campaign in municipal history.” After double-crossing voters on term limits by supporting a council change allowing him (and them) a third term, Bloomberg had to spend a whopping $183 per vote to win an “unexpectedly close race.”

To garner as many votes for president as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 effort, at that same cost, adds up to $12 billion!

Bloomberg’s good news? He has it.

Bloomberg’s bad news? Hillary lost.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Michael Bloomberg, president, democracy,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
media and media people political challengers

Twitter Abuse

Donald Trump, twitter, censorship, Kamala Harris threat,

“Look,” tweeted Sen. Kamala Harris, “let’s be honest. . . .”

When a politician talks about being honest — presumably “for a change” — it’s gonna be a doozy.

President Trump’s “Twitter account should be suspended.”

“What?” the reader will likely object, “Trump’s Twitter account is the second-best thing about the his presidency!”

The reader wouldn’t be wrong. 

We may disagree about the actual best thing, but the presidential Twitter account is indeed one of the things that makes the current chaos bearable. Sure, it is the cause of much of the chaos, but, well, we take our chuckles where we can get them. At least Trump’s tweets are not articulated in standard insiderese.

So, what did Trump tweet that so upset the former California prosecutor?

This: he had come to the “conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!”

Harris publicly called upon Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, to “do something” about the tweet.

He did nothing.

Understandably. 

Suspending the account of the United States President because a failing opposition candidate was offended by typical Trumpian hyperbole would br idiotic. Mr. Dorsey has a lot to answer for, sure. But complete and utter idiocy? Not that.

For he knows something: Donald Trump has it within his powers to command every federal agency to cease using Twitter. Trump himself could switch to Gab or Minds or even MeWe — perhaps he should. 

The federal government is not required to use a particular social media platform over another, is it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Donald Trump, twitter, censorship, Kamala Harris threat,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts