Bill de Blasio Drops Out; Why Was He Even Running?

The real mystery about de Blasio's campaign, is not that he dropped out but rather,what made him waste his time running in the first place? I would say the same of non-entities such as Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, among others. 

If you don't have a chance of winning, have nothing interesting to say, no ability to push an issue to the forefront, and aren't even someone other candidates might consider for a cabinet spot, then why did you waste time and money running for the Presidency?
EGO.

It all comes down to ego. And apparently de Blasio has an outsized one. Most politicians do. But you also need to know how to count. And I hear he has plenty of issues in NYC to fix. He will have time to do that now.
Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City who entered the Democratic presidential race on the premise that his brand of urban progressive leadership could appeal on a national scale, said on Friday that he was ending his candidacy.

Mr. de Blasio’s announcement came as it became clear he was unlikely to qualify for the fourth Democratic debate next month, cementing the notion that he lacked the support and funds to sustain his bid.

Democratic Debate Impressions

Tulsi Gabbard debates Kamala Harris

The two recent Democratic Presidential debates were entertaining. Everyone tried to take down Biden. Tulsi Gabbard smacked Kamala Harris around like Harris owed her money or had stolen her man. Even for a politician, Cory Booker oozed insincerity. If I hear him do that fake overemphasis on a syllable or word to show he cares one more time...

Julian Castro continued to press for decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Elizabeth Warren showed that just because she sounds nice you had better not forget that she can and will open a can of whoop-a$$ on anyone challenging her preferred big plans.  

Warren: "You know, I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for. I don’t get it."

Bernie Sanders made an apparent alliance of opportunity and stood back to back with Elizabeth Warren as the two spent a good deal of the night fending off attacks from rivals who insisted that their more progressive plans were unworkable, too expensive, damaging to the middle class and would help re-elect Donald Trump.

We'll see but my take is that some candidates are mistaken if they think people line up to drop their private health coverage for Medicare coverage while paying higher taxes to do so. The larger issue lurking behind that is "equality". The problem is that freedom and equality don't always go hand in hand, as Vonnegut pointed out all those years ago in Harrison Bergeron. 

Symone Sanders tells Black Men to Shut Up

It's difficult to imagine a mainstream commentator rhetorically wondering who asked all these big mouthed Black women for their opinion, asking why they kept popping up, and then insulting a particular Black woman's intelligence and credentials simply because he happened to disagree with the point she was making.

It's almost impossible to imagine someone saying that about White Women, Jewish Americans or almost any other group and moving on like nothing took place. Usually the person would have to apologize. And if the apology was not sufficiently abject, the person who had made such comments would likely lose their job. In fact there are people who would insist that apology or no, the person should lose their job. But if you dismiss Black men as alleged political commentator Symone Sanders recently did then you can usually avoid making any retraction or apology. And losing your job isn't even on the agenda. 

This is yet another reason why I think it's beyond stupid to talk non-ironically about "black male privilege" or "black male patriarchy" in America. Those things don't exist. If they did then the sentient tugboat that is Symone Sanders would be sure to keep a more civil tongue in her head when it came to black men.

Recap: The First Democratic Debate

Five democratic candidates for President of the United States took the debate stage in Las Vegas last night to face off over the issues for the very first time. Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley introduced themselves to the American people and then got down and dirty in the political mud.

No topic was off limits. Gun control. Hillary Clinton's Emails. Benghazi. Syria. Russia. The Economy. Black Lives Matter. The candidates covered it all. Well, at least some of them did, and that is where we have a problem, if you don't like your candidates chosen for you.




Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders clearly had more debate prep than any of the other candidates on the stage. And by debate prep I mean Clinton's failed 2008 run when she endlessly debated then Senator Barack Obama despite having no chance at the nomination, and Clinton and Sanders' storied histories in the halls of Congress. As for the other candidates, they barely registered in the key arguments being put forth in the debate. It was the Hillary and Bernie show.

One of the most contentious issues early on was gun control. The gloves came off between the old Senate fellows. Hillary Clinton said Bernie Sanders wasn't tough enough on gun control. Bernie tried to argue that there is a difference in the perception of guns in rural areas versus more urban areas, and while he is technically right, that technicality doesn't matter when you consider the students and teachers of Sandy Hook were teaching and learning in a rural area when they were massacred by a madman.

The debate on gun control quickly devolved into a debate about war and who would be a better Commander in Chief. Hillary Clinton was painted as too quick to press the button considering her voting record on Iraq. Bernie Sanders was painted as a pacifist, and the other three candidates pontificated about how they would have voted had they been in Congress, and what they will do once they become the President of the United States. Only Jim Webb could really speak about what it's really like to be at war considering his Marine background, but he squandered his chance to silence, and then complained that he didn't get enough time to speak.

From war the natural progression of the debate led to Syria, Russia, and Benghazi. This brought the marquee moment of the debate when Senator Bernie Sanders exclaimed, "We're tired of hearing about the damn emails." Hillary Clinton appreciated the vote of support from her socialist rival. The debate carried on and came to two of my favorite topics. Let's start with the economy.

On this topic the Democrats did what the Democrats always do. They blamed the Republican. In this case they blamed Bush. The campaign tactics of 2008 and 2012 when Obama ran were employed in earnest with a couple new twists. When the conversation turned to restoring Glass-Steagall all the candidates supported the move except Hillary Clinton. I wonder why? The obvious and only reason that Mrs. Clinton cannot support the restoration of the one piece of legislation that would keep investment banks separate from commercial/community banks is because it is the key piece of legislation her husband took pride in dismantling in the name of deregulation, trimming the fat, cutting the tape, and balancing the budget. While I'm sure President Clinton was well meaning in his actions back in those roaring 90s, it got us Millennials a lot of heartache in the aughts.

Instead of supporting the restoration of Glass-Steagall Mrs. Clinton promoted the failed pansy bill that is Dodd-Frank and promoted progressive capitalism with checks and balances. Bernie Sanders called her on her B.S. and Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb wept. Or at least they should have for their silence.

Last night's debate was hosted by CNN in conjunction with Facebook. That means questions were taken from real people to see if the candidates truly know what's going within the pulse of the country. The first question posed was a simple one, but an important one (especially to this here blogger) "Do Black Live Matter or Do All Lives Matter?

All of the candidates stated why Black Lives Matter. Whether they believe in the movement and goals of the grassroots civil rights campaign or not they gave politically correct answers. All except for maybe Jim Webb. He stumbled around his work with the Black community and came up with I've been working with African Americans and their situation... Mr. Webb, what exactly is our situation?

The Black Lives Matter questions raises a broader issue, not just among the Democratic candidates but for the entire 2016 campaign on both sides of the aisle. Unless the next President is Ben Carson, then our next President will be forced to have a "black agenda." An agenda President Obama could not, does not, and can not outwardly have for the simple fact that he is Black. For the first Black President to have an explicitly Black agenda, while necessary, will be to some too explicitly racist and at very least pandering. I know. The psychology of our country is backwards. However, what Obama had to do through Attorney General Eric Holder, and now Attorney General Loretta Lynch Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump can do on their own. They can put forth a plan to promote the equality of minorities among the greater hegemony and by "pandering" if you will they get the minority vote they are looking for.

It's still a long road to go for both the Democrat and Republican ticket, and though I hate to admit it Hillary Clinton was the strongest candidate at the podium last night. I don't like her sense of entitlement, and I don't care for her deceptive scandals but she did make several compelling arguments and the other candidates, save for Bernie Sanders didn't put up much of a fight against her machine. Especially Martin O'Malley. He's running for Vice President. I'm sure of it.

Questions:

1. What did you think of the Democratic candidates' debate performance?
2. If the election were today who would you vote for?
3. Do there need to be more candidates in the race?

Santorum questions Obama's "phony" theology

Sometimes I  like respect people that are unafraid to stand up and tell you what they think, right or wrong. Many people can't always do that, whether it's because we'd like to keep our job or because we realize that maintaining a good relationship with a loved one is more important than sharing exactly what is on our mind.


There is a big difference between saying what you think or believe and insulting someone else's beliefs. There is also a contrast in stating that you believe that someone is wrong on an issue and saying that someone is a bad person. Unfortunately Rick Santorum seems to find it constitutionally impossible to make those distinctions. These are really important distinctions to make in a country where there are a multitude of beliefs about God, sexuality, reproduction and any other hot button issue you care to list.

"It's not about you,' Santorum declared."It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible -- a different theology."

"I can't help but think that those remarks are well over the line," Senior Obama Campaign Adviser Robert Gibbs said Sunday on "ABC This Week." "It's wrong. It's destructive."

LINK
This isn't just a dog whistle to those who are convinced that the President is an Alinskyite/Atheist/Muslim/Kenyan/Socialist/Communist/Ghetto Crackhead who hates America. (though it certainly appeals to that crowd)  It is also a tell that Santorum doesn't realize that he's running for President of the United States, not Grand Inquisitor. Those two jobs require different experiences and personalities. For President, I want to know that someone understands this BEFORE I hand him the keys to a massive national security apparatus and a military might unmatched by any other nation. But if I were hiring for Grand Inquisitor I would definitely call Santorum back for the second round of interviews. He certainly has the smug moral certitude needed.



I'm on a mission. A mission from God.

Santorum's attack also reveals a reductionist religious view. If I told you that there was a religious organization whose leaders regularly issued pointed broadsides against the death penalty, poverty, racism, free-market capitalism, war, and the increasing concentration of wealth, you might be surprised to learn that Santorum was a member. Evidently, as many people do, Santorum struggles with those teachings which he finds inconvenient and embraces those which he likes. The Roman Catholic Church is about more than opposition to abortion, gay marriage and contraception. Both Santorum and his detractors should remember that. The call to share and help the poor is just as important as the sexual proscriptions. It doesn't look like Santorum is heeding that call


Santorum also revealed that he was opposed to prenatal testing because he thinks it leads to abortion. 

"Yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does in fact result more often than not in abortion. That is a fact," Santorum said.

Okay. I almost never think that more knowledge is in and of itself a bad thing. That sort of arrogant know-nothing attitude is in direct opposition to what middle school Jesuit teachers taught me. If doctors discovered that an unborn child might face challenges, the new parents could use the time before birth to research those issues. They might consider adoption. They might alter their plans so that one parent provides full time home care. They might purchase more insurance. They might ask an extended family member to assist. One or both parents might change their career path to something more lucrative so that they could afford the additional medical costs. Everyone won't automatically seek abortion. And even if 99 out of 100 couples did, that doesn't mean that 100th couple doesn't have the right to prenatal testing.

The problem here is that increasingly, too many people across the political spectrum seem to believe that their opponents are not just wrong or misguided but bad and downright evil. Our system features divided government and limits on federal power precisely to ensure that you must work with detractors. So this doesn't bode well for Santorum's ability or interest to get things done if elected President.

I write this not as someone who thinks that partisanship is necessarily a bad thing or that some people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me aren't truly malicious whack jobs. But if you assume that everyone with whom you disagree is evil or has "phony theology", purely as a pragmatic point you blind yourself as to their true motivations. You make mistakes, costly ones.

Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.
-Michael Corleone

QUESTIONS

1. There is no religious test for political office. Why is Santorum acting as if there is?
2. Were he to become the nominee, would Santorum's beliefs and attitude find support in a general election? Am I overreacting to a poor choice of words?
3. Could a President Santorum reach across the political divide?
4. Will attacks on President Obama's authenticity continue to be part of the political landscape?
5. Are you surprised at the sudden rash of social issues getting play this year?