The 2016 DNC Chair Election

DNC ChairThe election for the new DNC chair is coming up. According to the bylaws of the Democratic Party the chairperson is mostly responsible for carrying out the programs and policies of the National Convention and Democratic National Committee. Further the person shall preside over meetings and serve full time.

Recently we have had two part-time chairs: Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I think most agree that Wasserman-Schultz was awful as chair. But I would go further and argue that nice guy Tim Kaine was awful too. Senator Kaine is the reason we have the corporate logo instead of the kicking donkey.

Essentially, the job of chair is to go around raising money and running the programs and policies for the Democratic Party as a whole.

They don’t have a lot of real power but they do have some influence.

Who Cares Who the DNC Chair Is?

There are a couple of reasons we care who the DNC chair is. The chair is in charge of party building and winning elections. Democrats can’t have an influence on policy if they don’t have elected officials to implement that policy. The US doesn’t work when the Democratic Party is as dysfunctional as the Republicans.

What the Chair Needs to Do

Essentially the DNC chair will need to create and implement a strategy that targets all of the congressional seats that will be winnable in 2018. At the same time, they will help build up the state parties so they can take over state legislatures we don’t have and hang onto ones we do.

There isn’t much more to the job than that.

The Candidates

A number of people have announced interest in becoming the next DNC chair. The most famous of them is Howard Dean. He previously had the job from 2005 to 2009 — an incredibly good period of Democratic Party growth. Unfortunately, Dean has withdrawn from the race for DNC chair. He sees the race as shaping up to be a proxy war between Keith Ellison (representing the Sanders side of the party) and himself (representing the Clinton side). He thinks the party needs unity and a high-profile fight between the two men would be bad for that.

Keith Ellison

Ellison is the co-chair with Representative Raul Grijalva of the House Progressive Caucus. He has been part of Congress since 2007 — elected in the Democratic wave year of 2006. Since he has been on the Hill for quite some time he has racked up a lot of endorsements from the Democratic Congressional Caucus: Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren from the Senate, his co-chair from the House, and others. After all, they know him. He has released a plan for action if he is elected chair that talks about the basics of party building along with some of the other things people are concerned about for party chair.

One problem is that he is in Congress and we need a full time chair. He has, however, indicated that he might resign as Representative if he is elected. Another issue is that he doesn’t have a political machine that stretches past his own district.

He has, however, generated a lot of excitement; and that is always good.

Tom Perez

Perez is Obama’s Labor Secretary and he is a firecracker — exhibiting immense energy. However, he may decide to run for governor of Maryland instead. There haven’t been many articles about him running since 11 November. So it is unclear if he will actually run or not.

Perez has a lot of connections nationwide from being Labor Secretary, and they are with people who could be potentially recruited as candidates. How he is on fundraising is a different story. So he may have what is needed since he has energy and connections; but he could still fail since he doesn’t have the fundraising prowess.

Jaime Harrison

Harrison is the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. And he was a lobbyist at one point for the Podesta Group (he left that position when he announced he was seeking to run for DNC chair). He would be a full time chair and he also gets that we need to focus on the state rather than national party. He is supported by Representative James Clyburn who he worked for when the Democrats were in charge of Congress.

Where he doesn’t have much of an argument is in the results of the South Carolina election cycles that he was in charge of. He didn’t manage to build the party or recruit candidates to run for office. Amazingly, 27 of the Republican-held seats for the state legislature were uncontested — one-quarter of them all. That is a bad sign for someone wanting to be DNC chair.

Raymond Buckley

The most recent announcement in the race was from the chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, Raymond Buckley. He has run a very successful state party: New Hampshire picked up the Senate seat, a House seat, and gained 17 seats (10 percent) in the State House.

Buckley clearly knows how to build a party and win elections. He also has been doing party politics for a very long time. He probably knows that winning in 2018 involves an immense amount cat herding — something he has done a lot of locally. However, he isn’t inspiring like Ellison is, doesn’t appear to have the firecracker energy of Perez, and isn’t from a southern state like Harrison.

The Coming DNC Chair Campaign

The DNC has announced they will have candidate forums in four cities around the country. One is in Phoenix, so I will be attending.

Army Says No to Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing

Dakota Access Pipeline ProtestThe Department of the Army will not approve an easement that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, the Army’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Works announced today.

Jo-Ellen Darcy said she based her decision on a need to explore alternate routes for the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing. Her office had announced on November 14, 2016 that it was delaying the decision on the easement to allow for discussions with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose reservation lies 0.5 miles south of the proposed crossing. Tribal officials have expressed repeated concerns over the risk that a pipeline rupture or spill could pose to its water supply and treaty rights.

“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Darcy said. “The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”

Darcy said that the consideration of alternative routes would be best accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement with full public input and analysis.

–US Army Press Release
Army Will Not Grant Easement for Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing

Trevor Noah Steps It Up Against Tomi Lahren

Tomi LahrenLast Wednesday, Trevor Noah of The Daily Show interviewed far-right video’s “It Girl,” one Tomi Lahren. Ms. Lahren’s bile-filled screeds against the evils of liberal America are hugely popular right now on social media. (Shouldn’t we change that description to “antisocial”?) She comes across as the Muppet Babies version of Ann Coulter.

It has apparently been widely shared among Noah fans, who appreciate his unflappable demeanor, and among Lahren fans, who like it whenever someone uses a vicious manner to expresses hateful sentiments they admire. (Oh, yes, does that make them feel strong.) Tomi Lahren also lies, which her audience no doubt loves, as well.

Dish It Out vs Take It

The lies begin immediately, with Lahren claiming she’s “not angry.” Well, then she does a good job playing it on TV (and she’s well aware that constantly-fueled rage is what her intended audience feeds upon).

As is usual with far-right media figures, Lahren’s untruths and deliberate distortions don’t cease. They become something like Phil Spector’s Wall Of Sound, with constant delivery and repetition of falsehoods substituting for argument. Throw in a little flag-decal patriotism, and the effect means to convey that people On God’s Side have so much data to back them up, their bomb-droppings are irrefutable.

With immense patience and charm, Noah sets about defusing them. It’s a terrific performance. He addresses each of her bogus claims and false equivalencies. I won’t spoil any of his jokes (and the best ones seem to fly right over Lahren’s head), but here’s one example of his tone.

Tomi Lahren considers BlackLivesMatter to be essentially a violent subversive organization, morally equivalent to the KKK. To “prove” this, she cites instances of destruction and murder committed by self-identified BLM supporters. Noah counters that these are the actions of individuals, and the movement does not advocate violence (which is true). Nope, says Lahren, if someone says your movement inspired their hatred, your movement is hateful.

Noah then asks about the KKK and Trump — by Lahren’s logic, isn’t Trump responsible for the KKK’s resurgence? Even if you haven’t watched the video yet, you already know her answer. No! Trump is good! BLM bad! Etc. We’ve heard this record before.

Tomi Lahren’s Damn Lies and Statistics

Tomi Lahren soon floats a statistic so baffling, the audience gasps; a black person is 18.5 times more likely to shoot a police officer than get shot by one. She then claims the 18.5 number is a statistic “no one wants to talk about.” Noah deftly changes the discussion point.

That multiplier 18.5 stuck in my head for a day. Surely, it can’t be true?

Of course, it’s not; and, as Gore Vidal once said elsewhere, it would make a good project for a course in logic. What on Earth can she mean? Well, for one, this statistic actually refers to the probability of any given police officer being shot by a black person, versus the probability of any given unarmed black person being shot by a police officer.

Since there are vastly more black citizens in America than police officers, the number starts to make sense. While policing is not among America’s most dangerous jobs, it does carry some risk, more so than that of the average citizen being killed by a cop.

Look at it this way: shouldn’t the police have a far higher risk of being shot by criminals than you have of being shot by officers? In that context, 18.5 seems amazingly low. If air travel was only 18.5 times less likely to end in explosions than space rockets, none of us would fly again.

The statistic comes from author Heather Mac Donald, who has long written that excessive police violence against minorities is a myth. As she has a clear ax to grind, her number is suspect, but I’ll use it for the sake of argument.

A Simple Test

The argument then becomes: how much more likely is a police officer to be shot by a non-black person than a non-black person to be shot by an officer?

Happily, a programmer named Joseph Atkins-Turkish has read Mac Donald’s work, and done the computations for us, Next Time You See a Racist Abuse Statistics, Here’s How You Call Them Out. Surprise, surprise! Using Mac Donald’s numbers, an officer is 124 times more likely to get shot by a non-black person than a non-black person is to be shot by an officer.

I realize this is Mac Donald’s sin. She is a published book author and contributor to publications like the Wall Street Journal, while Tomi Lahren is merely a young twerp kissing instant celebrity’s rear end. The one knows she is lying; the other blithely repeats this lie. Still, from my perspective, it’s hard not to fault them both.

Noah’s Better At Being Serious Than Funny

I have not watched The Daily Show much since Noah took over. To be honest, I never watched it much before, as I haven’t had cable in 10+ years. But I’d come across the occasional Jon Stewart segment online which had some bite to it.

Most Americans probably first saw Trevor Noah, as I did, on a Daily Show segment where Noah played a game called “Spot the Africa” — showing thriving cities and broken slums, asking Stewart to pick which one was America and which one Africa. The joke was that we tend to stereotype Africa as though it hasn’t changed in the last half century.

The appeal of that segment no doubt helped Noah land the Daily Show anchor gig. How’s he done? It’s a matter of opinion.

Larry Wilmore

Myself, I preferred seeing clips from Larry Wilmore’s Nightly Show — Wilmore’s an older fellow, like myself, and his sense of humor just gels with me more.

Plus, Wilmore got fired, largely because he wasn’t picking up the antisocial media “traction” Noah does. I’m still plenty mad at Comedy Central about that. We could have used Wilmore during the general election — and I think the added viewership during election season would have translated into more people coming to appreciate Wilmore’s dry wit.

But, that’s not Noah’s fault, and I should stop resenting him for it. Does his tenure on The Daily Show need time to find its own rhythm? Surely it does. Will they find it? Who knows.

His skilled, polite (on his side, at any rate) debate with Tomi Lahren shows one direction the show might go in. Noah’s “Spot the Africa” segment was serious underneath the irony. His interview here is deadly serious, yet he unearths humor in it. This might be his superpower! Let’s hope so.

How Carrier Played Donald Trump

Bernie SandersToday, about 1,000 Carrier workers and their families should be rejoicing. But the rest of our nation’s workers should be very nervous.

President-elect Donald Trump will reportedly announce a deal with United Technologies, the corporation that owns Carrier, that keeps less than 1,000 of the 2,100 jobs in America that were previously scheduled to be transferred to Mexico. Let’s be clear: It is not good enough to save some of these jobs. Trump made a promise that he would save all of these jobs, and we cannot rest until an ironclad contract is signed to ensure that all of these workers are able to continue working in Indiana without having their pay or benefits slashed.

In exchange for allowing United Technologies to continue to offshore more than 1,000 jobs, Trump will reportedly give the company tax and regulatory favors that the corporation has sought. Just a short few months ago, Trump was pledging to force United Technologies to “pay a damn tax.” He was insisting on very steep tariffs for companies like Carrier that left the United States and wanted to sell their foreign-made products back in the United States. Instead of a damn tax, the company will be rewarded with a damn tax cut. Wow! How’s that for standing up to corporate greed? How’s that for punishing corporations that shut down in the United States and move abroad?

In essence, United Technologies took Trump hostage and won. And that should send a shock wave of fear through all workers across the country.

–Bernie Sanders
Carrier Just Showed Corporations How to Beat Donald Trump

Could Trump Go to China?

Donald Trump - HopeI have a love-hate relationship with the saying, “Only Nixon could go to China!” What it means is that only a total Cold Warrior who was utterly anti-China would have the political clout to do that. An internationalist like myself would never be able to do that because people wouldn’t trust me. (Also, I would never be president for all of Sherman’s reasons and for the fact that no one would ever elect me.) The reason I love the statement is because it is true. The reason I hate it is that it is true.

I don’t think of it in terms of Nixon and China, I think of it in terms of Clinton and welfare “reform.” A Democratic president managed to screw the poor in a way that no Republican had ever dared. Oh, ain’t democracy grand! So it with this in mind that I hold out a long-shot hope that Trump might do something good. What? I certainly can’t say. But you never know. And I’m just trying to get through this month, much less the next 8 years. (Sorry folks, I give Trump an 80 percent chance of winning re-election — something I wrote about long before the election.)

The reason I bring this up because of something that Noam Chomsky said in an interview. Mehdi Hasan asked him about something Slavoj Žižek had said, “Trump would shake up the system and could be a positive force in terms of undermining the status quo.” It’s the first time that I’ve ever thought of Žižek as a useful idiot. I thought he had said that after the election. But he didn’t. Hasan asked Chomsky if Žižek had a point. Chomsky’s response was quite right, “Terrible point. It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early 30s… He’ll shake up the system: in bad ways.”

We Can Hope Trump Will Do Good

But at this point, I’m afraid that we are left with Žižek’s hope. A Donald Trump presidency is not something I wanted. For the first time in about a decade, I have had serious suicidal thoughts. It’s pathetic, really; but it does indicate just how bad I think a Trump presidency will be not just for the nation but for the world. Still, I think we have to have hope. And there is one reason to have hope: Trump is a narcissist. And narcissists want to be loved.

Of course, it doesn’t look good. He has decided that Tom Price should head Health and Human Services (HHS). And I’m not sure that the crowds will stop cheering if 20 million people lose their health insurance — at least for a while. But like I said, we’ve got to have hope.

But that doesn’t mean that we should be idiots. The truth is that Trump’s total lack of experience in politics means that he will be a mark for the Republican establishment. The pick of Price to run HHS actually shows this. It is not the kind of pick of someone who is actually outside the Beltway. Tom Price could just as easily have been picked by Mike Pence.

And Trump might be different in exactly the way that we don’t want. Despite what most people think, presidents do live up to their promises. Maybe that’s how Trump will be different. When he said he would protect Medicare, maybe it meant nothing.

So I’m not suggesting that we should be too hopeful. But we’ve got to stay hopeful enough to keep fighting.

The Dying Dragon

Reverend James GertmenianIn my closing minutes, I want to address a few, more focused words to those in our congregation who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered — and to your family members and friends.

A number of you have written or spoken to me in the last few days to say how dismayed you were to see amendments against gay marriage and, in some cases, even gay civil rights, being passed by large margins in eleven states. Some of you spoke of feeling frightened, imagining, as well you might, that a new wave of hatred and fear is about to wash over you. You feel betrayed by a country that promised to value every human being equally… and perhaps even more damaging, you feel betrayed by representatives of a religion that claims love as its foundational value.

I understand your fear. Many of us here at Plymouth do.

But I want to remind you that this spasm of hatred is the lashing out of a dying dragon. This dragon, homophobia, is angry because it is dying. And it is frightened because it is dying. And in its anger and its fear it may even seem stronger than it really is. But it is dying. What is being born is the love of God which will show forth in a time in which your God-given value will be recognized by all.

In the meantime, though, I want you to know this: whatever happens anywhere else, in this place, and in this family, you need not be afraid. Even if every state in the union were to pass an amendment, these walls stand to protect you. This is a sanctuary where your lives will be celebrated, and your loves blessed, and your relationships honored. And from this place we will go out and fight together for human rights for all. That is a solemn covenant which we here make with one another. And woe to this church if it should ever break that covenant, for in so doing it will have broken its own heart.

–Reverend James Gertmenian
Quoted in Words Escape Me

The Incredible Ever-Moving American Center

Jonathan ChaitOf all the failures that have led to the historical disaster of the Trump presidency, perhaps the least-remarked-upon is the abdication of responsibility of the American center. Those of us with moderate inclinations need an effective center as a brake against extremism. When one party veers too far from the center, the center joins the opposing party, until the extreme one can be coaxed back into the mainstream. David Brooks calls for a rejuvenation of the center under the Trump presidency. But Brooks himself is the perfect encapsulation of why the center has proven so hapless, allowing itself to enable extremism rather than prevent it.

The premise of Brooks’s column is that there needs to be space “between the alt-right and the alt-left, between Trumpian authoritarianism and Sanders socialism.” This is a terrible way to conceptualize the political map. First, it distorts the ideas of the two sides, equating a small-d democrat like Sanders (who merely proposes more regulation, taxes, and spending) with Trump, who — as Brooks concedes — is authoritarian. And second, it distorts their power. Sanders remains a left-wing outlier among his party, while Trump is the dominant force within his…

The effect of all this commentary was not to empower the moderate ideas Brooks favored, but to disempower them. Brooks was emblematic of the way the entire bipartisan centrist industry conducted itself throughout the Obama years. It was neither possible for Obama to co-opt the center, nor for Republicans to abandon it, because official centrists would simply relocate themselves to the midpoint of wherever the parties happened to stand. The well-documented reality that the parties were undergoing asymmetric polarization was one they refused to accept…

The centrists could have played a role in braking the growing extremism of the Republican party. It would have meant telling the country that there was now one moderate, governing party and one extremist faction, and parking themselves with the moderate party until such time as the dynamic changed.

–Jonathan Chait
David Brooks and the Intellectual Collapse of the Center

Russia and the Idea of Objectivity in US Journalism

Spys from Russia Destroying US DemocracyI’ve never really doubted that Russia was involved in influencing the 2016 presidential election. I never got upset about it because I’m sure that they have done the same thing since about the time our nation was founded. The only reason it was of any special interest this year was that one of the major candidates for president was on record as being relatively positive in his posture toward Russia. And as a result, journalists were sniffing around more than they normally would and we learned more.

Even still, it isn’t like we ever found a smoking gun. During the election, I looked for information that proved that Russia was doing things that were meant to swing the election toward Trump. But I never did find anything. It was always just that a bunch of American governmental agencies believed that this was the case. I’m willing to go along with that, but it isn’t anything too outrageous.

Ridiculous Outrage

What is outrageous is how much liberals have become outraged about all of this. After all, the United States has a long history of not just interfering with the elections of other nations, but of actually staging coups to overthrow democratically elected governments. With the death of Fidel Castro, we liberals should take a moment to remember this. Regardless of what Russia did in the presidential election of 2016, the United States is the most meddlesome country in the history of the world.

On Thursday, Craig Timberg of The Washington Post published, Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread “Fake News” During Election, Experts Say. Oh my! There’s a snore-fest. Or you would think it would be one. But it wasn’t. It was big news. By Friday, everyone was talking about it. And just what did we learn? Well, not much:

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Clinton Was Harmed By “Real” Stories in US Media

This is just absurd. Sure: there were lots of fake stories. They weren’t all intended to make Clinton look bad, but most were. Just the same: so what? The uncorroborated stories against Trump were taken far more seriously. But it wasn’t the fake stories that lost Clinton the election. Look at all the true stories about Trump — ones that would have killed the campaign of any normal politician? Those didn’t hurt Trump. Who, at this point, actually thinks that Clinton lost because the voters got the wrong information.

If you had to pick a single reason for Clinton losing, it would have to be constant innuendo about her private email server. And this was all, technically, true. It wasn’t things like the fake story that Obama withdrew his endorsement of Clinton. So this whole “fake story” obsession is just silly anyway.

But Timberg’s story was worse than even its obsession on “Russian propaganda destroying US democracy” would make it seem. Much of the article is based on work by PropOrNot (Propaganda Or Not) — a website that is completely anonymous. We aren’t even told the name of the executive director. According to the article, he “spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.” I don’t remember the last time I heard so much hooey.

Russia Is Destroying US Democracy!

Much of the article is also caught up in what Robert Orttung had to say about all this, “They use our technologies and values against us to sow doubt. It’s starting to undermine our democratic system.” Oh yeah, it’s the Russians who are doing this! It’s not the Republican Party who have been pushing this argument for decades. It isn’t the president-elect himself who claimed that the election was rigged. It isn’t all the domestic propaganda about voter fraud. No, it’s Russia — using “our” technologies and “our” values.

This is what I most hate about our media. They spend a year and a half covering the presidential election as though it were the “most popular boy” contest for the high school yearbook. They obsess about Hillary Clinton’s email server, even though there was no actual information to report. And when it all ends in an ignorant narcissist being elected President of the United States, then it is time to get serious about what’s really going wrong in our democracy: Russia! Hackers!

Unbelievable.

Afterword

For more push-back on Craig Timberg’s article, see Mathew Ingram’s No, Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See. And see Ben Norton & Glenn Greenwald’s Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group.

It’s the Racism, Stupid!

Mehdi Hasan - It's the Racism, Stupid!So who were the people who put Donald Trump in the White House? Is it a revolt of the dispossessed? Or the left-behind — globalization’s losers? Is it the backlash against free trade? Some of the top voices on the US left seem to think so. But what if the economy isn’t the main driver? What if it’s racism and racial resentment that helped put Trump in the Oval Office? What if it’s the “whitelash”?

Just look at the evidence. First off, exit polls from the primary found the median household income of a Trump voter was well above the national average. And the exit polls of the presidential election confirmed Hillary Clinton won the majority of voters making under $50,000. In addition, a massive pre-election Gallup study found that living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.

Second, people of color in the United States, especially black voters, are far worse off economically than their white counterparts. If it’s all about income and jobs and trade, why did people of color vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, not Trump? Or did their economic anxiety not count?

Third, just listen to what Trump voters actually say about why they support him. One study found that the easiest way to identify if someone supports Trump over Clinton is to ask if they think Barack Obama is a Muslim. It’s more accurate than asking them whether they’re Republicans. That study also found that factors like economic pessimism and income were statistically insignificant to Trump’s rise. Other studies found a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump — with Trump supporters more likely to describe African Americans as criminals, unintelligent, lazy, and violent — more likely to think people of color are taking white jobs, with a majority rating blacks as less evolved than whites. Do I really need to go on?

But what about all the low-income white voters who Obama won in 2008 but Trump won in 2016? A, there’s no evidence that the same people that voted for Obama voted for Trump; we just don’t have that data yet. B, Democrats lost more votes in counties where white income growth was highest than where it was lowest. And C, Obama wasn’t running against a candidate who engaged in the textbook definition of racism, and had a long history of anti-black bias.

There are multiple reasons why Trump won: a flawed Democratic candidate and low Democratic turnout; the email issue; and, of course, the economy played a role. But to focus all or most of our attention on income inequality and the “left behind” — real issues that need addressing — doesn’t tackle the racist elephant in the room. And yes, I accept, not all Trump voters are racist. But the racists did vote for Trump. Plus, as one very viral tweet actually put it, “Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn’t a deal breaker.” And so we have a situation where in January, the first black President of the United States will hand over to a president endorsed by the KKK. But apparently, “It’s the economy, stupid!” I don’t think so.

–Mehdi Hasan
Noam Chomsky on the New Trump Era — UpFront Special

Measuring the Down Ballot Election: Part 2

Democratic Party BaseNow we will finish off our discussion of the House races and Senate races. As with the rest of the election, it is a mixed bag.

California Heart Break

All three Democratic candidates have lost as of right now. Here is the weird thing: California has an immense amount of voters and their vote tally takes forever to finish. That is why Hillary Clinton keeps getting more votes to be honest — the sheer number of votes out in California.

Which means if Trump ticks that state off enough, it could decide to Calexit and turn into the sixth largest economy country wise while trashing the entire US South.

Anyway on to the break down:

California 10

Despite his frosted tips, it appears that even with the 50,000 votes still outstanding, Michael Eggman is not going to manage to pull off an upset and beat Jeff Dunham. Right now it is a difference of a little over ten thousand between them so Eggman will have to get 60% of the outstanding vote total to beat Dunham. Could it happen? Sure. But as of now, probably not.

California 25

This one is trickier. While as of right now Bryan Caforio is down 17,851 votes, much of the district is in the Los Angeles County with almost a million votes still left to be processed and counted. It is a hugely steep climb though, so I don’t think that Caforio will be able to pull it off. What remains is to see how close it is It is a district that is winnable without the lack of baggage that Caforio had (he was a new comer and I think that probably hurt him).

California 49

This one is tight. While in Orange County (of course), Issa is winning massively by about forty points, San Diego is going in for Applegate, with him 14K votes ahead.

Orange County has about 71,000 ballots left and San Diego has about 164,000 ballots left. It is unclear where exactly those votes are for the two of them exactly but…

Issa only has a 3,234 vote lead which means that Applegate may still pull this off and be our seventh pick up.

Illinois 10

Here is a shocker: we didn’t just win, we won with enough points that this seat may not flip back. Robert Dold won with 3 points in 2014. And Brad Schneider won in 2012 with one point.

This time Schneider won with 5 points or 13,916. Which caused me to tweet that this might keep going…

2018: Dold with 7%

2020: Schneider with 9%

2022: Dold with 11%

Until one of them drops dead. But really, it might stay with us in 2018. We will see. I don’t know if Schneider is going to be one of the Democrats fighting Trump tooth and nail or not, and that can have an impact.

RNC Rundown?

I know I promised that I would write about the race for DNC chair but I am going to probably do that as a separate post because it requires some explaining. And I am going to be like Lucy and ‘splain in greater detail.

Chelsea Manning: Obama Should Pardon Her Now

Chelsea ManningAs you know, Presidents have Constitutional authority to pardon people for any federal crime. This can be someone convicted, or someone who hasn’t faced trial yet. Ford pardoned Nixon of all crimes Nixon might have committed in office. A loyal gesture which doomed Ford to half a term.

You also know that Presidents are concerned about their “legacies”: how they will be remembered by historians. Perhaps this comes from reading too much modern history of past Presidents. Jackson, for example, is not coming off so well as he once did. Every President since Hoover has a Presidential library, where documents, recordings, and films are stored. Sometimes bones of those Presidents are there, too; six chose to be buried at theirs. Ford has both a library and a museum! (He’s buried at the museum.)

Up until recently, Barack Obama often said he hoped the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would be a major part of his legacy. Now, Democratic dreams of using the ACA as a start towards better and better health-insurance reform appear to be all but dead. With control of Congress and the White House, Republicans are almost guaranteed to wipe the law from history.

If President Obama wants to have something in his legacy besides being America’s first black chief executive (a proud legacy in itself), he should pardon Chelsea Manning.

Different Kinds Of Pardons

Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year sentence in Fort Leavenworth (this sentence imposed when Manning was 25). She has attempted suicide twice.

Pardons are used by Presidents for different reasons. Sometimes they are the result of a petition movement that stirred the President’s compassion. Sometimes they arise from a sense of injustice. Lincoln pardoned 264 of 303 Sioux men sentenced to death in the Dakota War of 1862. Perhaps this was out of mercy, perhaps sending a message that Confederate soldiers would not be tried as traitors. (The Sioux executed were those who had committed crimes against civilians; Lincoln pardoned those who only fought against the US Army.)

Pardons may protect former political allies. George HW Bush pardoned several Iran-Contra participants,. Bill Clinton did the same for old Arkansas cronies. Presidents pardon family members (Carter pardoned his brother). They can be posthumous. Send a cultural message. They can be any or all of the above; Carter also pardoned Jefferson Davis. This neatly acknowledged that Davis was a traitor and forgave him for it simultaneously.

A pardon of Chelsea Manning would send a different message; one to the future. The Trump administration is practically certain to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has already vowed vengeance on reporters who’ve ever criticized him. A Manning pardon could announce that people who expose government wrongdoing are to be celebrated, not persecuted.

Chelsea Manning, American Hero

Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year sentence in Fort Leavenworth (this sentence imposed when Manning was 25). She has attempted suicide twice. The first time resulted in a cruel and unusual punishment of solitary confinement; the second time was during this confinement.

Manning’s conviction was over releasing classified video and text information which revealed two primary things. One, that US diplomats routinely lie to and manipulate other diplomats, which is a complete shock to absolutely no one (diplomats from other countries do exactly the same).

The second offense was identifying war crimes committed by the US military. Chelsea Manning leaked a number of important things:

  • Video of airborne soldiers rejoicing as they murdered civilians
  • Internal documents which proved that Pentagon statistics on civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were deliberately falsified
  • How assaults, rapes, and murders of civilians were being reported to superiors by principled military personnel, and those atrocities were not being investigated.

Doing so was an act of pure moral courage on Manning’s part. And, quite possibly, required by military law.

Soldiers Can’t Follow Illegal Orders

Adolf EichmannIn the Nuremberg trails of Nazi war criminals, an argument used repeatedly by defendants involved claiming they were only following orders. Partially in response to this (also possibly to bolster our moral authority in reconstructing Germany and Japan, where we’d bombed millions of civilians), Congress authorized new rules for our armed forces in 1950. They are the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, or UCMJ.

The UCMJ is our military law. It concerns violations within the armed forces. If a soldier on leave is caught pickpocketing a tourist’s wallet in Times Square, that soldier will face criminal prosecution under normal New York laws. If a soldier steals a fellow soldier’s smartphone while on base, that soldier is disciplined via the UCMJ.

Everyone joining the military is made aware of the UCMJ. They aren’t taught the whole thing (it’s huge), but told how the rules are different from other rules. For example, spitting on another person’s shoes in civilian life is not illegal (most places). Spitting on an officer’s shoes in the military can get you in big trouble. Conversely, if you punch a fellow soldier, you will be busted for months, yet no criminal charge goes on your civilian record. In civilian life, you can be sued or charged with a crime for that.

Article 92

Article 92 of the UCMJ says that military personnel have a duty to obey lawful orders and to disobey unlawful ones. What is an unlawful order? This is tricky. Generally, anything that would be considered a war or civic crime. What constitutes a war crime can be difficult for combat personnel to answer. Consider this: you are ordered, “Blow up that house!” You say, “I saw kids in there.” And your commander says “They’ve left, it’s all enemy soldiers now.” Who bears the moral burden?

If you blow up the house, and find dead children, who was wrong? Perhaps your commander saw shadows and thought they were children running out. If you refused to blow up the house, you would be under major risk of prosecution for insubordination. If you defend your insubordination as disobeying an illegal order, you need to prove your commander knew for certain kids were inside. That’s almost impossible to prove.

Ethical Conviction, Civilian Oversight

Manning had vast proof of illegal orders being issued, of war crimes, and things that others in the military had reported and were being ignored. She wrote “This is one of the most significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.” Whether or not Chelsea Manning was acting out of fidelity to the UCMJ, or simple moral revulsion, I do not know. She made a brave decision to share this information with the world — and more important, with the American people.

Our President is called the commander in chief of the United States Armed Force for a reason. The President is a civilian; our military is under civilian control. By voting for President, we decide who gives orders to our military. In order to assess if our President is a good commander, we need to know what our military has actually done. Past tense: done. Things the enemy already knows. War crimes? Body counts? Those are not secrets to the other side. And if they are kept secret from American voters, this effectively eliminates citizen command of the military.

What Chelsea Manning leaked about diplomacy was a good laugh to diplomats all over the world. It embarrassed us a little bit. Who cares? That’s like sharing video of a President farting. It harmed no one. What Manning leaked about our wars was a vital service to American democracy, and fully in keeping with the highest ideals our military forces aspire to.

Obama’s Legacy, Trump’s Accountability

One of Donald Trump’s notable characteristics is never admitting to being wrong. One of Barack Obama’s many noble attributes is his willingness to share self-criticism in public. The first poses as strength; the second shows real strength.

President Obama did not choose to put Chelsea Manning in prison (she was charged under the UCMJ). But he has not pardoned her service to the nation. And his administration has prosecuted other whistleblowers who acted out of ethical concerns.

Sending a Signal

President Barack ObamaIf President Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, it’d signal to America what distinguishes Democrats from Republicans most: our ability to change what doesn’t work. Obama, no doubt, thought it crucial for national security that we come down hard on whistleblowers in this new age of cyberleaks. And yet we need to distinguish between those who should be removed from sensitive positions and those who should be jailed for treason. (Much like the decision Lincoln made about pardoning the Sioux men.)

It would signal that in the next four years, what we need above all are fearless people willing to shine a light on any wrongdoing by the new administration. Power, especially unchecked power, affects the judgment of even those most determined to resist it. There is little indication President-elect Trump has any such determination.

A Legacy to Be Proud Of

Barack Obama will be remembered as an inspiring example to America of what foolishness we perpetuated by keeping African-Americans from our political sphere, and what evil we continue to perpetuate by permitting the poison of racism in our culture. He’ll be remembered as a skilled political navigator who overcame Republican efforts to dismantle functioning government during his last six years.

Yet his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act will almost certainly be gutted — becoming a historical footnote. But there are still things he can do to help the nation and improve his legacy. He could do something unprecedented and far-reaching by pardoning Chelsea Manning. It is something that might inspire the next person in the next (or any other) administration to have Manning’s courage to speak out.

That would be a legacy. It’d certainly last longer than the worship we once had for Jackson.

Measuring the Down Ballot Election: Part 1

Democratic Party BaseBesides the glamor of the Presidential Race we had the House races and Senate races. There the news was okay but not great. The Democrats picked up four seats in the Senate and six in the House. Mobility has been down due to the lackluster recovery from 2008. As a result, my belief that redistricting doesn’t matter six years later has taken a bit of a hit. Maybe though it means that we can manage in 2018 but we have to be ready as a national party to take advantage. More on that later.

Arizona 01 and 02 Races

AZ-01 was a keeper for the Democrats. Tom O’Halloran managed to destroy Paul Babeu throughout the district, winning by an impressive seven points. He got 117,048 to Babeu’s 100,236. The independent wasn’t a factor so this might stay in the Democratic column in 2018.

AZ-02 was not a pick up, but then I didn’t think it would be. As I said earlier, Martha McSally had been doing everything right by literally going to every neighborhood event she could get her hands on. That kind of careful working of the district really helps keep you in office. She won 157,677 to 120,572. So unless Gabby comes out of retirement (I saw her election night. She isn’t.) the seat will probably stay in the Republican hands absent someone who is even more well-known and liked.

Arizona did have some upsets as Sheriff Joe Arpaio finally lost as did embattled Maricopa County recorder Helen Purcell. I expect that these will flip back to Republicans unless Maricopa County goes more blue. If it does, because shenanigans aren’t going on with the Recorder, we might actually see the state go blue. Arizona will be a minority majority state

Nevada Races

This is about the vaunted Reid machine and it turned out. Both of these seats were two of our six pick ups.

In NV-03, Jacky Rosen’s understated style of campaigning worked. However that doesn’t mean that 2018 won’t be a real fight since she only won by a small percentage. Her win was 146,653 to 142,726 so if she pulls a Martha McSally, that will make her seat safe for the Democrats. Also, of course, it depends on what else is going on at the national level in a year.

In NV-04, Ruben Kikuen reminds me of another Ruben I know getting some attention for the fiery style he has (my congressman Ruben Gallego who is going to have his first baby soon; may Kate have the easiest pregnancy ever!) And he organized relentlessly, so he won by four points. Kihuen got 123,782 to 113,429. I think this will be a keeper.

The Senate Race was a bit closer, but Cortez Masto pulled off a heck of a job (sorry not sorry) and beat Heck by just under four points. She made history as being the first Latina to make it to the Senate. That means that the new class of Senators is very lady-filled since four of the new Senators from our side are women.

Minnesota 02

I was hoping for this to be a pick up but it wasn’t. Angie Craig lost by a small percentage 167,071 to 174,030. However, that said, it is possible Lewis will alienate voters and if we are ready for 2018, it can be picked up because 2 points is winnable. Remember, I lost by less than 20 points in 2004 but in 2006 we won that race with a candidate who was well known, kindly, and drove his opponent nuts. It also would help if we didn’t have an independent spoiler (Paula Overby got 28K votes and that is why the district didn’t go blue).

I am pretty down on third parties — this is not a nation that allows for parties to be coalitions. So I don’t think they should be in close races on our side if we want to get the progress we want.

Pennsylvania 08

I wasn’t sure this would be enough of a wave year for a pick up. And it wasn’t, so Fitzgerald won his brother’s seat by just over 11 points: 173,871 to 144,772. This is unlikely to be a pick up in 2018, lest something very odd happens.

This also might be one of the very few Republicans who will stand up to Trump’s massive corruption and conflict of interest problems. I don’t have much faith but hey, there has to be at least one honorable Republican still left. Stop laughing! It could happen!

New York 03, 19, and 22

We kept NY-03 as the Democrat won there fairly decisively. Suozzi won with 146,457 to 131,718 so the seat stayed in our column.

In NY-19 the exact same thing happened but in the negative direction. Zephyr Teachout, whose left wing history allowed her opponent to bring back the Russian communism thing to attack her on. Unfortunately it may have worked. Teachout lost 100,499 to 113,093. It may be a pick up at a later time, I don’t know.

NY-22 was a bigger loss for the Democrats. Kim Myers lost by six points: 100,549 to 115,557. It really wasn’t much of a surprise to me, but I do think it isn’t going to be a pick up any time soon. Five point range is usually good.

Wisconsin 01 and 08

There was no surprises in WI-01. Paul Ryan may have annoyed his base for a few days, but he never really rejected Trump and it didn’t hurt him. So he won with 68%. It will take a great deal of effort to beat him and I don’t think the Democrats, even with Howard Dean at the helm, will seriously contest this district any time soon. So while I wanted people to pick the better Ryan, they didn’t. Ryan Solen lost handily.

WI-08 hurt. Tom Nelson is a good campaigner and a solid Democrat, and he got slaughtered as the district went all in on the Republican 208,982 to 126,613. I am not sure why. It might have to do with the fact he keeps running for a bunch of different offices. I really don’t know. Not sure if this will be something that we can pick up in 2018 since Gallagher doesn’t have much in the way of scandalous behavior.

To Be Continued

There are several more I have to talk about but I just realized this has already hit over a thousand words so I am going to split it up into two and then talk more about the selection of the next Democratic National Committee Chairperson.