I saw Joy Reid interview Jim Clyburn from his Columbia fish fry over the weekend. He was sounding more wide awake and chipper than usual, I guess since he was at his own big fete, and that made me happy. Then Reid mentioned that he was a supporter of Jaime Harrison, who has announced his intention to run against Lindsey Graham in 2020. Maybe it was my imagination but he gave a teensy tinsy nod and then went on to the next subject.
I have two problems with that. First of all, this is the second time I have seen Clyburn interviewed on MSNBC when he has been asked about the race for senator in 2020, and he has failed to make a big deal out of it. I understand that Clyburn may just not be comfortable with promoting someone that isn't himself -- Harrison tends to have the same quirk -- but the race against Lindsey Graham should be a huge deal. After 2018, even SC should be chomping at the bit to get rid of this Trump patsy. All his crazy flip flops as he chases down Trump's approval and his temper tantrum at the Kavanaugh hearing only magnify the need and the potential for change, especially after all those fearless women took the House last November.
My second problem is that even feminist and advocate of women of color Joy Reid failed to note that there is an actual primary opponent running for the Democratic contender, Gloria Bromell Tinubu. And not surprisingly, Clyburn has also failed to acknowledge this.
I say "not surprisingly" because a number of years ago, Clyburn threw his two cents into the race against Tim Scott, during Scott's first senate election campaign after his appointment to the Senate by his buddy Nikki Haley. In a primary race among two men and one woman, Clyburn asked the woman to step aside and let the guys fight it out. She did not step aside. And she won the primary. The woman, Joyce Dickerson, is a truly dynamic firebrand. She wasn't afraid to go head to head with Scott. But she really didn't get the chance. Not the money nor the true support of the Democratic Party. Clyburn was silent.
And now we have another dynamic woman who has stepped up against Lindsey Graham. Gloria Tinubu is a former economics professor and a former Georgia state legislator. She is speaking for those who have been left behind because of racial injustice and the failures of the government to address economic inequality.
Tinubu has experienced being overlooked by the Democratic Party machine, local and national, before. She is not likely to get financial support, or even acknowledgement, by the South Carolina Democratic Party, or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, or, of course, from big Congressional honcho Jim Clyburn. Unless we make waves.
Write and tweet the SCDP and the DSCC. Let them know you expect a fair primary fight. Tell them to put both candidates front and center. I am tired of our senate candidates being the best kept secret in South Carolina, and I hope you are too.
If you believe it takes a woman, a strong, smart woman, to defeat misogynist Lindsey Graham in 2020, please help spread the word. Follow Gloria Bromell Tinubu on Facebook and Twitter, meet up with her on her website, gloriaforussenate.com. Share, contribute, and help in any way you can.
I can be fairly certain, after years of hearing about how we are turning blue, that unless our party leaders put our candidates front and center, and do it now, the only thing that will be turning blue is our mood after the next election. I have suggested that the best way to generate publicity right now is by planning events for both candidates, forums, meet 'n' greets, debates, where both candidates engage each other AND the public. You know, like the presidential candidates have been doing for months.
Or, they can follow the old playbook and support the guy who will attract the most money in lieu of excitement. We know how that will turn out.
Showing posts with label Jim Clyburn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Clyburn. Show all posts
Monday, June 24, 2019
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The Rare Ability to Piss Off Everyone
Party republicans here in SC are whining about the primary process. It appears that they no longer like the open primaries that they have in the past used to great success. In fact, they are so up in arms that they are finally moving toward changing to a closed system. Democratic party officials, not to be outdone, are pissed off that a Democrat colored outside the line.
The big brouhaha is over former Bernie Democrat Dimitri Cherny, who has switched party affiliation in order to primary Mark Sanford in US House District 1. The problem for republicans is that Cherny is using their own game against them. The problem for Democrats is that he isn't playing the game by the rules. The rules that republicans have consistently broken in order to win, and which has over the years given them control over all branches of government, including of late the Supreme Court.
Back in 2010, a smart and unscrupulous republican realized that if certain key state districts could be won and legislatures handed over to republicans, that would enable them to control the upcoming redistricting. What resulted was the bizarre gerrymandering we have today, wherein most Democrats are swept into one huge district, and many other districts have a comfortable republican margin. Read the brilliant book Ratf**cked by David Daley for the incredibly ballsy details behind Project REDMAP. And note: REDMAP 2020 is in the works.
Closer to home, and back to the republican snit over Cherny registering as a republican, we have indeed had our own questionable candidates. Back when I was a new and naive blogger, there was Alvin Greene, who despite being totally unknown, handily defeated Vic Rawl in the Democratic primary. Greene had no prior political experience or ambition. A closer look (and there were lots of those) found him to have right-wing views on major issues and a couple of pending obscenity charges. Before the primary he had done no campaigning. Boy, were our faces red.
The media tried to come up with a number of lame excuses for why his candidacy -- and win -- were legitimate, from Rawl only campaigned with robocalls and emails, to Greene's name was first alphabetically and on the ballot. The most logical reason that an Alvin Greene could end up competing against Jim DeMint for the Senate is that he was a republican plant.
Then we have the twenty-year perennial candidate Ben Frasier, who popped up every couple years like Punxutawny Phil to primary a Democrat here in Charleston. Each election season he dropped in with questionable residency and the ability to disrupt credible races and drain a candidate's financial resources. He infuriated party elders like Jim Clyburn who accused him of being a plant, but was unstoppable.
Both the Alvin Greene and Ben Frasier fiascos left Democratic Party officials skittish, to say the least. When Jay Stamper attempted to run against Lindsey Graham in 2014, rumors about his legitimacy had Dems running for cover. He was not even allowed to introduce himself at a Charleston Democratic group meeting. At the time, he seemed to me just the kind of candidate that could beat the republican: fearless, smart, ballsy. In other words, just the kind that republicans would fear and that Democrats... would also fear.
Stamper was running as a Democrat. So it is not surprising that Dimitri Cherny would get at best the same kind of welcome as did Stamper. Given that we actually do have two Democrats running in the primary for SC House District 1, it would make sense that we want our voters to show up for that particular primary. Cherny has suggested it would be cool for Dems to choose to vote in the republican primary so they can vote for him.
I love you, Dimitri, but that's not going to happen. What is more likely to happen, however, and what has republican panties in a bunch, is that he can throw a wrench into their primary, which with Dimitri now has three candidates. I find that absolutely delightful. Cherny is likely to appeal to younger and/or angrier voters, and given the third candidate, a woman, there is indeed a possibility that Sanford will not easily walk away with a primary win. And even a win will leave him with republican voters who voted for one of the other candidates. For once in his graced political life, Mark Sanford might end up breaking a sweat.
The neat thing about Cherny's run is that he just might get some people to get engaged on issues. Sanford mumbles and bobs-and-weaves his way into sounding like he agrees with just about every stand, and then goes into Congress and votes 100% party line. As a recent notable example, he happily showed up at town halls last year and expressed total understanding and sympathy over those who did not want to lose Obamacare, and then voted for each of the horrific repeal bills. Most recently he voted for tax cuts for the rich, his true constituents. And while he is smart enough to be against drilling off our own coast, he totally supports oil and gas company rights to drill every-damn-where else. Leaving his supporters back home thinking he is on their side, with no one to challenge him.
The way I see this is: Sanford wins, and has to go against a Democrat without as united a front as he has had in the past; OR, his republican opponent wins and without the name recognition leaves the Dems with a more level playing field.
OR, Dimitri Cherny wins. And in the general election we have a Bernie Democrat running against... a Democrat.
No wonder republicans are so pissed off they are actually planning on changing the system. But Dems, how about lightening up? Take a page from the truly successful republican playbook and make lemonade out of this strange lemon. You could just end up winning.
The big brouhaha is over former Bernie Democrat Dimitri Cherny, who has switched party affiliation in order to primary Mark Sanford in US House District 1. The problem for republicans is that Cherny is using their own game against them. The problem for Democrats is that he isn't playing the game by the rules. The rules that republicans have consistently broken in order to win, and which has over the years given them control over all branches of government, including of late the Supreme Court.
Back in 2010, a smart and unscrupulous republican realized that if certain key state districts could be won and legislatures handed over to republicans, that would enable them to control the upcoming redistricting. What resulted was the bizarre gerrymandering we have today, wherein most Democrats are swept into one huge district, and many other districts have a comfortable republican margin. Read the brilliant book Ratf**cked by David Daley for the incredibly ballsy details behind Project REDMAP. And note: REDMAP 2020 is in the works.
Closer to home, and back to the republican snit over Cherny registering as a republican, we have indeed had our own questionable candidates. Back when I was a new and naive blogger, there was Alvin Greene, who despite being totally unknown, handily defeated Vic Rawl in the Democratic primary. Greene had no prior political experience or ambition. A closer look (and there were lots of those) found him to have right-wing views on major issues and a couple of pending obscenity charges. Before the primary he had done no campaigning. Boy, were our faces red.
The media tried to come up with a number of lame excuses for why his candidacy -- and win -- were legitimate, from Rawl only campaigned with robocalls and emails, to Greene's name was first alphabetically and on the ballot. The most logical reason that an Alvin Greene could end up competing against Jim DeMint for the Senate is that he was a republican plant.
Then we have the twenty-year perennial candidate Ben Frasier, who popped up every couple years like Punxutawny Phil to primary a Democrat here in Charleston. Each election season he dropped in with questionable residency and the ability to disrupt credible races and drain a candidate's financial resources. He infuriated party elders like Jim Clyburn who accused him of being a plant, but was unstoppable.
Both the Alvin Greene and Ben Frasier fiascos left Democratic Party officials skittish, to say the least. When Jay Stamper attempted to run against Lindsey Graham in 2014, rumors about his legitimacy had Dems running for cover. He was not even allowed to introduce himself at a Charleston Democratic group meeting. At the time, he seemed to me just the kind of candidate that could beat the republican: fearless, smart, ballsy. In other words, just the kind that republicans would fear and that Democrats... would also fear.
Stamper was running as a Democrat. So it is not surprising that Dimitri Cherny would get at best the same kind of welcome as did Stamper. Given that we actually do have two Democrats running in the primary for SC House District 1, it would make sense that we want our voters to show up for that particular primary. Cherny has suggested it would be cool for Dems to choose to vote in the republican primary so they can vote for him.
I love you, Dimitri, but that's not going to happen. What is more likely to happen, however, and what has republican panties in a bunch, is that he can throw a wrench into their primary, which with Dimitri now has three candidates. I find that absolutely delightful. Cherny is likely to appeal to younger and/or angrier voters, and given the third candidate, a woman, there is indeed a possibility that Sanford will not easily walk away with a primary win. And even a win will leave him with republican voters who voted for one of the other candidates. For once in his graced political life, Mark Sanford might end up breaking a sweat.
The neat thing about Cherny's run is that he just might get some people to get engaged on issues. Sanford mumbles and bobs-and-weaves his way into sounding like he agrees with just about every stand, and then goes into Congress and votes 100% party line. As a recent notable example, he happily showed up at town halls last year and expressed total understanding and sympathy over those who did not want to lose Obamacare, and then voted for each of the horrific repeal bills. Most recently he voted for tax cuts for the rich, his true constituents. And while he is smart enough to be against drilling off our own coast, he totally supports oil and gas company rights to drill every-damn-where else. Leaving his supporters back home thinking he is on their side, with no one to challenge him.
The way I see this is: Sanford wins, and has to go against a Democrat without as united a front as he has had in the past; OR, his republican opponent wins and without the name recognition leaves the Dems with a more level playing field.
OR, Dimitri Cherny wins. And in the general election we have a Bernie Democrat running against... a Democrat.
No wonder republicans are so pissed off they are actually planning on changing the system. But Dems, how about lightening up? Take a page from the truly successful republican playbook and make lemonade out of this strange lemon. You could just end up winning.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Success: Democrats' Best-Kept Secret
Once, not too long ago, CNN and MSNBC carried news about Russia, all day every day. Then hurricane season hit, and now we have Russia and Harvey, Russia and Irma, Russia and Maria. And every now and then we hear about confederate general wannabe Jefferson Sessions and the human rights he is working to rid us of, and the republican Congress' umpteenth bill proposing to take health care away from Americans, and Kim Jong Un's latest missile test with subsequent threats and insults by our bully-in-chief.
Discouraging as that may be, there has been good news. It may be the best kept secret in America but for Donald Trump's taxes, but there have been special elections across the country, and it looks like our protests and demonstrations are paying off. If only someone would tell the Democratic Party.
Back in the spring, we actually had a special election that made national news. In a solidly republican district in Georgia, apparently where IQ's are higher than most, Hillary had lost to Trump by only one percent. Encouraged by that fact, a young man named Jon Ossoff garnered so much excitement that people who had once been afraid to put out lawn signs for Democrats were now campaigning door-to-door. When republicans got wind of this excitement -- and while they suck at governing, republicans are really, really good at sniffing out the political winds -- they went all in against Ossoff. Oppo research went into high gear, ads that were so nasty Mitch McConnell could only look on in envy. Trump did a robocall telling republican voters to protect their right to not have Democrats be part of the electoral process in Georgia's 6th.
And despite Karen Handel's relative unpopularity, she won. But despite all the dirty attacks against Ossoff in a staunchly republican district, he only lost by four percent.
And even more significant, in a race in South Carolina that went pretty much under the radar, Archie Parnell lost to his republican opponent by just about the same margin. Here! In South Carolina! With little acknowledgement or help from the national party.
Well, if the situation had been reversed and these were republican losses in Democratic districts, the republican party would be celebrating a huge win. We would have heard for days, maybe weeks, about what an upset had just occurred. But what happened? Democrats wondered if Ossoff was too young. They worried that they hadn't done enough in SC's 5th. In a masterly irony-free comment, the ever invisible state hero, Jim Clyburn, said,
"I don’t think we had the campaign that was designed to win," said Clyburn. "If we had gotten the resources, I think we would have won."
Ya think?
A week or so ago, I got an email from Ryan Grim who writes at The Intercept. It had some amazing news...
Apparently, the Democratic Party has decided to keep the good news under their hats. Now, some of you who do more serious news watching than I do may have heard of these victories somewhere, but please keep in mind that most voters just don't go beyond the headlines. And these victories were not headlines.
Be aware that these are state and local elections, not national. What is important about this is what we have been learning since November: that we need to fight on the state and local level; that when we change the fight on the local level, it moves up to the national level. Keep in mind that the abhorrent attack on redistricting could only have happened in states where republicans controlled the drawing of the maps. And 2020 will be the election that determines who will draw the next census districts.
If the Democratic Party celebrated the narrow losses in once-republican districts as well as all those local victories, eventually the voters who don't have time to read the fine print will start to recognize that something important is going on, and the republican party is on the wrong side of it.
And believe me, it will convey to national elections, which is something republicans have known all along, or at least since the Kochs, Art Pope and ALEC recognized it and started throwing their money at local elections.
Our SC state party has begun to send out informative emails about upcoming candidates as well as those who are already in the Statehouse fighting for us. If you aren't on their email list, go to their website and sign up. I've been very excited to see them move away from their "Give $3" fund-raising emails to actually informing us about issues and individuals.
On the other hand, the national party continues to hide out, which I suppose is preferable to all that public hand-wringing. My philosophy has become throw all my support and enthusiasm behind all those great candidates, and don't expect much from the party. They may figure it out someday, but the excitement comes before the money.
There are a couple of national campaigns I've recently heard about.
In Texas, besides having a really great name, Beto O'Rourke has decided to take on the evil Ted Cruz. A friend alerted me to him via a link describing what is becoming a famous road trip. O'Rourke took a congressional seat away from a long-time republican incumbent, and looks like he could actually do it again against Cruz. He has a strong personality and a strong progressive message. What he doesn't have is Ted Cruz' wealthy donors.
Two things about that. Social media has been proving to be more powerful than big bucks. And Jon Ossoff proved that when the message is right, we will find the money.
And maybe it is better these days to not be controlled by a twitchy party. I read an article a few weeks ago talking about all the great people who are stepping up to run for office in 2018. The article talked about how they made the pilgrimage to the national party office to ask for support, which the party made clear was contingent upon their fund-raising ability.
Pardon my French, but fuck that.
While they obsess about why Democratic voters have stopped responding to the deluge of fund-raising emails, they seem to have no clue as to why Democratic voters have stopped going out to vote. So, candidates first. First, last and in the middle. Candidates with a message that puts the 99 percent ahead of the one percent should not have to make raising funds for the big dogs part of all the hard work they are having to do to be heard.
Candidates need to be fearless. They need to know that the closer they come to being heard, the dirtier their opponents will stoop. They need to incorporate that into their campaign, as in, "The reason my opponent's party is attacking me is because he knows I can win. They know I am going to fight for you, and that you know I am going to fight for you. Their special interests have lots more money than me, and they will do anything to keep us from talking about the issues. I am not going to let that happen."
And our candidates need to resist the party message of cautiousness. That is how republicans divide us. They have used abortion and gay rights to throw shade on the real issues of individual rights and income disparity. In January, Indivisible led the way to a movement in which our unity gave us power. We have let that unity work for us in our fight for health care and against the Muslim ban, for transgender and reproductive rights, for DACA and voting rights and environmental rights. We can get the candidates who reflect that unity elected. We just have to show up and be heard.
We can help by letting everyone via email, on Facebook, Twitter and all those other social media outlets that I haven't yet gotten to, know right now about those great people who are considering running. We need to show up at their debates and rallies, and we need to get them in the news on local TV and the newspaper.
I would like to end by talking about the other potential candidate, one who has me pretty excited.
Annabelle Robertson is an employment discrimination attorney. She is also founder of Indivisible South Carolina. Today she is contemplating a 2018 run against US House Representative Joe Wilson. You may recall that he made it to national fame by yelling "You lie!" during Barack Obama's speech to Congress in 2009. What was less well-known is that it was Wilson who was lying, and that he later apologized to Obama for his crude outburst. He may have been wrong, and he may have apologized, but he has done lots of fund-raising on that undignified act. Not only did those two words reflect a new low in respect for the office of the president, but once again made South Carolina a laughingstock on the national stage.
Robertson represents everything the Democratic Party should stand for, as reflected in Indivisible. And the icing on the cake is that she is a really smart woman. So we need to a) encourage her to run, b) support her any and every way we can, c) get the word out.
The naysayers may be out there, but you know what I say to them.
Discouraging as that may be, there has been good news. It may be the best kept secret in America but for Donald Trump's taxes, but there have been special elections across the country, and it looks like our protests and demonstrations are paying off. If only someone would tell the Democratic Party.
Back in the spring, we actually had a special election that made national news. In a solidly republican district in Georgia, apparently where IQ's are higher than most, Hillary had lost to Trump by only one percent. Encouraged by that fact, a young man named Jon Ossoff garnered so much excitement that people who had once been afraid to put out lawn signs for Democrats were now campaigning door-to-door. When republicans got wind of this excitement -- and while they suck at governing, republicans are really, really good at sniffing out the political winds -- they went all in against Ossoff. Oppo research went into high gear, ads that were so nasty Mitch McConnell could only look on in envy. Trump did a robocall telling republican voters to protect their right to not have Democrats be part of the electoral process in Georgia's 6th.
And despite Karen Handel's relative unpopularity, she won. But despite all the dirty attacks against Ossoff in a staunchly republican district, he only lost by four percent.
And even more significant, in a race in South Carolina that went pretty much under the radar, Archie Parnell lost to his republican opponent by just about the same margin. Here! In South Carolina! With little acknowledgement or help from the national party.
Well, if the situation had been reversed and these were republican losses in Democratic districts, the republican party would be celebrating a huge win. We would have heard for days, maybe weeks, about what an upset had just occurred. But what happened? Democrats wondered if Ossoff was too young. They worried that they hadn't done enough in SC's 5th. In a masterly irony-free comment, the ever invisible state hero, Jim Clyburn, said,
"I don’t think we had the campaign that was designed to win," said Clyburn. "If we had gotten the resources, I think we would have won."
Ya think?
A week or so ago, I got an email from Ryan Grim who writes at The Intercept. It had some amazing news...
A Democrat stunned in a special election in Oklahoma last night. In November, Trump won this state legislative district by 11 points, and Jacob Rosecrants, the Democratic candidate, lost his election by 20 points. Last night, Rosecrants -- the very same guy -- ran again in the special, and upset his opponnent by 20. I'll do the math for you: that's a 40-point swing.
It's the third special election Democrats have flipped in Oklahoma (!) since November -- and in a fourth, in May, they lost a race by two points in a district that Trump had carried by 50. (That’s not a typo; it was a 48-point swing.)
And in New Hampshire, in a 29-point swing, Democrats flipped another district. (There are like five gazillion members of the New Hampshire legislature, so I wasn’t paying close attention to that one.)
In the race I was watching closest, in Mississippi, there were reports of people -- many students -- showing up to the polls and being told they were no longer registered. The Democrat, Kathryn Rehner, finished second, but forced a runoff election in October. If you know anybody who lives in Hattiesburg, Miss., forward them this email and tell them to get in touch with me if they were turned away at the polls. (And tell them to sign up while they're at it.)
El-Yateem, the democratic socialist running for city council in New York, lost by 7 points.
Apparently, the Democratic Party has decided to keep the good news under their hats. Now, some of you who do more serious news watching than I do may have heard of these victories somewhere, but please keep in mind that most voters just don't go beyond the headlines. And these victories were not headlines.
Be aware that these are state and local elections, not national. What is important about this is what we have been learning since November: that we need to fight on the state and local level; that when we change the fight on the local level, it moves up to the national level. Keep in mind that the abhorrent attack on redistricting could only have happened in states where republicans controlled the drawing of the maps. And 2020 will be the election that determines who will draw the next census districts.
If the Democratic Party celebrated the narrow losses in once-republican districts as well as all those local victories, eventually the voters who don't have time to read the fine print will start to recognize that something important is going on, and the republican party is on the wrong side of it.
And believe me, it will convey to national elections, which is something republicans have known all along, or at least since the Kochs, Art Pope and ALEC recognized it and started throwing their money at local elections.
Our SC state party has begun to send out informative emails about upcoming candidates as well as those who are already in the Statehouse fighting for us. If you aren't on their email list, go to their website and sign up. I've been very excited to see them move away from their "Give $3" fund-raising emails to actually informing us about issues and individuals.
On the other hand, the national party continues to hide out, which I suppose is preferable to all that public hand-wringing. My philosophy has become throw all my support and enthusiasm behind all those great candidates, and don't expect much from the party. They may figure it out someday, but the excitement comes before the money.
There are a couple of national campaigns I've recently heard about.
In Texas, besides having a really great name, Beto O'Rourke has decided to take on the evil Ted Cruz. A friend alerted me to him via a link describing what is becoming a famous road trip. O'Rourke took a congressional seat away from a long-time republican incumbent, and looks like he could actually do it again against Cruz. He has a strong personality and a strong progressive message. What he doesn't have is Ted Cruz' wealthy donors.
Two things about that. Social media has been proving to be more powerful than big bucks. And Jon Ossoff proved that when the message is right, we will find the money.
And maybe it is better these days to not be controlled by a twitchy party. I read an article a few weeks ago talking about all the great people who are stepping up to run for office in 2018. The article talked about how they made the pilgrimage to the national party office to ask for support, which the party made clear was contingent upon their fund-raising ability.
Pardon my French, but fuck that.
While they obsess about why Democratic voters have stopped responding to the deluge of fund-raising emails, they seem to have no clue as to why Democratic voters have stopped going out to vote. So, candidates first. First, last and in the middle. Candidates with a message that puts the 99 percent ahead of the one percent should not have to make raising funds for the big dogs part of all the hard work they are having to do to be heard.
Candidates need to be fearless. They need to know that the closer they come to being heard, the dirtier their opponents will stoop. They need to incorporate that into their campaign, as in, "The reason my opponent's party is attacking me is because he knows I can win. They know I am going to fight for you, and that you know I am going to fight for you. Their special interests have lots more money than me, and they will do anything to keep us from talking about the issues. I am not going to let that happen."
And our candidates need to resist the party message of cautiousness. That is how republicans divide us. They have used abortion and gay rights to throw shade on the real issues of individual rights and income disparity. In January, Indivisible led the way to a movement in which our unity gave us power. We have let that unity work for us in our fight for health care and against the Muslim ban, for transgender and reproductive rights, for DACA and voting rights and environmental rights. We can get the candidates who reflect that unity elected. We just have to show up and be heard.
We can help by letting everyone via email, on Facebook, Twitter and all those other social media outlets that I haven't yet gotten to, know right now about those great people who are considering running. We need to show up at their debates and rallies, and we need to get them in the news on local TV and the newspaper.
I would like to end by talking about the other potential candidate, one who has me pretty excited.
Annabelle Robertson is an employment discrimination attorney. She is also founder of Indivisible South Carolina. Today she is contemplating a 2018 run against US House Representative Joe Wilson. You may recall that he made it to national fame by yelling "You lie!" during Barack Obama's speech to Congress in 2009. What was less well-known is that it was Wilson who was lying, and that he later apologized to Obama for his crude outburst. He may have been wrong, and he may have apologized, but he has done lots of fund-raising on that undignified act. Not only did those two words reflect a new low in respect for the office of the president, but once again made South Carolina a laughingstock on the national stage.
Robertson represents everything the Democratic Party should stand for, as reflected in Indivisible. And the icing on the cake is that she is a really smart woman. So we need to a) encourage her to run, b) support her any and every way we can, c) get the word out.
The naysayers may be out there, but you know what I say to them.
Monday, June 5, 2017
When Democrats Listen
I live in a bubble. When I get together with my friends, we share the latest Trump horror stories. We talk about our addiction to television news, from Morning Joe to Lawrence O'Donnell. We complain about the commentators, as though they are family we love but are so close to that all their annoying tics have gotten under our skin.
When I went to Chicago over Memorial Day weekend for a family get-together, I was surprised to find that the dozen or so family members, mostly liberals, spent little time talking about the orange-haired idiot. We talked about food, restaurants and cooking. We talked about our gardens. We talked about music and movies. We talked about vacations.
We also talked about the weather, jobs, health care, traffic, educational plans, and communities. Which is as close to politics as we got. Health insurance and global warming were the two actual political conversations I recall, and both were about our personal experiences, and were animated. And by the way, Chicago was not burning; it was lovely and had experienced a warm winter and early spring. Which fact led to the talk about concerns for climate change.
When I got home and began to get re-acclimated to my political environment, I learned that I had missed a couple of items, like the Trump shove, but the situation hadn't changed much. The Trump family is still getting richer from his presidency, he continues to insult and alarm world leaders, Paul Ryan still spends his nights dreaming of a day when only the rich get tax breaks and government entitlements, and MSNBC still spends the entire day talking about Russia and Jim Comey, and nobody really knows what is happening politically in our fifty states. Meanwhile, most Americans are trying to decide whether to pay for that home repair or their blood pressure meds this month.
The bucket of cold water on my return home was the interview I saw on one of the talk shows (entertainment as opposed to political) with our new DNC chair, Tom Perez. As usual, neither he nor I could barely stay awake for his interview. I tried reciting his canned lines along with him, but honestly couldn't care less. Those actual people he talked about -- a popular go-to with Democratic politicians these days that is supposed to prove their relevance -- seemed to have less substance than Colbert's "cartoon Trump."
Which is a damned shame, because real people are hurting in America. They may be watching Colbert, but I guarantee it is more for the host's comedic barbs than anything new and exciting Perez might say. And if I sit there getting angry at Perez, what do you think those non-activist voters feel?
And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with the Democratic Party.
We are the party that is afraid of passion. We tiptoe around anger. We equivocate when asked if the Trump administration has committed crimes, or if the family has broken laws in its business dealings. We are the party of "let's wait and see where the investigation leads."
Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken scare party leaders. There aren't even words to express how badly the party handled Bernie Sanders' run for the presidency. Keith Ellison, not a socialist but a progressive, and a Muslim for-gods-sake, could not win the DNC chair because he was too way out there for our party.
I think the labels are all wrong. The Democratic Party is the party of conservatives, those who are stuck in the way things are and are afraid to suggest change. We all love Bill Clinton, but he compromised our values all over the place. Barack Obama had the country eating out of his hands when he took office, but from Timothy Geithner to the Affordable Care Act he refused to entertain radical ideas. He neither held criminals on Wall Street to account for their ruin of so many lives, nor did he even bring up the idea of single-payer health insurance.
Typical Americans don't get into the weeds on what is going on in government. They mostly work, run errands, try to spend time with family, and when they can, escape with TV or social media. They only have time left for the headlines. Which is why there was the vague but persistent attitude that Hillary could not be trusted -- republicans had made her a villain for thirty years, and nobody had time to wonder why all this time under the magnifying glass had produced no crime. All the republicans had to do is repeat "Benghazi" and "emails" daily, hold investigations and hearings that came up with nothing, and never ever have to prove a thing.
The thing about Trump is that, stupid as he is, he is unafraid. The other thing about Trump is that, stupid as he is, he has a paranoid, narcissistic ability to target fears and weaknesses in others. The sixth-grade bully that called me fat grew up to be Donald Trump. He knew how to attack and then flatter those who might otherwise have threatened him. And the third thing about Trump is that, under it all, he is a common man.
Donald Trump looks at his adoring audience and really (honestly) sees himself. That's how he connects. He feels picked on and mistreated. He believes that he is the victim. He doesn't have big ideas, he just thinks he does. But it turns out that that is enough for most people. The ones who only have time for the headlines.
Where does that leave Democrats? How do we win the contest against the lying bully?
We listen.
When candidates spend all that time and energy knocking on doors, don't tell people what you plan on doing for them. Ask them what is important to them. Learn how to talk in simple statements. It comes naturally to Donald Trump, not so much to you and me. Smart people don't necessarily know big words, and mostly they don't talk in big words. They don't talk theory. They honestly don't care about who made deals with Russia, and they would be happy to let the Trump family own America, if only they can have job security and health care. Maybe enough money to take a vacation.
The challenge is in bringing the horrors that are going on in Washington home to people. The successful Democrats, Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison, are able to do that. They do it because they really understand. If Perez understands, it is in a theoretical way, and that shows. Elizabeth Warren seems to really know what it is like to have to wrestle with the bills that come in non-stop. And she is passionate about fighting for us. For her, it is not theoretical. She has seen and heard the way we live.
I know people get exhausted with their daily email barrage. Every now and then, when I send out my blog, I will tell people to let me know if they want to be removed from my list. The last time I did this, one of the two people who made the request was a leader in the Democratic Party. Yes, I have been a pain in the ass about the party. And I imagine some of my criticisms may be unwarranted. But it seems to me that a party leader could be not just more tolerant of criticism, but could actually be curious about a critique by a fellow Dem. Y'all know I attack you because I love you. I really believe that we are the party that could represent the people and make the country better.
My point being that the easiest part of engaging voters (and that IS what we all say we are trying to do) is by responding to them when they speak.
Jim Clyburn made a half-hearted attempt before the last election to make it sound like he wanted to hear from us, through email and social media. Turns out he didn't. He wants donations and he wants us to vote for him, the latter which he is pretty sure is going to happen anyway. He was once a hero, now he is a politician, and a lackluster one at that.
Anybody running for office, or working for the Democratic Party, or holding office, needs to respond to every contact by a constituent, with the possible exception of the obvious crackpot. Find a literate and caring volunteer who can send a simple but intelligent reply to an email or Facebook message. Return calls. Return calls. Return calls.
We voters don't want a ten-year-plan. We don't need a complicated theoretical rationale for your stand on the issues. We need to primarily know that you hear and understand what our concerns are. Then we need to know what is going on right now that is working or not working (and jeez, don't forget to tell us who is responsible). And finally, what you will do to ease our concerns.
Dems are currently throwing numbers around about how many people will lose their health insurance in ten years. Republicans know that all they have to do is make their damage happen gradually enough that they will still get elected next time around. With the aid of the insurance industry, premiums might even go down a few dollars for a couple of years before they start their inevitable climb. And before you know it, by 2026, 23 million will have lost their coverage. And to prove my earlier point, how many of you actually clicked on that link to read about the numbers?
Politicians talk. They send out fund-raising emails telling us that terrible things will happen if we don't vote for them. Those emails mostly go into the trash folder.
Candidates knock on doors and make phone calls. Most of us are polite and even say they plan on voting for them, and then we do what we were going to do anyway.
What can change a vote is if you take the time to listen. What is extraordinary from my point of view is when a candidate sends a personal email. And what has happened to me a couple of times in the early days of an election cycle, and I can tell you is a game-changer, is when a candidate calls in response to my email, and listens to me, and seems to share my concerns.
Being a life-long Democrat, believing we share common goals, witnessing the destructive acts of the other party, I have to assume that those conversations should be a piece of cake. If you really, passionately, actively listen to us.
When I went to Chicago over Memorial Day weekend for a family get-together, I was surprised to find that the dozen or so family members, mostly liberals, spent little time talking about the orange-haired idiot. We talked about food, restaurants and cooking. We talked about our gardens. We talked about music and movies. We talked about vacations.
We also talked about the weather, jobs, health care, traffic, educational plans, and communities. Which is as close to politics as we got. Health insurance and global warming were the two actual political conversations I recall, and both were about our personal experiences, and were animated. And by the way, Chicago was not burning; it was lovely and had experienced a warm winter and early spring. Which fact led to the talk about concerns for climate change.
When I got home and began to get re-acclimated to my political environment, I learned that I had missed a couple of items, like the Trump shove, but the situation hadn't changed much. The Trump family is still getting richer from his presidency, he continues to insult and alarm world leaders, Paul Ryan still spends his nights dreaming of a day when only the rich get tax breaks and government entitlements, and MSNBC still spends the entire day talking about Russia and Jim Comey, and nobody really knows what is happening politically in our fifty states. Meanwhile, most Americans are trying to decide whether to pay for that home repair or their blood pressure meds this month.
The bucket of cold water on my return home was the interview I saw on one of the talk shows (entertainment as opposed to political) with our new DNC chair, Tom Perez. As usual, neither he nor I could barely stay awake for his interview. I tried reciting his canned lines along with him, but honestly couldn't care less. Those actual people he talked about -- a popular go-to with Democratic politicians these days that is supposed to prove their relevance -- seemed to have less substance than Colbert's "cartoon Trump."
Which is a damned shame, because real people are hurting in America. They may be watching Colbert, but I guarantee it is more for the host's comedic barbs than anything new and exciting Perez might say. And if I sit there getting angry at Perez, what do you think those non-activist voters feel?
And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with the Democratic Party.
We are the party that is afraid of passion. We tiptoe around anger. We equivocate when asked if the Trump administration has committed crimes, or if the family has broken laws in its business dealings. We are the party of "let's wait and see where the investigation leads."
Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken scare party leaders. There aren't even words to express how badly the party handled Bernie Sanders' run for the presidency. Keith Ellison, not a socialist but a progressive, and a Muslim for-gods-sake, could not win the DNC chair because he was too way out there for our party.
I think the labels are all wrong. The Democratic Party is the party of conservatives, those who are stuck in the way things are and are afraid to suggest change. We all love Bill Clinton, but he compromised our values all over the place. Barack Obama had the country eating out of his hands when he took office, but from Timothy Geithner to the Affordable Care Act he refused to entertain radical ideas. He neither held criminals on Wall Street to account for their ruin of so many lives, nor did he even bring up the idea of single-payer health insurance.
Typical Americans don't get into the weeds on what is going on in government. They mostly work, run errands, try to spend time with family, and when they can, escape with TV or social media. They only have time left for the headlines. Which is why there was the vague but persistent attitude that Hillary could not be trusted -- republicans had made her a villain for thirty years, and nobody had time to wonder why all this time under the magnifying glass had produced no crime. All the republicans had to do is repeat "Benghazi" and "emails" daily, hold investigations and hearings that came up with nothing, and never ever have to prove a thing.
The thing about Trump is that, stupid as he is, he is unafraid. The other thing about Trump is that, stupid as he is, he has a paranoid, narcissistic ability to target fears and weaknesses in others. The sixth-grade bully that called me fat grew up to be Donald Trump. He knew how to attack and then flatter those who might otherwise have threatened him. And the third thing about Trump is that, under it all, he is a common man.
Donald Trump looks at his adoring audience and really (honestly) sees himself. That's how he connects. He feels picked on and mistreated. He believes that he is the victim. He doesn't have big ideas, he just thinks he does. But it turns out that that is enough for most people. The ones who only have time for the headlines.
Where does that leave Democrats? How do we win the contest against the lying bully?
We listen.
When candidates spend all that time and energy knocking on doors, don't tell people what you plan on doing for them. Ask them what is important to them. Learn how to talk in simple statements. It comes naturally to Donald Trump, not so much to you and me. Smart people don't necessarily know big words, and mostly they don't talk in big words. They don't talk theory. They honestly don't care about who made deals with Russia, and they would be happy to let the Trump family own America, if only they can have job security and health care. Maybe enough money to take a vacation.
The challenge is in bringing the horrors that are going on in Washington home to people. The successful Democrats, Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison, are able to do that. They do it because they really understand. If Perez understands, it is in a theoretical way, and that shows. Elizabeth Warren seems to really know what it is like to have to wrestle with the bills that come in non-stop. And she is passionate about fighting for us. For her, it is not theoretical. She has seen and heard the way we live.
I know people get exhausted with their daily email barrage. Every now and then, when I send out my blog, I will tell people to let me know if they want to be removed from my list. The last time I did this, one of the two people who made the request was a leader in the Democratic Party. Yes, I have been a pain in the ass about the party. And I imagine some of my criticisms may be unwarranted. But it seems to me that a party leader could be not just more tolerant of criticism, but could actually be curious about a critique by a fellow Dem. Y'all know I attack you because I love you. I really believe that we are the party that could represent the people and make the country better.
My point being that the easiest part of engaging voters (and that IS what we all say we are trying to do) is by responding to them when they speak.
Jim Clyburn made a half-hearted attempt before the last election to make it sound like he wanted to hear from us, through email and social media. Turns out he didn't. He wants donations and he wants us to vote for him, the latter which he is pretty sure is going to happen anyway. He was once a hero, now he is a politician, and a lackluster one at that.
Anybody running for office, or working for the Democratic Party, or holding office, needs to respond to every contact by a constituent, with the possible exception of the obvious crackpot. Find a literate and caring volunteer who can send a simple but intelligent reply to an email or Facebook message. Return calls. Return calls. Return calls.
We voters don't want a ten-year-plan. We don't need a complicated theoretical rationale for your stand on the issues. We need to primarily know that you hear and understand what our concerns are. Then we need to know what is going on right now that is working or not working (and jeez, don't forget to tell us who is responsible). And finally, what you will do to ease our concerns.
Dems are currently throwing numbers around about how many people will lose their health insurance in ten years. Republicans know that all they have to do is make their damage happen gradually enough that they will still get elected next time around. With the aid of the insurance industry, premiums might even go down a few dollars for a couple of years before they start their inevitable climb. And before you know it, by 2026, 23 million will have lost their coverage. And to prove my earlier point, how many of you actually clicked on that link to read about the numbers?
Politicians talk. They send out fund-raising emails telling us that terrible things will happen if we don't vote for them. Those emails mostly go into the trash folder.
Candidates knock on doors and make phone calls. Most of us are polite and even say they plan on voting for them, and then we do what we were going to do anyway.
What can change a vote is if you take the time to listen. What is extraordinary from my point of view is when a candidate sends a personal email. And what has happened to me a couple of times in the early days of an election cycle, and I can tell you is a game-changer, is when a candidate calls in response to my email, and listens to me, and seems to share my concerns.
Being a life-long Democrat, believing we share common goals, witnessing the destructive acts of the other party, I have to assume that those conversations should be a piece of cake. If you really, passionately, actively listen to us.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Where Are the Democrats? - Special Election Edition
I've been wondering, as I often do these days, when the Democratic National Committee is going to get their act together and start helping out in the struggle to save democracy. Actually, we really should be wondering when they are going to take charge, not just help out.
Look at the republicans. They had a new chair weeks ago. When there was a race for a Senate seat in December, both Pence and Trump showed up. The Democratic Party was nowhere to be found.
They are still fighting among themselves to determine who should chair the damn party. Progressives are squabbling over who is the more progressive. They are even fighting over who failed the team by supporting Hillary. Somewhere in the back of their minds, they must be aware that Trump is attacking the Constitution from one side while congressional republicans are ripping out the throat of our individual rights on the other.
Apparently, the battle for party chair is coming down to two contenders. Keith Ellison has been in the US House of Representatives since 2007, and is backed by John Lewis, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He truly is progressive, on the side of minorities, farmers, women, unions... need I go on? On the other hand, and I really believe this is the elephant in the room (there is always an elephant in the room, striking fear into the hearts of Democrats and causing them to crawl back to the center), Ellison is not just African American but a Muslim. Oh my gods.
On the other hand, Tom Perez, while also progressive, could be considered a safer minority. He is also a safer Democrat, having come from the beloved Barack Obama's cabinet as Secretary of Labor. He, too, checks off all the right boxes when it comes to his stand on issues. But, again, this is my opinion, he might be less scary, being a Catholic and all.
Part of my frustration, besides Democrats who are afraid to be exposed for supporting a democratic agenda, is that Ellison threw his hat into the ring months before Perez. We actually may have had a strong consensus candidate. Then, in mid-December, along comes Perez. Because we couldn't just go with a strong national figure, get the election over with, and then proceed to fight the real war.
This election, that nobody but the Democratic Party gives a damn about, will be happening in two weeks. But there is another, more important election coming up on April 18.
When Tom Price became the Trump cabinet deplorable running the HHS, he left vacant his seat in the House of Representatives for District 6, an Atlanta suburb. This district, conservative and traditionally republican, voted for Romney in 2012 with a 24% margin. But in 2016, the anti-Trump vote brought the lead to one percent: 48-47.
The strategically placed republican running for this seat is African American Trump surrogate Bruce LeVell.
That's right, the republican party chose LeVell hoping that black voters wouldn't notice that he is a Trump-man. Well, that is the Trump campaign, isn't it? Assuming African Americans would vote the color and ignore the racist policies behind the candidate.
But on the Democratic side is Jon Ossoff. Jon has been fighting for justice and civil liberties throughout his professional life. He has investigated and uncovered corruption and crime, and worked in national security as a senior staffer. Jon has been protesting the unAmerican policies of the Trump administration...
...and he has the endorsement of Civil Rights leader John Lewis:
“Jon is committed to progress and justice and he knows how to fight the good fight. We should unite behind Jon and send a clear message that Donald Trump doesn’t represent our values.”
Look at the republicans. They had a new chair weeks ago. When there was a race for a Senate seat in December, both Pence and Trump showed up. The Democratic Party was nowhere to be found.
They are still fighting among themselves to determine who should chair the damn party. Progressives are squabbling over who is the more progressive. They are even fighting over who failed the team by supporting Hillary. Somewhere in the back of their minds, they must be aware that Trump is attacking the Constitution from one side while congressional republicans are ripping out the throat of our individual rights on the other.
Apparently, the battle for party chair is coming down to two contenders. Keith Ellison has been in the US House of Representatives since 2007, and is backed by John Lewis, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He truly is progressive, on the side of minorities, farmers, women, unions... need I go on? On the other hand, and I really believe this is the elephant in the room (there is always an elephant in the room, striking fear into the hearts of Democrats and causing them to crawl back to the center), Ellison is not just African American but a Muslim. Oh my gods.
On the other hand, Tom Perez, while also progressive, could be considered a safer minority. He is also a safer Democrat, having come from the beloved Barack Obama's cabinet as Secretary of Labor. He, too, checks off all the right boxes when it comes to his stand on issues. But, again, this is my opinion, he might be less scary, being a Catholic and all.
Part of my frustration, besides Democrats who are afraid to be exposed for supporting a democratic agenda, is that Ellison threw his hat into the ring months before Perez. We actually may have had a strong consensus candidate. Then, in mid-December, along comes Perez. Because we couldn't just go with a strong national figure, get the election over with, and then proceed to fight the real war.
This election, that nobody but the Democratic Party gives a damn about, will be happening in two weeks. But there is another, more important election coming up on April 18.
When Tom Price became the Trump cabinet deplorable running the HHS, he left vacant his seat in the House of Representatives for District 6, an Atlanta suburb. This district, conservative and traditionally republican, voted for Romney in 2012 with a 24% margin. But in 2016, the anti-Trump vote brought the lead to one percent: 48-47.
The strategically placed republican running for this seat is African American Trump surrogate Bruce LeVell.
That's right, the republican party chose LeVell hoping that black voters wouldn't notice that he is a Trump-man. Well, that is the Trump campaign, isn't it? Assuming African Americans would vote the color and ignore the racist policies behind the candidate.
But on the Democratic side is Jon Ossoff. Jon has been fighting for justice and civil liberties throughout his professional life. He has investigated and uncovered corruption and crime, and worked in national security as a senior staffer. Jon has been protesting the unAmerican policies of the Trump administration...
...and he has the endorsement of Civil Rights leader John Lewis:
“Jon is committed to progress and justice and he knows how to fight the good fight. We should unite behind Jon and send a clear message that Donald Trump doesn’t represent our values.”
– Congressman John Lewis
I know those of us reading this blog care passionately about the travesties that the Trump administration is committing and the republicans in Congress who are aiding and abetting his crimes. We understand that this election in Atlanta is critical, and not just in moving Congress closer to representing our values. The turnout in this election will send a message to the rest of the country -- that we are here and we are fighting for them. It will tell the republicans who are trammeling our democracy with abandon that they are, as Trump likes to put it, "on notice."
The Trump cabal knows this election is important. I guarantee they will be throwing buckets of money into ads, and they will be showing up.
Our Democratic Party needs to be there. We need their commitment, their money, their bodies, their voices.
Here in SC, we need US Representative Jim Clyburn to get out and shout with John Lewis. And we need Jamie Harrison and our state Democratic Party to extend a hand to our partners and friends in Georgia. This is not a time to be self-absorbed, to be concerned with the party. America is watching.
And Democrats are marching, are writing, are going to town halls, are shouting. This is truly the time for the party to stand up and lead, without fear. Put a good Muslim progressive at the helm on February 23, and send out a real message of fearlessness and belief in our values to the rest of the country. And then get out and fight like you mean it for Jon Ossoff on April 18.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Don't Blame Us, We Just Live Here
Last night, there was a candidate's forum at Johns Island Library. The two incumbents, Tim Scott and Mark Sanford, refused the invitation to appear. That left candidate for US Senate, Thomas Dixon, and candidate for House of Representatives, Dimitry Cherny.
Republican incumbents have a lot of power in this state. We may be hearing a lot of trash talk about Hillary not meeting the press, but here in SC, republicans in office won't do anything that will shake up their cushy offices. Take questions from the people? Debate their opponents? Actually allow us to hold them accountable, like for the worst Congress ever?
And they get a lot of help in staying in the shadows.
SCETV has refused to hold debates this season, claiming that the seats are not hotly enough contested. Gee, that's an odd spin on democracy, isn't it? Don't give the opposing party coverage and then claim it was because not enough people were interested. Well, the "compromise" SCETV reached after receiving petitions with nearly 1,000 signatures, was that the Democrats could choose to appear on the weekly Palmetto Scene. Some concession, right?
So folks like Sanford and Scott can go on making public appearances in the name of their offices, on the public dime, and with as much media coverage as they like. Good luck getting any of the local TV stations to mention upcoming events, or past events, that involve a Democratic challenger.
What's to do? For one, the SC Democratic Party, should not be acting like what it got for its candidates is a compromise. It is merely a bone tossed to 1,000 hungry dogs.
Jim Clyburn is running for re-election. We all know Jim Clyburn. He has indeed in his long tenure done great things for the state and the nation. But he has become fairly complacent. It is unlikely that he will return an email, but his staff has become my de facto pen pal, sending me annoying emails that begin by addressing me by my first name, as though we are indeed buddies. If they don't outright begin by asking for money, they ask stupid questions like: "Hillary or Trump?" as a ruse for then asking for money.
We need Clyburn to get the hell out here and start stumping for our candidates. We need his staff to alert the news media that he will be here with insert terrific candidate's name here. He may like being a honcho in the House, but we need for him to have some good Democrats in there with him.
And the sad thing is that this year is about as close as we are going to get. People are fed up by an obstructive Congress, but they don't know why. They don't know that Tim Scott talks about how he is going to help us all and then votes against a living wage, extending unemployment, raising social security, making health care accessible. Mark Sanford is the weasel who never actually takes a stand that isn't convoluted (He doesn't like the outrageous things Donald Trump has said, but he will vote for him if he shows his tax return.). He shows up for public meetings and pretends that he supports whatever will be good for the community, and then goes back to Washington and votes for lowering taxes and cutting needed government services.
I talk about Thomas Dixon and Dimitri Cherny because I know them both. They have put their hearts and souls into this campaign, into letting people know who they are and what they stand for. They have done this in spite of a pathetic lack of media interest, lukewarm commitment from the state party, and absolutely no help from the most powerful South Carolina Democrat in Congress.
So when I get those dumb emails from Clyburn's staff, that sound like they want to know my opinion about something absolutely self-evident, I have begun leaving comments about what is relevant to me. Yesterday I answered "yes" to Hillary over Trump, and then added under comments, "Jim Clyburn will win re-election. He needs to come to SC and campaign for the other good candidates who are trying to be heard (insert your favorite candidate's name here)."
Or go ahead and call his office, or write, or start a petition.
I have also left a post on the SCETV Facebook page, which is tricky and a bit less satisfying than you might think. First of all, it isn't easy to find the right SCETV page, so make sure you go to "South Carolina ETV." When you leave a post it will go on the right hand side of the page. I don't know if this means nobody at SCETV will bother reading it, but I did note that the comment just before mine was also expressing disappointment that SCETV was not providing the stage for debates. Anyway, I also went to "message" and copied the same post onto it. I believe somebody there does read those.
So please go to Facebook and post and message to South Carolina ETV.
And then there is the institution of the library. Once was a time when Charleston County Public Library did an excellent job of providing not just every book written by quacks like Glen Beck, but also those written by more moderate and progressive authors. We once had a world-class non-fiction collection. These days, though, after more than a decade of cutbacks and more cutbacks, bad decisions are being made about ordering, too few important books, too few copies if any. And this has been extremely evident through this presidential election.
Donald Trump has "written" over a dozen books, and CCPL appears to carry nearly all of them. They also purchased a bunch of anti-Hillary garbage, with titles like "Crisis of Character," "Clinton Cash," and "Unlikeable." But as well-reviewed books about Donald Trump come out, despite requests for purchase, those books have not yet been ordered. Granted, in these parts there will be more people craving lies about Hillary than the truth about Trump. But even so, as with SCETV, to refuse to make available important information about a candidate this year is truly an abuse of power.
Here are the Trump books:
Gilded Rage by Alexander Zaitchick
Trump Revealed by Marc Fisher & Michael Kranish
(To be fair, they did get in The Making of Donald Trump by the amazing David Cay Johnston.)
I know we are all busy. We may not have time to read all these books. But there are people out there who will read them if they are there. So please help by calling your library and asking them to purchase those two books. I made a purchase request on 8/31, and the election is speeding towards us. Help me get these books to the people of Charleston.
Information. That's what it is all about. You can't blame us for stupid voting if we don't have it.
Republican incumbents have a lot of power in this state. We may be hearing a lot of trash talk about Hillary not meeting the press, but here in SC, republicans in office won't do anything that will shake up their cushy offices. Take questions from the people? Debate their opponents? Actually allow us to hold them accountable, like for the worst Congress ever?
And they get a lot of help in staying in the shadows.
SCETV has refused to hold debates this season, claiming that the seats are not hotly enough contested. Gee, that's an odd spin on democracy, isn't it? Don't give the opposing party coverage and then claim it was because not enough people were interested. Well, the "compromise" SCETV reached after receiving petitions with nearly 1,000 signatures, was that the Democrats could choose to appear on the weekly Palmetto Scene. Some concession, right?
So folks like Sanford and Scott can go on making public appearances in the name of their offices, on the public dime, and with as much media coverage as they like. Good luck getting any of the local TV stations to mention upcoming events, or past events, that involve a Democratic challenger.
What's to do? For one, the SC Democratic Party, should not be acting like what it got for its candidates is a compromise. It is merely a bone tossed to 1,000 hungry dogs.
Jim Clyburn is running for re-election. We all know Jim Clyburn. He has indeed in his long tenure done great things for the state and the nation. But he has become fairly complacent. It is unlikely that he will return an email, but his staff has become my de facto pen pal, sending me annoying emails that begin by addressing me by my first name, as though we are indeed buddies. If they don't outright begin by asking for money, they ask stupid questions like: "Hillary or Trump?" as a ruse for then asking for money.
We need Clyburn to get the hell out here and start stumping for our candidates. We need his staff to alert the news media that he will be here with insert terrific candidate's name here. He may like being a honcho in the House, but we need for him to have some good Democrats in there with him.
And the sad thing is that this year is about as close as we are going to get. People are fed up by an obstructive Congress, but they don't know why. They don't know that Tim Scott talks about how he is going to help us all and then votes against a living wage, extending unemployment, raising social security, making health care accessible. Mark Sanford is the weasel who never actually takes a stand that isn't convoluted (He doesn't like the outrageous things Donald Trump has said, but he will vote for him if he shows his tax return.). He shows up for public meetings and pretends that he supports whatever will be good for the community, and then goes back to Washington and votes for lowering taxes and cutting needed government services.
I talk about Thomas Dixon and Dimitri Cherny because I know them both. They have put their hearts and souls into this campaign, into letting people know who they are and what they stand for. They have done this in spite of a pathetic lack of media interest, lukewarm commitment from the state party, and absolutely no help from the most powerful South Carolina Democrat in Congress.
So when I get those dumb emails from Clyburn's staff, that sound like they want to know my opinion about something absolutely self-evident, I have begun leaving comments about what is relevant to me. Yesterday I answered "yes" to Hillary over Trump, and then added under comments, "Jim Clyburn will win re-election. He needs to come to SC and campaign for the other good candidates who are trying to be heard (insert your favorite candidate's name here)."
Or go ahead and call his office, or write, or start a petition.
I have also left a post on the SCETV Facebook page, which is tricky and a bit less satisfying than you might think. First of all, it isn't easy to find the right SCETV page, so make sure you go to "South Carolina ETV." When you leave a post it will go on the right hand side of the page. I don't know if this means nobody at SCETV will bother reading it, but I did note that the comment just before mine was also expressing disappointment that SCETV was not providing the stage for debates. Anyway, I also went to "message" and copied the same post onto it. I believe somebody there does read those.
So please go to Facebook and post and message to South Carolina ETV.
And then there is the institution of the library. Once was a time when Charleston County Public Library did an excellent job of providing not just every book written by quacks like Glen Beck, but also those written by more moderate and progressive authors. We once had a world-class non-fiction collection. These days, though, after more than a decade of cutbacks and more cutbacks, bad decisions are being made about ordering, too few important books, too few copies if any. And this has been extremely evident through this presidential election.
Donald Trump has "written" over a dozen books, and CCPL appears to carry nearly all of them. They also purchased a bunch of anti-Hillary garbage, with titles like "Crisis of Character," "Clinton Cash," and "Unlikeable." But as well-reviewed books about Donald Trump come out, despite requests for purchase, those books have not yet been ordered. Granted, in these parts there will be more people craving lies about Hillary than the truth about Trump. But even so, as with SCETV, to refuse to make available important information about a candidate this year is truly an abuse of power.
Here are the Trump books:
Gilded Rage by Alexander Zaitchick
Trump Revealed by Marc Fisher & Michael Kranish
(To be fair, they did get in The Making of Donald Trump by the amazing David Cay Johnston.)
I know we are all busy. We may not have time to read all these books. But there are people out there who will read them if they are there. So please help by calling your library and asking them to purchase those two books. I made a purchase request on 8/31, and the election is speeding towards us. Help me get these books to the people of Charleston.
Information. That's what it is all about. You can't blame us for stupid voting if we don't have it.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Why We Hate Our Government
I came back from my two-week hiatus from red state ignorance to a letter from Federal Blue Cross (FEP). In a letter addressed to my deceased husband at my address, at which he never lived, I (he) was told that the Office of Personnel Management had instructed Blue Cross to terminate his family health insurance effective 11/16/14, which happens to be the day of his death.
We have all had frustrating experiences with the federal government. There was the time when I lived in New York and an IRS error resulted in not getting the refund I was due. After a couple of YEARS of trying to get this resolved, a letter to Al D'Amato (for-god's-sake) resulted finally in a speedy resolution. Which could have happened far sooner and without political intervention if contacting the IRS had not at the time been like falling into a bottomless pit.
There was another time when the IRS billed me for back taxes and their punitive and insane interest and penalties for a couple thousand dollars of income I had earned as a psychology intern. That time it took a favor from a lawyer for whom my neighbor worked; a brief phone call in which he explained that the stipend was tantamount to "coffee money" and should never have been taxable income quickly fixed the problem.
Not to overly dump on the IRS, as a psychologist I was one of the very few in Suffolk County, Long Island, that accepted Medicaid. At a time when the going rate for therapy was $80 - $100 per 45 minute hour, Medicaid was paying $20 for sixty minute hours. And that alone would not have been enough to cause me to finally end my relationship with Medicaid. Claims were routinely lost and payments not made, calls took endless tries to complete and ended with a demand that I resubmit and wait another month for payment. And the threat that at any time all my confidential records could be audited finally sunk the boat. In the end, I chose to use a sliding fee scale of sorts for low income clients, $5 for a 45 minute session rather than Medicaid's $20 for sixty and all-the-grief-you-could-stomach. Most others just chose not to accept Medicaid or lower their fees.
Each of us has a story of government bureaucracy, and this one is currently eating away at me. So let me share it with you.
My husband died in the wee hours of a Sunday morning in November. On Monday I made my first attempt to contact the Office of Personnel Management to apply for survivor benefits. After a number of attempts met with a busy signal, I assumed it was a Monday morning thing and instead called Blue Cross. The BC FEP representative told me I was entitled to benefits through November (which Stephan had already paid for) plus an additional 31 days of coverage at no cost. Remember that.
What I learned on Tuesday about OPM (lesson 1) is that the busy signal wasn't a Monday morning thing. It takes something like a half hour of calling and getting a busy signal before you get through. It's like calling a radio station to win a prize. Except that when you do get through you receive an automated message telling you there is a half hour wait.
When I reached a human, I reported my husband's death and my request to apply for survivor benefits. I also told her about my plan to terminate BC FEP on December 31 when my 31 days of coverage was up. She told me she would send me an application for survivor benefits and when they received it I would be switched to a self-only health insurance plan. Which retrospectively made no sense. But which led to lesson 2: OPM representatives don't listen to a word you tell them. The assumption is that they've heard it all before, they know what you want, and they are going to give it to you, regardless of your actual verbalizations.
Except that they don't. Lesson 3 is that OPM loses more information than they eventually have on you. And they appear to keep no record of your calls, request, and frequently, your paperwork.
Sigh.
After several calls spaced weeks apart to give them time to access whatever they needed to access, a kind representative offered to expedite my application process, meaning the process wherein THEY SEND ME THE APPLICATION. Then another wait and another call to find that they had not yet received my application and it may take another month.
When they did finally receive and process my application -- and I actually have this piece of paper in my records although I have no recollection of receiving it -- someone at OPM filled out a form authorizing Blue Cross FEP to continue to provide me with coverage that I did not want, and authorizing monthly payment to Blue Cross from my survivor benefit. That, folks, left me with a $17 per month benefit. It also left me paying insurance on two plans, as I had applied for and was receiving insurance through the healthcare.gov marketplace effective January 1.
My next call was to someone who was sympathetic and assured me that she would immediately put in the request that my health benefits be canceled effected January 1, and assured me that I would receive the amount paid to BC retroactively. Except that didn't happen either. The following month, I received a $17 monthly benefit, minus the insurance payment of $198.
Yet another call to OPM, after 1/2 hour on hold, ended with the call getting disconnected the moment I reached a human. Hours later, the person I finally talked to snapped at me. Truly. She told me brusquely that I was getting the coverage because I had failed to fill out the Request to Terminate Coverage Form. Of course; why didn't I know that? So she sent me the form, and I immediately sent it back. I called three weeks later, only to find...
...well, you all know what happened. They hadn't received the form. But maybe they have a way of knowing when an applicant has reached her wit's end. Because I was given a fax number and told to send in a statement saying this was the 2nd notice, and that I was requesting my health benefits to end on 11/17/14. After giving this a little thought, and knowing what I know knew about OPM, I changed the wording to request the termination effective 1/1/15.
On May 1, I received the full amount of my benefit, plus retroactive payments.
But wait -- you know that wasn't the end of the story. My deceased husband has just been informed that some idiot at OPM has instructed Blue Cross to terminate his coverage, including the month he paid for before he died, on November 16, 2014. And they are going after him for any claims they paid out during that time.
I do not believe there is anyone at OPM that can help me. I do believe that I am going to be held liable, once OPM lets BC know Stephan is deceased but does not authorize coverage as stated by the plan. My own House Rep. Jim Clyburn has never responded to an email, so I doubt that he would start now. Tim Scott or Lindsey Graham might do it, but only if they could then crow about how bad the federal government is and demand further cuts. I tried months ago to find a pro bono lawyer in the state or county offices for senior services, but -- surprise -- no luck.
Now I'll stop whining and tell you why this happens. The federal government and certain departments are being starved for funds, in the expectation that we the people will be furious and vulnerable to idiots like the Tea Party. This is simplistic and the problem goes back farther than Ted Cruz.
But think about it: a department gets lots of funding when it seems to be a good idea. Lots of people get hired, the public uses its services to the point where it needs to expand. And then the group that is not in power starts to yell that the government isn't working right and demands cuts to that department. People in lower levels of government (the ones that deal with us) don't lose their jobs but those with better options leave, technology upgrades don't happen, offices become shabby, workers feel attacked and in fact, they are. They are not rewarded for good service, and unofficial rewards, like employee holiday parties, are publicized, denounced, then banned. Supervisors are likewise under the gun and if not already burned out, burn out. Old workers do what they have to to get by, young workers aren't hired as needed. When they are hired, they find themselves in an environment that is depressing with work that is repetitive and unrewarding, and are burdened with stupid employee evaluations and unnecessary paperwork.
As with the backlog of veterans seeking health care, most departments in the government that directly serve the people are underfunded, with too few employees and incredibly outdated technology. Supervisors are neither trained nor encouraged to make jobs easier or more pleasant for their employees. They continue to require that i's are dotted and t's crossed, by hand and thousands of times over.
Except for the woman who snapped at me because I hadn't filled out a form that nobody told me I needed to fill out, I don't blame the OPM workers. When government services are seen to be important, and government employees are treated with respect and also given reasonable tasks, departments like the Veterans Administration and the Office of Personnel Management will run more efficiently. People will get what they need with far less waste of time and resources.
But then again, we will value government, see our tax dollars as wisely spent, and continue to vote for progressive democrats who will continue to promote and establish good government.
But meanwhile, I need to go back to writing another letter to OPM that will fall into that black hole.
*I have recently changed the Comments section of my blog so that it should be easier to post comments. I would like to invite you to briefly share your stories of frustrations with government (ha ha -- "briefly").
We have all had frustrating experiences with the federal government. There was the time when I lived in New York and an IRS error resulted in not getting the refund I was due. After a couple of YEARS of trying to get this resolved, a letter to Al D'Amato (for-god's-sake) resulted finally in a speedy resolution. Which could have happened far sooner and without political intervention if contacting the IRS had not at the time been like falling into a bottomless pit.
There was another time when the IRS billed me for back taxes and their punitive and insane interest and penalties for a couple thousand dollars of income I had earned as a psychology intern. That time it took a favor from a lawyer for whom my neighbor worked; a brief phone call in which he explained that the stipend was tantamount to "coffee money" and should never have been taxable income quickly fixed the problem.
Not to overly dump on the IRS, as a psychologist I was one of the very few in Suffolk County, Long Island, that accepted Medicaid. At a time when the going rate for therapy was $80 - $100 per 45 minute hour, Medicaid was paying $20 for sixty minute hours. And that alone would not have been enough to cause me to finally end my relationship with Medicaid. Claims were routinely lost and payments not made, calls took endless tries to complete and ended with a demand that I resubmit and wait another month for payment. And the threat that at any time all my confidential records could be audited finally sunk the boat. In the end, I chose to use a sliding fee scale of sorts for low income clients, $5 for a 45 minute session rather than Medicaid's $20 for sixty and all-the-grief-you-could-stomach. Most others just chose not to accept Medicaid or lower their fees.
Each of us has a story of government bureaucracy, and this one is currently eating away at me. So let me share it with you.
My husband died in the wee hours of a Sunday morning in November. On Monday I made my first attempt to contact the Office of Personnel Management to apply for survivor benefits. After a number of attempts met with a busy signal, I assumed it was a Monday morning thing and instead called Blue Cross. The BC FEP representative told me I was entitled to benefits through November (which Stephan had already paid for) plus an additional 31 days of coverage at no cost. Remember that.
What I learned on Tuesday about OPM (lesson 1) is that the busy signal wasn't a Monday morning thing. It takes something like a half hour of calling and getting a busy signal before you get through. It's like calling a radio station to win a prize. Except that when you do get through you receive an automated message telling you there is a half hour wait.
When I reached a human, I reported my husband's death and my request to apply for survivor benefits. I also told her about my plan to terminate BC FEP on December 31 when my 31 days of coverage was up. She told me she would send me an application for survivor benefits and when they received it I would be switched to a self-only health insurance plan. Which retrospectively made no sense. But which led to lesson 2: OPM representatives don't listen to a word you tell them. The assumption is that they've heard it all before, they know what you want, and they are going to give it to you, regardless of your actual verbalizations.
Except that they don't. Lesson 3 is that OPM loses more information than they eventually have on you. And they appear to keep no record of your calls, request, and frequently, your paperwork.
Sigh.
After several calls spaced weeks apart to give them time to access whatever they needed to access, a kind representative offered to expedite my application process, meaning the process wherein THEY SEND ME THE APPLICATION. Then another wait and another call to find that they had not yet received my application and it may take another month.
When they did finally receive and process my application -- and I actually have this piece of paper in my records although I have no recollection of receiving it -- someone at OPM filled out a form authorizing Blue Cross FEP to continue to provide me with coverage that I did not want, and authorizing monthly payment to Blue Cross from my survivor benefit. That, folks, left me with a $17 per month benefit. It also left me paying insurance on two plans, as I had applied for and was receiving insurance through the healthcare.gov marketplace effective January 1.
My next call was to someone who was sympathetic and assured me that she would immediately put in the request that my health benefits be canceled effected January 1, and assured me that I would receive the amount paid to BC retroactively. Except that didn't happen either. The following month, I received a $17 monthly benefit, minus the insurance payment of $198.
Yet another call to OPM, after 1/2 hour on hold, ended with the call getting disconnected the moment I reached a human. Hours later, the person I finally talked to snapped at me. Truly. She told me brusquely that I was getting the coverage because I had failed to fill out the Request to Terminate Coverage Form. Of course; why didn't I know that? So she sent me the form, and I immediately sent it back. I called three weeks later, only to find...
...well, you all know what happened. They hadn't received the form. But maybe they have a way of knowing when an applicant has reached her wit's end. Because I was given a fax number and told to send in a statement saying this was the 2nd notice, and that I was requesting my health benefits to end on 11/17/14. After giving this a little thought, and knowing what I know knew about OPM, I changed the wording to request the termination effective 1/1/15.
On May 1, I received the full amount of my benefit, plus retroactive payments.
But wait -- you know that wasn't the end of the story. My deceased husband has just been informed that some idiot at OPM has instructed Blue Cross to terminate his coverage, including the month he paid for before he died, on November 16, 2014. And they are going after him for any claims they paid out during that time.
I do not believe there is anyone at OPM that can help me. I do believe that I am going to be held liable, once OPM lets BC know Stephan is deceased but does not authorize coverage as stated by the plan. My own House Rep. Jim Clyburn has never responded to an email, so I doubt that he would start now. Tim Scott or Lindsey Graham might do it, but only if they could then crow about how bad the federal government is and demand further cuts. I tried months ago to find a pro bono lawyer in the state or county offices for senior services, but -- surprise -- no luck.
Now I'll stop whining and tell you why this happens. The federal government and certain departments are being starved for funds, in the expectation that we the people will be furious and vulnerable to idiots like the Tea Party. This is simplistic and the problem goes back farther than Ted Cruz.
But think about it: a department gets lots of funding when it seems to be a good idea. Lots of people get hired, the public uses its services to the point where it needs to expand. And then the group that is not in power starts to yell that the government isn't working right and demands cuts to that department. People in lower levels of government (the ones that deal with us) don't lose their jobs but those with better options leave, technology upgrades don't happen, offices become shabby, workers feel attacked and in fact, they are. They are not rewarded for good service, and unofficial rewards, like employee holiday parties, are publicized, denounced, then banned. Supervisors are likewise under the gun and if not already burned out, burn out. Old workers do what they have to to get by, young workers aren't hired as needed. When they are hired, they find themselves in an environment that is depressing with work that is repetitive and unrewarding, and are burdened with stupid employee evaluations and unnecessary paperwork.
As with the backlog of veterans seeking health care, most departments in the government that directly serve the people are underfunded, with too few employees and incredibly outdated technology. Supervisors are neither trained nor encouraged to make jobs easier or more pleasant for their employees. They continue to require that i's are dotted and t's crossed, by hand and thousands of times over.
Except for the woman who snapped at me because I hadn't filled out a form that nobody told me I needed to fill out, I don't blame the OPM workers. When government services are seen to be important, and government employees are treated with respect and also given reasonable tasks, departments like the Veterans Administration and the Office of Personnel Management will run more efficiently. People will get what they need with far less waste of time and resources.
But then again, we will value government, see our tax dollars as wisely spent, and continue to vote for progressive democrats who will continue to promote and establish good government.
But meanwhile, I need to go back to writing another letter to OPM that will fall into that black hole.
*I have recently changed the Comments section of my blog so that it should be easier to post comments. I would like to invite you to briefly share your stories of frustrations with government (ha ha -- "briefly").
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Brave New World
I just heard our own Mark Sanford bloviating on the House floor. He likes to twist things around, he does. He called Paul Ryan's proposed budget "brave." Okay, are you all done doing your double-take? Because I'm still stunned by the man's nerve. I'm talking about Ryan. Sanford's just an idiot.
Jim Clyburn spoke just before Sanford. Talk about pearls before swine. He listed all the things that would be cut from Ryan's budget. For example, seniors would have to pay more for medication -- if you were happy with the donut hole of the Bush prescription boondoggle, it's back.
We know about Paul Ryan's program, because the republicans have been trying to cram it down our throats for years. Children, that other group of takers, will be denied school programs, food and nutrition programs, health programs. Working parents as well as the unemployed will see safety nets cut out from under them; in fact, in Ryan's (and Sanford's) ideal world, there would be no minimum wage, no labor regulations at all. Remember Newt Gingrich's plan to put poor kids to work as school janitors? And forget about affordable colleges. In fact, let these guys have at education so that they can privatize it -- more profit for their corporate buddies, less actual quality education for the dollar.
You might wonder what is "brave" about the Paul Ryan budget. Maybe Sanford's talking about having to face us all after he's cut out support for basic human needs -- what they derisively call "entitlements." You heard Ryan's former running mate Romney: he was just appalled that people think they, as Americans, should expect food, a roof over their heads, health care.
I guess it must be "brave" to suggest to 47 percent of the people whose lives you govern that they are unimportant. Unmotivated. Undeserving. Imagine thinking, much less stating, that some of us deserve better schools based on what we earn, that some children should be denied health care and nutrition, that losing a job when the rich have run the economy into the ground is no concern of the government. Imagine not giving a damn about people who struggle every day to do right by their families. Quoting Ayn Rand and her mythological capitalist American hero as though it was anything other than right-wing fantasy.
That's Paul Ryan. Don't even get me started on Mark Sanford. This is the man who stole from the state government because funding laws were not meant for him. Who walked away from the governor's office without being responsible enough to let his staff (or his wife) know he was off on an assignation. Who is happy to let the government pay for any-damn-thing he can get away with, and then deride social programs as pork. This is the man who just called Paul Ryan's budget "brave."
We need to make lists, as did Clyburn today, extensive lists, and let everyone know what they will lose if Paul Ryan and Mark Sanford get the government they have dreamed of. Because there is something in there that affects all of us. We need to document each benefit that will be lost, because for example, just saying Obamacare will be cut is not the same as telling people they will no longer be protected if they have a pre-existing condition, they will no longer be able to keep children on their health plans till they are 26, they will no longer have free preventive health care.
And we need to tally up the huge costs of Paul Ryan's budget as he continues to give fistfuls of money to the biggest and wealthiest corporations, tax breaks to billionaires. And does away with regulations that will end up costing us dearly whenever a bridge collapses or a food-borne pathogen creates an epidemic of illness or Wall Street is allowed to play wildly with mortgages and retirement funds.
If Paul Ryan and Mark Sanford are allowed to enact their plans for the future of America, then we will truly see a brave new world.
Jim Clyburn spoke just before Sanford. Talk about pearls before swine. He listed all the things that would be cut from Ryan's budget. For example, seniors would have to pay more for medication -- if you were happy with the donut hole of the Bush prescription boondoggle, it's back.
We know about Paul Ryan's program, because the republicans have been trying to cram it down our throats for years. Children, that other group of takers, will be denied school programs, food and nutrition programs, health programs. Working parents as well as the unemployed will see safety nets cut out from under them; in fact, in Ryan's (and Sanford's) ideal world, there would be no minimum wage, no labor regulations at all. Remember Newt Gingrich's plan to put poor kids to work as school janitors? And forget about affordable colleges. In fact, let these guys have at education so that they can privatize it -- more profit for their corporate buddies, less actual quality education for the dollar.
You might wonder what is "brave" about the Paul Ryan budget. Maybe Sanford's talking about having to face us all after he's cut out support for basic human needs -- what they derisively call "entitlements." You heard Ryan's former running mate Romney: he was just appalled that people think they, as Americans, should expect food, a roof over their heads, health care.
I guess it must be "brave" to suggest to 47 percent of the people whose lives you govern that they are unimportant. Unmotivated. Undeserving. Imagine thinking, much less stating, that some of us deserve better schools based on what we earn, that some children should be denied health care and nutrition, that losing a job when the rich have run the economy into the ground is no concern of the government. Imagine not giving a damn about people who struggle every day to do right by their families. Quoting Ayn Rand and her mythological capitalist American hero as though it was anything other than right-wing fantasy.
That's Paul Ryan. Don't even get me started on Mark Sanford. This is the man who stole from the state government because funding laws were not meant for him. Who walked away from the governor's office without being responsible enough to let his staff (or his wife) know he was off on an assignation. Who is happy to let the government pay for any-damn-thing he can get away with, and then deride social programs as pork. This is the man who just called Paul Ryan's budget "brave."
We need to make lists, as did Clyburn today, extensive lists, and let everyone know what they will lose if Paul Ryan and Mark Sanford get the government they have dreamed of. Because there is something in there that affects all of us. We need to document each benefit that will be lost, because for example, just saying Obamacare will be cut is not the same as telling people they will no longer be protected if they have a pre-existing condition, they will no longer be able to keep children on their health plans till they are 26, they will no longer have free preventive health care.
And we need to tally up the huge costs of Paul Ryan's budget as he continues to give fistfuls of money to the biggest and wealthiest corporations, tax breaks to billionaires. And does away with regulations that will end up costing us dearly whenever a bridge collapses or a food-borne pathogen creates an epidemic of illness or Wall Street is allowed to play wildly with mortgages and retirement funds.
If Paul Ryan and Mark Sanford are allowed to enact their plans for the future of America, then we will truly see a brave new world.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Nikki and Vincent -- The Same Old Song
It's been four years, but it might as well be yesterday. Oh, wait, it was yesterday. South Carolina Nikki Haley is beating Democratic contender and state senator Vincent Sheheen to a pulp, while Sheheen tries to defend himself by proving he's not really a Democrat.
Sheheen is throwing around big hard-to-understand words like "ethics" while Nikki keeps talking about "jobs." Listen, Vincent, nobody really cares about Nikki's dirty dealings -- these are the people who voted Mark Sanford into office, and then re-elected him and then sent him back to the US House of Representatives. Don't you get it when you get those blank looks when you talk about "ethics?" All your talk about ethics reform got nothing but hot air from your friends across this aisle this past legislative season. What I'm saying is, you should take that as a hint.
Meanwhile, Nikki is the expert at quick, snappy words like "jobs." She has been selling out South Carolinians for what seems like forever, giving away millions of tax dollars to bribe businesses into town. Boeing has been her mantra. And Vincent doesn't seem to be there when it comes to running down the figures. She's quick to tell you how many jobs she created, but not how many of them were good paying and upwardly mobile. And why isn't Vincent talking about how much it's cost us in tax dollars per job? Or why that money wouldn't have been better spent on teachers' salaries?
And as far as the cyberattack on our tax records, Nikki has had no problem turning that into a win. She apologized (sincerely...) and we all got a year of free credit monitoring. We got over it; maybe it's time for Sheheen to talk about the other dumb ways Haley is pinching our pennies.
The Medicaid expansion is a primo example. Except what's sad about that is that when Sheheen brings up Haley's refusal to accept federal money to insure the thousands of uninsured, he twists himself into a pretzel to deny that by promoting this he is backing President Obama.
And Nikki has a blast blasting Vincent for his "hypocrisy on social issues." What she means of course is that Sheheen doesn't really support gays or women's reproductive rights, but he wants our votes anyway. Same for unions. And because he is refusing to take a Democratic stand on these issues, she is able to slam him for hypocrisy.
And in the ultimate irony, our own Jim Clyburn says, "To me, Sheheen is as conservative as anybody else." If this is the endorsement from one of South Carolina's most influential Democrats, well, I guess Sheheen really doesn't need any enemies.
So what we have is two anti-gay, anti-women, anti-union contenders for the governorship. One of them knows exactly what we want to hear ("jobs") and the other keeps trying to tell us he's going to deliver something different.
And what I'd like to know is, when are we going to get a Democrat to run for governor?
Sheheen is throwing around big hard-to-understand words like "ethics" while Nikki keeps talking about "jobs." Listen, Vincent, nobody really cares about Nikki's dirty dealings -- these are the people who voted Mark Sanford into office, and then re-elected him and then sent him back to the US House of Representatives. Don't you get it when you get those blank looks when you talk about "ethics?" All your talk about ethics reform got nothing but hot air from your friends across this aisle this past legislative season. What I'm saying is, you should take that as a hint.
Meanwhile, Nikki is the expert at quick, snappy words like "jobs." She has been selling out South Carolinians for what seems like forever, giving away millions of tax dollars to bribe businesses into town. Boeing has been her mantra. And Vincent doesn't seem to be there when it comes to running down the figures. She's quick to tell you how many jobs she created, but not how many of them were good paying and upwardly mobile. And why isn't Vincent talking about how much it's cost us in tax dollars per job? Or why that money wouldn't have been better spent on teachers' salaries?
And as far as the cyberattack on our tax records, Nikki has had no problem turning that into a win. She apologized (sincerely...) and we all got a year of free credit monitoring. We got over it; maybe it's time for Sheheen to talk about the other dumb ways Haley is pinching our pennies.
The Medicaid expansion is a primo example. Except what's sad about that is that when Sheheen brings up Haley's refusal to accept federal money to insure the thousands of uninsured, he twists himself into a pretzel to deny that by promoting this he is backing President Obama.
And Nikki has a blast blasting Vincent for his "hypocrisy on social issues." What she means of course is that Sheheen doesn't really support gays or women's reproductive rights, but he wants our votes anyway. Same for unions. And because he is refusing to take a Democratic stand on these issues, she is able to slam him for hypocrisy.
And in the ultimate irony, our own Jim Clyburn says, "To me, Sheheen is as conservative as anybody else." If this is the endorsement from one of South Carolina's most influential Democrats, well, I guess Sheheen really doesn't need any enemies.
So what we have is two anti-gay, anti-women, anti-union contenders for the governorship. One of them knows exactly what we want to hear ("jobs") and the other keeps trying to tell us he's going to deliver something different.
And what I'd like to know is, when are we going to get a Democrat to run for governor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)