Waiting to Pounce

Wonder where your republican lawmakers are?  If Peter McCoy is your representative in the South Carolina State House, I have a good idea.

If you don't know Peter, he is that warm and fuzzy lawmaker whose issues page promises that "South Carolinians can count on Peter McCoy" to do any number of things, followed by no specific item or pledge.  How can you not like someone who you can "count on" to:  provide ethical leadership, improve infrastructure, grow jobs and the economy, protect taxpayers and ratepayers, continue enhancing our quality of life, and continue improving education?  Sign me up.

Actually, if you are a republican legislator in a safe district, the first thing you do is:  nothing.  Mark Sanford was a pro at this, until he got sideswiped by a simultaneous challenge from the right and a progressive Democrat taking advantage of a loophole that in the past had always worked to the republicans' advantage.

Lately, Peter McCoy has had no challengers.  In 2012, Carol Tempel gave him a run for his money, despite the fact that a bizarre rule kept her off the ballot as a Democrat and forced her to run as an Independent.  He was not expecting that to be a serious challenge.

During that 2012 campaign, while Tempel worked tirelessly to get her message out to the voters, McCoy was avoiding anything that might actually inform voters of his stand on the issues, including refusing to show up to a debate, thus becoming the other "empty chair" featured in that year's political extravaganza.

About the time the Post & Courier endorsed Carol, the McCoy gang decided it was time to bring out the big guns they had at the ready.  With more money in his campaign chest, and little need to spend it till the last few weeks of the campaign, McCoy began to litter mailboxes in the 115th with fliers claiming that Carol was the "most liberal" candidate ever, featuring the most unflattering photo of her that they could find and further doctor.

This isn't new.  Republicans here in SC will bring out all the fear-mongering tools at their disposal, starting and spreading rumors about their opponent being a "Nancy Pelosi liberal" when they can't find a skeleton in the closet.  Sadly, in SC this sometimes means a last minute whisper campaign about sexual preferences.  Right this very minute there is a smear campaign going on against a candidate for SC House District 15, featuring the bombastic musings (complete with mug shot) of FitsNews.  This is because, of course, they are unable to fight on the issues.  Because, of course, if they were honest about their stand on the issues, they would lose.

Let's take Peter McCoy, for example.

He has had one issue that he has been hanging his political hat on lately:  SCANA.  This ripoff of South Carolina ratepayers has put McCoy squarely on the side of... pretty much all utility ratepayers.  So he has been outspoken on where he stands, kind of like demanding the end to puppy abuse.  And he was also in the fortunate position of being a leader in the House legislature when this issue exploded.

But what about all those other things McCoy claims you "can count on" him fighting for?

Peter McCoy hasn't yet found a tax he wouldn't want to cut.  He is one of those folks who promises to cut your taxes and improve your... fill in the blank.  The secret is, that he stands by big business (he calls it "small business"), as the answer to pretty much everything.  You can "count on him" to privatize education, vote no to modernizing public transportation in the Lowcountry, and resist any regulation that his donors might oppose.  The result is an education system that continues to lag well behind the rest of the country, roads and public transportation that continue to worsen, and shameful and costly failures in infrastructure.

If Peter was around to debate these issues, he might blame local government.  Or he could, as Carol Tempel does, vow to work with local government to make these incredibly important changes happen.

And then there is Peter and the NRA.  He voted to allow guns in restaurants and bars a short couple of years ago.  He won't concern himself with the gun tragedies that happen on James Island, maybe because so many of his voters come from "safer" (read, "white") parts of town, conveniently gerrymandered (read, "hammered") into House District 115.  When it comes right down to it, McCoy will always vote with the NRA because he knows where the big money comes from.

And as long as we are on favors, let's talk about "counting on" Peter to provide ethical leadership.  It appears that McCoy's wife was easily appointed to a seat on the Circuit Court in Charleston County, leading to charges of nepotism.

In a surprising twist, Peter McCoy has come out in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.  McCoy has a more, shall we say progressive, attitude towards allowing medical marijuana than other knuckle-draggers on his side of the aisle because he has had personal experience with seeing his infant daughter suffering and learning of the relief that is available through cannabis.  To his credit, rather than hunting it down through illegal channels he has pursued legalizing the drug.  Not true for abortion, as I suppose he has never been the unfortunate who has had to face an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.

McCoy will always support life until birth, and gun rights afterwards.

Now, rumors were swirling in the younger days of this never-ending Trump administration that Charleston's own Peter McCoy was being considered for a federal prosecutor appointment.  He had been a good Trump supporter until the cannabis thing.  But whether Jeff Sessions had a conniption over McCoy because of his own irrational obsession over marijuana, or somebody just told Trump that he might score more points by appointing a woman, McCoy continues to be stuck here in Charleston.

Laying low, until the final weeks of the campaign.

This is a strategy that rears its ugly head with the GOP because, frankly, it works.  We need to be aware and educated on this dirty trick.  Let your friends and neighbors know that Peter McCoy is not being forthcoming about his positions on issues, those votes that have not improved South Carolina and the Lowcountry in the years he has had the privilege of representing you.

And be aware, and make others aware, that while Peter presents himself as harmless and endearing, the people behind the money that feeds his campaign are not.  There are likely to be smears and just plain stupid insults, designed to create fear of voting for change.  Don't let it work this time.

South Carolina continues to hang onto the bottom of quality of life measures, and education continues to be underfunded.  As Carol would say, "Education=Jobs."  We are losing good teachers because they can earn a living wage in other states.  Our environment can be protected with adequate funds for infrastructure, and modern public transportation.

We need a state legislator that is honest and ethical.  Time to stop letting the GOP get away with playing games, like spreading innuendos and dirt, or hiding till October and then tossing a grenade at their opponents.

With just over three months to this election, it is time to spread the word, not just about the GOP dirty tricks, but about the good candidates that are running.  Carol Tempel is in this to improve and safeguard District 115, Charleston and the state of South Carolina, and she will be happy to talk to you about it.  She is not just asking you to trust her to do the right thing, she respects the people in her community enough to tell them what she plans to do when she gets to the State House.

Forced to run as an Independent in 2012, Carol came away with 31.9 percent of the vote.  I imagine the republican machine is working overtime to make sure they are armed and ready to fight her off again.  As Will Folks writes in FitsNews:  "There are one or two other competitive SC House races this November... so stay tuned for reports on those seats."  Reports, indeed.

Support her any way you can, because she is one of the great candidates that will actually work to make the changes that Peter McCoy will only make vague promises about.

Forgetting 2016

No, there wasn't a military parade this 4th of July.  But perhaps we Dems won't take back Congress in November, and that military parade will happen in 2019.

Meanwhile, Trump still has his rallies.  Taxpayer funded lunatic rants.  And each one is more rage fueled than the last.  Why not?  Each time he surrounds himself with his stupid and angry followers, he is guaranteed the same national attention he got before he won the presidency.

There have been mad, tyrannical leaders on the world stage in the past.  Who could forget Qaddafi's ninety minute bizarro rant at the United Nations in 2009?

The UN is a favorite stage for the lunatic leader.  Ahmadinahad's 2011 assaults on reality and the world were so offensive that there was a walkout by US and European delegations.

And now we have Trump.  Yes, after the election, the media reflected shamefully that maybe they should not have given him so much coverage.  But the ratings!  Who could take their eyes off this train-wreck in motion?  And yet, the end result was an electorate that had not heard a single Clinton speech while being fed the full blown ugliness of Trump's assaults day after day after day.

What we learned -- what I thought we had learned -- from the election coverage, was that Trump feeds on that coverage.  He may be stupid, but he knows how to play to the crowd.  And he knows that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

He is also batshit crazy.

Put that all together and we have the Trump rally.  He personally hates people.  But he adores his adoring crowds.  And surrounded by people cheering him on, there is nothing he can say that is too unhinged.  And surrounded by TV cameras, he cannot be happier.  Unless, of course, that he knew that those TV networks were going to be playing his insane attacks, name calling and lies, on a regular loop, all damn day.

They even call it "Trump's greatest hits."

Have we learned nothing???

I have been weaning myself from MSNBC and CNN.  Honestly, there isn't that much news being covered.  You can hear the headlines of Trump's daily obscenities in the first five minutes of any hour.  Yes, it is important to keep us informed about what is happening in Puerto Rico, a country neglected by Trump, still not recovered from last year's hurricanes as they anticipate the next one.  And we need to keep hearing about the horrendous abuses to immigrants and families seeking asylum, a humanitarian disaster caused by Trump and his gleeful attorney general.  Jobs being lost, prices going up, wages stagnating as Trump acts out his decades long fantasies about economic power.

We need to keep hearing about how our allies are now needing to defend themselves against our mad leader.  And what happens now that North Korea is doing what it has always done, lies as it pursues its plans to threaten and eventually dominate the Korean peninsula?  And then there is Putin, Trump's favorite dictator.  With no adults in the room to provide an honest reporting, we can be assured that Putin will be leading Trump around by his dick, I mean, promises of wealth and power (or at least a Trump hotel in Moscow).

We have some amazing investigative journalists, who have been uncovering scandal after larceny after lie after outrage.  It has been exhausting for those who worry about our democracy to keep up with the tragedies and the cons.  The last thing we need is for our news organizations to run Donald Trump's rallies on a never-ending loop.  We don't need to see them.

After one of the all-too-many mass shootings, some of the media decided that it was wrong to continue to use the shooter's name.  That kind of notoriety could only exacerbate the problem by encouraging other disturbed potential attackers.

It is not much different with putting a camera on Trump.

I was sickened yesterday when I began hearing the rants from his latest rally.  And then heard them again.  And again.  This morning I posted to @MSNBC to stop playing those vile and violent videos.  I won't watch them.  When he starts to screech and rage, call names and tell lies, I will turn off the television.

We should have insisted on more responsible reporting in 2016, but we didn't know any better.  Today we do.  I hope you will help me by telling your news outlets to stop promoting the goals of this disturbed and powerful dictator.  Tell them to stay on message, keep us informed, and treat the rallies and tweets as the fake news that they are.

The Ironic Cherry Reads... If It Hadn't Been for Dubya

Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights

by Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose

If you don't know Molly Ivins, you missed one of the great political writers of all time.  She came to my attention when I read a review of her collected articles entitled, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?"  Molly Ivins once wrote about Texas politics, and with great gusto about the Texas legislature.  After writing in the Dallas Times Herald about one local politician, "if his IQ slips any lower, we'll have to water him twice a day," a number of humorless readers canceled their subscriptions.  To which the Times Herald put up billboards all around Dallas saying, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?"  Yes, she could.

She had a wonderful wit and was fearless, lived life as I imagine a Texan would.  She had a great time mocking the idiots in the Texas legislature, so it was only natural that she would be the one to expose George W. Bush in all his ignorance and privilege.  She, along with Lou Dubose, wrote books about the Bush years entitled Shrub (his years as governor and campaign for president) and Bushwacked (the presidency).  Over the years, Molly maintained her sense of humor, but writing about the serious damage that was being done to our country became more dark and pronounced.

In 2007, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose published her last book, Bill of Wrongs, while Molly was dying of cancer.  In the acknowledgements, Dubose has the sad privilege of thanking her for her contributions to exposing injustices and attacks on our democracy throughout her life.  This book was her last attempt to warn us that our rights were under attack.  Molly begins the book talking about how she is less amused and more alarmed by the transgressions of the Bush administration.  For someone who lived her life laughing past the graveyard, this was something to take seriously.

When I hear people talk wistfully of the Dubya years, I find myself missing Molly more than ever.  We need her to give us a good shake, to remind us that without Bush, we would not have become so desensitized to losing our rights.  It was a slippery slope indeed, and on so many fronts.  As we talk about children in cages, we are not talking about the war on Muslims.  We try to fight for women, DACA children, African Americans, LGBTQ, and for gods' sake the New York Times and the Capital Gazette, but can't seem to keep up with the hatred being spewed and violations that are being made on each of us daily, by the twitter president and his partners in crime, the US Congress and the Supreme Court.

We keep reminding ourselves that this is not normal.  Yet after only 24 hours of the media talking about how the Democrats were going to fight Mitch McConnell's push to get another radical right wing supreme court justice on the bench, last night I heard a bunch of talking heads going through Trump's list of potential nominees, assessing them as though this was going to be a normal process.  More air time validating the unconstitutional consolidation of the three once independent branches of our government.

So, let me give you a quick run-through of Molly's reporting of the plundering of the Constitution that went on during the Bush years.

Before Bush, we could protest in view of the president.  During the Bush years, people began to get arrested at rallies for, one example, wearing a t-shirt that read:

This arrest, mind you, wasn't even at a rally; it was during an official presidential visit.  Celebrating the 4th of July.  As he gave a speech about "free thought, free expression."  Those were the days, when we had a president that really knew how to double-talk, with sincerity. 

Molly features South Carolina's own Brett Bursey in his fight for the right to protest, as Bush's own deplorables worked to create the "free speech zones" that now typically make certain that our free speech is hidden from view.

Bill of Wrongs was published in 2007, after years of dizzying changes brought about by the shock of 9/11.  After years of tyrants like Dick Cheney turning our fears into frenzy.  Terrifyingly, the PATRIOT Act that was pushed through Congress in 2003 is now just a fact of life, as we struggle with Russian interference and a president that welcomes it.  I was surprised to recall that the chillingly acronymed ICE -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- was only imagined and implemented in 2003.  As an arm of the creepily named "Department of Homeland Security," which itself was invented in 2002.  All just part of the government these days.  (Since the horrifying past weeks of children in cages, separated from their families, there has been a growing call for the end to ICE.  Infuriatingly, our own Congressional Democrats are walking it back, pleading for moderation.  What can I say?)

During the Bush years, it wasn't just political appointees that were chosen for their loyalty and ideology.  I recall some news about screening and litmus tests for judicial appointments, and a nation horrified.  Unlike the current stable genius who is raiding our democracy, Bush was shrewd enough to deny what he was doing; he knew he couldn't get away with such a flagrant abuse of power.  These days, the orange haired tyrant wants us all to know he is denying us our rights as he does it.  A short year or so ago we were appalled that he had demanded loyalty from his FBI Director; today we don't even blink at the thought of justice department toadies. That slippery slope gets steeper and ever more slippery.  And lest we give him too much credit, our republican Congress has been excluding its elected Democratic representatives from lawmaking since our first black president was elected.  Trump has no new bad ideas, he just flaunts the old ones. 

Way back in the aughts, we had journalists imprisoned for not giving up their sources.  We had unchecked government surveillance of American citizens.  There were Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, black sites, torture memos; that was when the right wingnut John Ashcroft and James Comey got to be heroes, when torture became "enhanced interrogation techniques," and they reached the limit of what they could tolerate.

We talk fondly about Bush defending Muslims after 9/11, but while he was saying the right things, the FBI was surveilling and falsely arresting people who happened to be Muslim; Ivins and Dubose describe Attorney Brandon Mayfield's arrest for the Madrid train bombings.  Sure he was Muslim...  And did you hear that?

But he was Muslim, but they were protesting, but she was crossing the border, but he looked dangerous...

Which brings up the subject of religious freedom.  It was probably Karl Rove who decided that Dubya should call himself a "compassionate conservative."  And the Bush administration happily gave over federal funds to Christian organizations to do the work of government.  We mostly didn't worry about it too much.  It was hard to see what was wrong with doing good.  Unless you are gay and can only appeal for help from a fundamentalist Christian group.  Or you are a young woman who needs contraceptive care (or an abortion, which our government has decided not to pay for decades ago, for religious reasons).

During the Bush years, our librarians fought for our right to privacy.  Many of them.  I worked at a library where the branch manager happily gave up the internet sign-up list because a rape suspect said he was at the library on the computer during the time of the assault.  She was tickled that she could be part of solving the crime.  We had patrons who were unhappy that we didn't keep records of what they had read (so they wouldn't have to...).

I hate to say this, but most of us these days don't understand what could happen if:  our library records, computer records, phone records become available.  We have allowed businesses from Facebook to AT&T to credit card companies to have access to our personal data.  It takes seconds online to apply for and receive a credit card.  Because they have all our information.

The despot-in-chief wanted a national database of our voter registration records, and most of us couldn't understand what the big fuss was about.  Which left our governors and state attorneys general on their own, fighting the fight for our right to a protected secret ballot.

Forget the slippery slope.  We went over the cliff when we allowed ourselves to be frightened and intimidated into The PATRIOT Act.  And if I were more knowledgeable about history, I could go back farther.  We have been complacent about our rights.  We have a government TODAY -- all three branches -- that are complicit in dismantling the Bill of Rights.

Oh, my, I had intended to write a summary of Molly's book, highlighting each area that our rights were violated during the Bush years... but I couldn't help but go into a rant.  So many outrages, so many injustices, so many egregious violations of our civil rights.

And it all started with George W. Bush.  Please take the time to read the book.  Ivins and Dubose have done an excellent job, in just 200 pages, of describing the harm that began with Bush and his own basket of deplorables, many of whom have stuck around and crawled out from under their rocks now that Trump has freed up the swamp for his own personal use.

Our wonderful library still has copies that survived the Henderson Purge (which began around the end of the Bush era).  And because libraries have only so much space, I urge you to check it out, because:  use it or lose it.

Bill of Wrongs is so very relevant and important today.  But go back farther into the beginnings of the political life of George W. Bush.  We need to be clear that without him we would not be tolerating Trump.  As Will Ferrell said in his reprise of Dubya, "I was really bad.  Like historically not good."

Molly Ivins is the journalist that painted the picture of what harm Dubya could do, with a laugh and then with alarm.  If only we had listened.  If only she were here now, to help us through these dark days.

Electability

I was appalled when, on Wednesday morning, I read this headline in the Post & Courier:

Democrat Archie Parnell, who once beat his ex-wife, easily wins SC primary

No, it wasn't glaring red, but it might as well have been.

Sadly, it doesn't take much to get to this point when our own Democrats are so willing to jump in and push good candidates -- and elected officials -- off the ship.  Bakari Sellers, who has turned from a decent and caring public servant to a famous celebrity, was among the first to try to shame Parnell into stepping down.  Either no skeletons in his closet, or no plans to run for office.

Apparently, republicans have realized that all they need to do is to dig up (or invent) some dirt on a candidate who threatens their feifdom, and then step back and let us Dems pummel that candidate into the ground.  Lordy, the best they could come up with was college party videos of Jon Ossoff, who scared the crap out of republicans in Georgia last year.  They couldn't have done it without us.  While most Dems continued to stand by Ossoff, enough backed away to give his republican opponent the win.  That's all it takes.  Remember Hillary?  Thirty years of republicans flinging mud, with James Comey putting the icing on the cake and leaving him, and us, with feelings of nausea -- and with Donald Trump.

Focus, Democrats!  Focus on the issues here, because we stand to lose good candidates who MIGHT JUST WIN unless we get distracted by rumor, innuendo and the occasional irrelevant fact.

We are the party where we stand by people who have had tough times in their lives, made horrible mistakes, and come out better for it.  We don't need to support people who live bigotry and misogyny; we can leave that to the republicans.  We have enough good Democrats who will fight for us.  But we have to accept that they may be flawed.

We need to stop looking for the perfect candidate, because that is our Achilles heel:  the strength that becomes our vulnerability.

In fact, we don't even have the ability to look a gift horse in the mouth and say, "Aw, thanks."  As when our own Dimitri Cherny made the outrageous decision to run against Mark Sanford in the republican primary.  It was hilarious to watch the republicans (who have used the open primary system against us a number of times) squeal about how unfair it was.  What wasn't as much fun was watching our own party have conniptions over what they saw as Dimitri jumping ship.

Because in the cold light of day, there was absolutely nothing for us to lose in Dimitri's candidacy.  At best he might topple the horrible Mark Sanford, who has been like a piece of chewing gum stuck to the feet of South Carolina for decades.  At worse, he would... what?  lose?  In fact, he did lose, but the three percent of votes that he got just might have been what lost Sanford his cushy job.  To that I say, "Thanks, Dimitri."  Of course, now we need to garner some enthusiasm for Joe Cunningham instead of cowering over the fact that he will be running against a right-wing wacko Trump supporter.

Meanwhile, the DCCC, in an effort to prove their irrelevance once again, is currently sniffing around, looking to put the money they suck from us whenever they can into candidates that are "electable."  It saddens me to say that Nancy Pelosi, once my hero, is now so desperate to win in November that she is leading the charge against candidates that may be too progressive to be electable.  Pelosi: once a progressive firebrand herself, the woman who held the damn bag of cats that was the Democratic House together to pass Obamacare.  I have until this recent news defended Nancy with every breath I had, and continue to believe that it is ageism and misogyny that has been behind the push to push her from her position of party leader in the House.  And yet this picture of Pelosi seeking to support Democrats who appear safe -- electable -- and pass on those who aren't afraid to talk about significant change, that is the real threat to the Democratic Party and our success in taking back Congress.

We had Bernie "the socialist" shake things up in 2016.  In 2017, among other headline wins, Danica Roem became the first transgender elected official.  People are electing Muslims and gays without fear these days.  And yet we continue to have a party afraid to support "progressive" candidates.

On the other side, we had a child molester in Alabama who nearly beat an amazing Democratic candidate.  Thankfully, Doug Jones didn't have any scandals that could have been dug up.  And don't forget the current "president" of the United States, who ran happily on being capable of every possible crime that could be committed (including shooting someone on Fifth Avenue). While good Democrats stayed away from Hillary, muttering about "emails," "Benghazi," and never proven financial crimes.

I don't know how much more proof we need that voters want radical change.  They want to hear about their own lives and needs.  Donald Trump didn't win (he really didn't) on grabbing pussy.  He won because he lied about giving everyone health insurance and good jobs.  And now we have solid proof that the republican party has not only failed in those goals, they have actively legislated killing health care and job creation.  They convinced some of us that a $14.00 a week increase in our paychecks was a win, but psychotic economic policies have caused the price of gas to go up over $1 a gallon since the maniac-in-chief took office.  Social services are being cut to fatten the pockets of Trump, Ryan and McConnell, and all their rich buddies.  Trade wars with our once-friends will eat up more of our miserable incomes while Jeff Sessions and the cabinet of deplorables works to make sure that, from education to employment, we won't have a chance at a level playing field.

Archie Parnell is serious about winning this thing.  And he is damn close.  All it takes for him to lose is friends like Bakari Sellers, and us.

I did not support Parnell in his special election primary last year.  Rather I supported a young, smart, African American woman.  Big name Democrats came out in droves for Parnell, because he was "electable."  It is a shame that we do that to ourselves, keep women and minorities from representing us because we are afraid they won't win.  Talk about your vicious circle.  But when he was chosen, he became by far the best candidate, and I continue to wholeheartedly support him.  I'm glad he has the guts to stay with it, rather than hand this victory to the republicans.

On June 13, BuzzFeed published this friggin' headline:

National And State Democrats Won’t Support Archie Parnell In South Carolina

“What Archie Parnell did is inexcusable and deeply disturbing, and he should drop out of this race immediately.”

Well, there's a surprise.

Farther down in the article was a video posted on Facebook by Parnell.  The same video was published by the Post & Courier before the primary, and before their egregious post-primary headline.  I would like to post the video here, but can't do it from Facebook.  I urge you to listen to Archie talk about his decision to continue to run, in its entirety.  This is the kind of candidate we should throw our support behind, enthusiastically.

You know what, we might get hoodwinked.  But at some point we need to trust what we see with our own eyes.  And if we don't, for sure we will be the ones to lose.

In Defense of Roseanne

I have been crazy about Roseanne since I saw her on Johnny Carson in 1985.  Her humor is an acquired taste -- or not.  Her voice is grating, she insults with the charm and bad taste of W. C. Fields.  She stood Rodney Dangerfield's "Take my wife... please" on its head when she began to take potshots at marriage and husbands.  And I loved it.

I enjoyed the first run of the sitcom, but at the time I was an older parent with my first child and pretty much in denial of any conflicts about parenting.  That meant I was uncomfortable with Roseanne's trademark insults.  Now, after having raised two kids that aren't addicts or in prison, I can step back and admit we had our rough patches.  And some of that affectionate sarcasm might just have helped a bit.

I don't follow celebrities.  I haven't followed Roseanne, although I had heard that she is a right-wing nutcase.  If you couldn't tell she was flaky and off-center right from the start you just weren't there.  Like Cosby, Franken and Van Gogh, Roseanne's genius came with baggage; her brilliance at pushing the envelope meant that she would at times go too far.

I wasn't surprised to hear that she was a very vocal Trump follower.  We have all had to distance ourselves from loved ones since that asshole came down that escalator three long years ago.  But, since November 8, 2016, I have been listening to Democrats obsess ad nauseum about what they need to do to understand and capture the trust of the Trump voter.  Too many have gone so far as to support abhorrent positions in order to attempt to win over abhorrent people.  All the while completely missing the boat.

While the pussy-grabber-in-chief flaunts his racism and misogyny and pushes through an agenda that enriches himself and destroys families, Democrats are still looking for the safe stance.  We talk about being a big tent, but instead of meaning we will try to help all, it ends up meaning we will support a candidate or issue that denies some group its rights if only we can get the approval of a Trump bigot somewhere.

I live on a shoestring, but my worries are still in the future.  I have an old car that runs reliably, a house that is nearly paid for, and never lack for food or an alcoholic beverage.  But there are working class Americans who have never had the chance I had to sock away some savings, or who lost jobs and homes a short decade ago and never got back on their feet, or whose income goes to health care or trying to educate their kids.  I am happy to say most of my friends, also on shoestring budgets, are also not walking that tightrope to survival.  And most Democratic politicians can't even fathom the fears blue collar Americans live with, or the painful decisions they have to make on a daily basis. 

So, that in mind, let's talk about the Roseanne reboot.  Because what I have heard from the majority of my Democratic friends is how they hate Roseanne.  And that they would NEVER watch her show.  Which reminded me of those Dems who just couldn't vote for Hillary, and then added, "I just don't trust her."

I loved the reboot.  I loved that her cast loved being part of the original sitcom so much that they ALL happily signed up.  And that Roseanne would happily work creatively with a bunch of liberals like Sara Gilbert and Laurie Metcalf.  Looking back through eyes that raised two kids, I loved the affection that so obviously went with the wisecracks.  I loved the twists and turns, like the cross-dressing grandson and D.J.'s marriage to an African-American woman, Gina, stationed in Afghanistan.  And it turns out that Gina dates back to the original show as well.  Where D.J. is in a play and refuses to kiss Gina; Roseanne tackles racism and sexism in one wonderful wack.

I heard a TV blowhard critique Season 10's Episode 7 because the anti-bigotry plot was simplistic.  I imagine that's a person who doesn't spend a lot of time around blue collar Americans.  No wonder they get insulted by us liberals, who turn up our noses at a 30-minute sitcom that doesn't get into the complexities of anti-Muslim attitudes.

And the last episode to air took my breath away.  If you want to understand how good people (not the Nazi sympathizer or right-wing religious zealots) could have supported Trump in 2016, there could be no better portrayal than that of Dan Connor, stuck along with too many Americans between the rock and the hard place, trying to survive.  Having to compromise life-long values to take care of his family.  In fact, the problems the Connors encounter are the ones that day after day, one by one, add up relentlessly in an America where the quality of life has declined for some forty years, where wages have dropped and education has been corrupted by profit and premiums, co-pays and deductibles have rendered health care unattainable.

I am saddened by the tragedy of Roseanne, much as I was saddened by the tragedy of Bill Cosby, who also spoke so much truth about the absurdities of life.  I am glad we got this short flash of brilliance before it blew itself up.  Roseanne Barr is a disturbed -- conflicted -- woman, one who is destined to self-destruct.  ABC was right to give Roseanne the chance despite her past bigotry, and ABC was right to cancel.

And my heart breaks for it.

Sex and Violence

Now that I have your attention.

I am crazy about Jim Jefferies.  He is Australian, now living in the U.S.  I discovered him when a friend sent me a link to a stand up comedy bit he did on guns.  It is biting, hilarious, and just as relevant today as it was when he first did it.

He also has a filthy mouth.  He happily pushes the limits way past humor.  He has to tone it down for basic cable, but his podcast is something to behold.  It is basically him and a couple of his writers getting drunk and dirty for an hour after the show each week.  The filth is pretty meaningless, just drunken slobber for the most part.  It would be nice if it were funnier, but his political commentary is so brilliant, as is his humor, that I will plow through the pure crap for it.  I don't know many who would.  Even my son has said, Uh, no thanks.

But Jefferies follows a long line of great comedians who pushed the limit.  Lenny Bruce was slightly before my time, but he fought the law for freedom of speech.  George Carlin did it when the zeitgeist welcomed it, and I am so glad he did.

As he branched out from the seven words you can't say on TV, two things happened.  He really exercised his First Amendment right, and in so doing, exercised it for the rest of us.  And he offended a lot of people.

Being a child of the 60's and in full-blown rebellion against parents that would curse at times but tell me it was a sin, I rejoiced in Carlin's literally calling out the hypocrisy.  In my home, "god-damn" was the forbidden swear word, requiring confession on Saturday.  Carlin welcomed sexual curse words into our vocabulary.  It was glorious to be able to toss out a "fuck" back in the day.  Today those dirty words more often are uninspired, about as clever as a burp, but truly tinged with violence.

Today we have a "president" who dismisses his comment about grabbing pussy as locker room talk, and then is celebrated at the annual prayer breakfast.  Granted, you still can't say "shit" on TV.  But Roy Moore very nearly became a US Senator with the religious right fully aware of his pedophiliac past.

I was planning on writing about sexual harassment and women's rights.  But there is the power of words, and maybe we need to start there.  After all, it was a matter of empowerment that African Americans have forced our entire country to say "N-word" instead of, well, you know.  And yet, "bitch" isn't even consistently bleeped on TV.

A staple of Bill Maher's comedy for the past two years has been inviting his audience to join him in calling Donald Trump a "whiny little bitch."  This gets my back up.  And yet, when I searched for the inception of this routine I came up with the funny and ironic "New Rule" in which he turns the stereotypes of women on its head, and applies those stereotypes to the whiner-in-chief.

The most powerful of words, the dirty words, have power because they are sexual.  And they have the potential to twist our morality into knots because our sense of our sexuality is so twisted.

Men who, despite their thoughts and prayers, don't flinch over mass murders, are willing to legislatively rape women in the name of "saving babies."  And women have been willing to let them.  The most logical comparison is of the fight to preserve a man's god-given right to own a gun versus the fight to allow women to control their own bodies.

In the 60's we welcomed those seven dirty words into public life, but began to refer to sex as "making love."  Is sex talk dirty, does it have to be?  And when is it degrading, because it surely can be.  As, for example, when used by the "president."  And what does it do to women, who are still considered the weaker sex?  When is sex talk violent, and when are insults sexual?

#MeToo has us all wondering how afraid men should be about stepping over the boundaries between approach and harassment, sex play and coercion.  I would like to suggest that sexual harassment and assault is the end result of verbal attacks on women that we ignore and/or accept.  If you aren't uncomfortable with Maher calling Trump a "whiny little bitch" you are either a man or a woman who doesn't recognize the power that words have to demean you.  If you don't cringe when you hear men insulted by being referred to as "girls" you are accepting not just that women are physically weaker, but that women are weaker.

The answer is not censorship.  The answer is changing perceptions, refusing to accept stereotypes and insults.  The value of forcing us to refer to the derogatory term as "n-word" (when we are in civil society) may be a constant reminder of how wrong it is, but it also denotes the power that African-Americans now have that they can compel this change.  Sadly, another result is that racists become ever more filled with rage at the imposition on their freedom to publicly display their bigotry; the backlash was destined to happen.  But African-Americans aren't taking it anymore, and that too will be quashed.

Women don't like to fight.  We want to fix things.  This makes us appear to be weak, and people like Congressional republicans and Donald Trump will use us as a battering ram to force their way into power.  On the other hand, they can dog whistle other misogynists by painting those of us who aren't compliant as bitches, you know, like Hillary, Nancy and Elizabeth.

Sexual equality is going to mean a fight.  Our daughters have grown up in a world we thought was safe, but was still fraught with sexual harassment and degradation.  As long as there are laws that establish rules about what is contained within our bodies, men will control us.  And we will be demeaned.

Those dirty words have power.  I am all for the well-placed curse word, but we have to admit that there is violence in sexual language.  It is not just that men in power can "grab pussy," it is that they are so confident in that right that they are happy to tell others about it.  Confronting men who assault women sexually is the beginning; their acts must have consequences.  What we  do as these men are confronted is going to be a long and tangled path.

But we need to first become sensitized to the words, their meaning, and their effect.  Not to censor, but not to ignore.  Indeed, until there are consequences for a man who brags about grabbing pussy, women will be under siege.  Denial of the power of those violent words leaves us vulnerable, and grants permission to men to continue to put us "in our place." 

It is time to let men know that we are the ones who will determine what our place will be.

What Comey Forgot

Not too long ago I wrote about an important book that went under the radar called, The Unmaking of the President 2016.  The book explains quite thoroughly how Comey's clumsy handling of the Hillary email fiasco caused Trump to win the election.  At the time, I got pretty snarky in describing James Comey.  But I do try to be fair, and now that I have heard him analyze the bizarre details of his past couple of years in the spotlight, and have read his book, A Higher Loyalty, I find that I have changed my opinion of the man.

I believe I have referred to James Comey as smug and compared him to Pence and Gorsuch, which would conveniently make them the unholy trinity of vanity, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.  But I don't believe Comey is like that at all.

He seems to be honestly struggling to do the right thing.  He can be self-deprecating, which means he is attempting to be objective and is aware of his own very human fallibility.  He has a sense of humor, which immediately separates him from the humorless Pence and Gorsuch, as well as Donald Trump.  By the way, I have for some time been aware that Trump never smiles or laughs, a feature of the narcissist-in-chief that had also come to Comey's attention.

Comey has a lot to say about bullying.  In his book he describes having been both a victim of bullying and an instance wherein he became a bully in his younger days.  This kind of self-analysis and insight makes his narrative of the election of Donald Trump both personal and relevant to the current political era.

As with all heroes, Comey's greatest strength became his Achilles heel.  The need to be honest and fair brought him to national attention during the Bush years, when he went head to head with Dick Cheney over the reauthorization of the NSA surveillance program "Stellar Wind."  It was a dramatic moment, when Jim Comey dashed to John Ashcroft's hospital room -- in intensive care -- to head off White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card who were trying to force Ashcroft to sign the reauthorization.

Because of this, Comey had a great deal of respect and credibility when he began the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State.

In his book, Comey goes into great detail explaining the situation as he saw it, and each step of his decision making.  It is obvious from this narrative that he has not only examined his actions but looked to others of his peers for their analysis.  He is aware that his actions may have influenced the election, and he has admitted that the thought of having a hand in electing the deranged and dangerous Donald Trump makes him "mildly nauseous."

I can appreciate, after the diarrhea of lies that have come from Donald Trump and his swamp creatures, that James Comey is being honest.  I share his nausea over the events that led to the election of Donald Trump.  I value the extent of his self-examination in order to get this account right.

But James Comey has missed an even greater factor in this tragic event.  He has neglected to include the effects of a corrupt Congress in the way this story has played out.

The story goes way back, but it was the republicans in Congress after the election of Barack Obama, and subsequently the Tea Party extremists that took over who represent the bully in the room.

It was minutes after Obama's inauguration that the republican leaders in Congress were meeting to strategize how to defeat the president.  Mitch McConnell famously and unashamedly stated,

John Boehner on the floor of the House led the rage with a cry of "Hell no you can't" as he talked about the proposed health care bill, a bill republicans refused to be a part of constructing, and then told the American people that the Democrats were excluding them from the process.

Republicans in Congress thwarted Obama's every effort to move the near-dead economy, ignored or distorted his successes and magnified out of context the defeats. Remember Solyndra?  Thanks to republican spin and the media echo chamber, all the successes that resulted from government investment in such small businesses were buried under headlines about this one failed attempt. 

That was the way Obama's eight years went under this republican Congress, as they doubled down on lies and false accusations with each electoral success.

While ignoring the hunting down of bin Laden and the winding down of one of our most tragic wars, republicans in Congress did not just refuse to work as partners with Obama in defeating our enemies, they actively opposed whatever he proposed.  Isis?  Syria?  The dynamic and entertaining McCain/Graham duo found fault with it all.  McConnell and Boehner refused to offer any constructive alternatives.  In fact, Congress did not offer any legislation that could be seen as a commitment one way or the other; all they offered was cynical criticism of anything Obama thought might work.  And because he believed that he should be working with Congress, he hesitated to take strong actions in Syria without agreement from Congress.  Although Obama's diplomacy turned out well at the time, he has faced contempt throughout for failing to act when Assad "crossed the red line."

And the whole Hillary project may have begun as an innocent misogynist reaction to the smart and powerful wife of a president, but by the time her intentions to run for president had barely been announced, the same game went into play.  Her every action was criticized, lies were told and then retold by the press, and the Hillary that can't be trusted became the narrative. 

The obstructionism worked, because the republican party united in their loud opposition.  They worked the media, and they played the American people.  They lied and then they lied again.

So, when Donald Trump brought his tantrums and lies to his campaign, the only difference between him and Congressional republicans was the degree and the flamboyance.  And because the media likes to follow shiny objects, like the orange hair, we got to witness every moment of the blowhard's traveling salvation show, with fake miracles and full-blown hate and hysteria.

Sadly, Trump gets full credit for Obama's failure to act more aggressively against Russian election interference.  And surely Trump was by then the bully that controlled the entire show.  He spewed anti-democratic hatred with far more flair than his republican allies.  But without eight years of the bombast and bullying of the republican party and Congressional leaders, Trump would have most likely been dismissed as a crackpot.  Without a Congress that refused to fight for anything other than their own survival, Obama would have fought hard against Russian interference.  But the bullies were harassing and attacking one of the candidates, and the opponent was making shrill accusations of cheating.  Bullies win when they cause the rest of us to lose confidence and to hesitate to do what is right.  The bullies won because Obama did not want to be seen as interfering in the election, as the bullies had already intimated.

And this is where Comey lost the thread of the narrative.  He thought he was cooperating with a responsible branch of government, but Congress was a fully partisan player in destroying Hillary Clinton.  He reported to Congress about emails as though the emails were the issue, and not the defamation of a candidate for president.  And then he went back again, because he had promised he would if anything changed, even though he had no reason to believe anything had changed.

Just as Obama went timidly into these last weeks of this election, Comey went obediently to Congress.  He ignored the advice of his boss and he rationalized ignoring precedent, and he interfered in the presidential election by jumping into an investigation because he was afraid of not opening it, and he reported it to Congress and the American people, because he was afraid he would be seen as dishonest if he didn't.

There are times when one has to take the risk of doing the wrong thing in order to do the right thing.  That last decision point, days before the election, was when James Comey decided it was more important that he be seen as trustworthy rather than that he had followed precedent and law.

James Comey has had to face the reality, through his subsequent dealings and ultimate firing by Donald Trump, that his attempt to be honorable led to a disaster for our democracy.  Out of fear of being seen as dishonorable, he allowed himself to be used by a corrupt Congress and a megalomaniac candidate.  Had he not come forward to announce the reopening of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, the outcome of the election would surely have been different.  But then he would have had to face accusations of partisanship by the other side.  And that is where being honorable would really have come into play.

Which brings me to the point of the whole thing.  We have a Congress that is dirty.  Congressional republicans have proven to be wholly partisan and untrustworthy.  They have chosen to continue to hide facts in order to support a corrupt and unbalanced leader in order to maintain their hold over our democracy.  In Germany in 1933, it took elected members of the republic to give Hitler the power to create a dictatorship.  And today we have lapdogs like Devin Nunes and power mongers like Mitch McConnell paving the way for the illegal and undemocratic acts of the Trump administration.  Today this Congressional majority is not only thwarting efforts to protect Robert Mueller from being fired by Donald Trump, they have undermined the investigation into Russian interference.  And incredibly, we continue to hear from one or the other that they think Congress should reopen investigations on Hillary.

While Trump keeps us busy following his criminal and crazy rants, Congress is truly the arm in which the fate of our democracy rests.  I don't believe we can take another session of republican rule.  Not only have they gutted laws that protect 98 percent of us, they have stood by as Trump signs away our environment and our liberties.  They happily approve federal judges that represent the far right:  big business, big money and the curbing of individual freedoms.  They continue to hope baiting us with Planned Parenthood and the Second Amendment will keep them in power, and are blind to the threats to our democracy.  In so doing, they have become the greatest threat to our democracy.

This is why we must do everything we can to turn over both houses of Congress in November.  The only way we can survive the terrorism of Donald Trump is by electing a Congress that will fight for our democratic principles.

We cannot be passive during this midterm election season.  Be informed.  Volunteer.  Donate.  Spread the word.  Vote.

Our lives and our children's futures depend on it.