Biden Out

 I will grant that President Biden does not seem to be running a strong re-election campaign at this "late" date a mere 13 1/2 months before the election.  There's plenty of time, really. 

There may be a question of whether Biden has plenty of time, though, if one is speaking of 5+ more years in the most difficult job in the world at age whatever.  It's a legitimate question, though the answer to that is clearly not to elect an unhealthy guy 3 years younger with illegitimate motives and behavior, so I don't see it resonating in the standard B v. T scenarios.  Biden has some difficulty with public speech, which I can confirm was present 50 years ago, but those who listen know that he can think and communicate clearly.  He walks like an 80-year-old in good health, nothing unusual these days.  

The noise from Democrats about his voluntarily withdrawing from the political battlefield, while Trump is still on it, is just that.  It's not their decision; someone would have to convince Biden that they would be better at defeating The Former Guy.  To put it on the other foot, like, if Nikki Haley showed Trump data that meant she would have a better chance than he to defeat Biden, then Trump would withdraw.  Right. /s

So, I'm really just talking about the various ways Biden would involuntarily leave the race.  

One that we cannot simply ignore is the possibility of a scandal affecting Joe Biden. Personally,  not his family members.  Biden is certainly a wealthy man, but he should be after 40-some years of public service at the highest levels and a restrained lifestyle.  (If you don't pay honest public servants adequately, you should expect corruption.)  There is the possibility of Biden choosing not to run for re-election and citing Hunter Biden's looming conviction(s) and possible jail time;  my response would be that there would have been some other reason even in that case.  I do not think it would be determinant of his decision, as he says it was with his other son Beau's cancer illness in relation to choosing not to run for President in 2016 as the sitting VP to Obama.*

So, we are really down to the sickness, death, and 25th Amendment part of the discussion. It's something real enough, but it is also a quantifiable, manageable risk.  It's really only a risk for the campaign and the election, as the Constitution is now very clear about succession.  But what happens, and when in the campaign it could happen, are critical to consider:  who here remembers Sen. Eagleton as VP candidate for George McGovern in 1972  until he dropped out, after the convention?  It was a political mess and hampered that quixotic campaign, but it is something that Biden can avoid. ++ 

Here is how I would approach it, if I were in the position that Joe Biden finds himself in:  He should make out a Political Will.  He should then give it privately to three largely disinterested senior officials--I would recommend Congressional Leaders Schumer and Jeffries, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  In it, he should indicate what his preferred successor ticket would be should something happen to him.  It could be Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, Kamala and throw it open for VP, just throw it open with some process indicated, whatever he wants.  Though it could be updated, the Will would remain secret, unless or until Biden was no longer able to serve.  Then it should become public.  In the meantime, those three would remain silent on the party leadership succession question but supporting Biden at all times, just as they do today. 

 Seems suspicious?  /s

The thing is, Biden is the elected representative of the people of the US until he's not.  Anyone who challenges that, under the circumstances, is basically an enabler of seditious conspiracy. So there's a pretty clear line.  Even most Republican office-holders will agree to that by now. 25th Amendment challenges to his authority are going to remain off-limits until there's extreme visible evidence. So, his point of view should matter; he's shown decent judgement, having been a better President than most (see below). 

If Biden were out, though, with Trump in the race, there would be madness without that Will. 

In the case after the nomination (assuming the Biden-Harris ticket is confirmed in the primary), Kamala would have to take the reins, though she would very likely be challenged.  In any case, she would have to announce, forthwith, her VP choice, and there would have to be some ratification process.  She would have no more than a matter of days.  Then, the campaign would have to advise each state how to modify the ticket on the ballot, if indeed they can change it.  Timing would be mission-critical, especially if the ensuing race is close. 

The case of his dropping out before the nomination is the one Democrats and Republican alike drool about, though I see the chances from now until then, considering all possibilities, to be less than 3%. Some kind of late train wreck, a 1968 scenario, as in RFK getting assassinated in California in June, just after the primary that was going to put him ahead.  Again:  The Will is the way to avoid that.  (Someone please tell them. :)

I saw a puff piece (no credits) with five pictures for that scenario:  Harris, CA Gov. Gavin Newsom, MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I think all those choices are accurate, even Ocasio-Cortez, who would have no chance to win, except in something like a five-sided race, but might well be the Bernie wing's choice.  But that's before the primaries, so even less likely.  It is however likely that the Democratic race could start shaping up that way, even soon after the 2024 election, as an initial framing of something that will go on for years.  Biden may leave the White House sooner, or later, but it's certain that, as a duck, he will be lame by late 2025.  Not the right kind of duck, for the world. 

Would Trump walk all over the replacement nominee, no matter whom?  I say no, not any of them.+++  These are smart people, capable, calm, rational, and they have plenty of warning, so they will be careful around him.  He's still not likely to win, though a third-party could easily come into play here and disrupt the scenario, especially if the Democratic replacement process is just a disaster. 

 The Will, again.  Maybe they have one--we wouldn't know, would we?

 

Biden as President, in 300 Words or Less

In his first 30 months as President, Biden has governed, or tried to govern, in line with his supporters in the 2020 election, a Democratic voting base that's somewhat left of center. Faced with the narrowest of Congressional margins, he accomplished legislation to move us in directions needed for our future (for infrastructure and renewable fuels).  As a longtime insider, he was able to get done more with such a fragmented legislature than Obama.  Still, he hasn't gotten either the current or previous Congress to move on immigration, or to do enough to secure Federal elections. 

In many public addresses and executive actions, Biden tried to protect us from the damage his opponents would cause us, often designed to handicap or cripple the capabilities of his administration.  (I'm thinking of the Supreme Court, Republican Congress, a former President.)

 He has performed well on foreign policy, a strong point, doing his best to re-establish ties with allies skeptical after Trump. The contrast in behavior with Trump is stark: Biden has acted with solemnity when he needed, silence when needed, and he stood up to Putin in a way that mattered. 

With regard to China, he has lowered the temperature despite many challenges; with Russia, he ended Trump’s appeasement when it became necessary with the Ukraine invasion; with India and some other Asian nations more than willing to let us stand with them, he has located and brought them in.

On the military side, he didn't get good execution when he decided to go forward with Trump's deal with the Taliban.**  After that, no major direct US military engagements.  We seem appropriately ready, involved, but at peace.  Even that is criticized. 

As for economics, while Presidents can’t do so much, Biden, like Obama, inherited a sick economy and got it back on its feet.

Yeah, gas prices suck--too bad. 

 (That last sentence not being part of the 300)

Footnotes

*Utah Senator Mitt Romney and Biden would have faced off in a better 2016 election, but Romney had expended his political capital fruitlessly challenging the incumbent President Obama, while Biden opted out, leaving the door open for Hillary Clinton.  Romney would have provided a much better opponent to Trump in the Republican primaries than John Kasich and Ted Cruz did.  Alas!

**If Trump were really such a good deal-maker, he would have traded better with the Talib:  Make Bagram Air Force Base US territory (like Guantanamo, really) and you get the rest of the country for your sick policies.  That would have provided a real deterrent and made for a better withdrawal. 

++  The reference I suggest is Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972, by Hunter S. Thompson.  If you haven't read it, it's a good ride. 

+++OK, maybe AOC, who would probably scream at him, he's so awful. That would hurt her, not him, as the standards are different for Democrats and their supporters.  As I see on comment threads, IOKIYAR.  (It's OK if You Are Republican.) 

R U drumpf enuf?

Thinking about the Unspeakably Unthinking

That's the stultifying theme for the Republican internal warfare so far.  So far, so good.  2022 could prove a definitive defeat for the QOP* if this keeps up, and then the question for 2024 Republicans might be the reverse:  'RU 2 drumpf'?  

Our most important strategic objective is to rule out the possibility (a likelihood, it seems to most at present) of a hardcore Trumpist reality denier as the Presidential nominee in 2024.  Or even a softcore one, but someone with proven Drumpfist credential, undenied.   Strategy for 2022 should be oriented around that goal, because failure to achieve it is likely to unleash latent violent tendencies,  not turning out well, no matter how the election finishes.

We should not hesitate to visualize that outcome--that the 2024 nominee will have to be post-Drumpfist.  One who is clearly, and permanently, on the DJT-shitlist.  Putting the aberration of 2017-2021, despite "a lot of good policies" from that time, behind.  A dead end.

That person has not yet raised his- or her- head.  Speaking of the modern-day Bob Forehead, Mitt has presented himself, in his suit, for that role, as an example, but not one with a real future for 2024, I'd say.  Too much burnt bridge.  

Ron DeSantis is a betting co-favorite at this point, with good reason:  he's a slippery one, Trumpist but not stupid enough to stay with him once Trumpism proves itself a loser in 2022's general election, when compared to the results fared by those few Republicans facing the voters without a Dikhead behind.  He, on the other hand, has good chances to win re-election.  The question for him is whether he will find a good way to shed uncompromising loyalty to Former Guy after the general election.   (Obviously Gov. Ron'll just be meat if he can't beat Charlie Crist.)  

My PredictIt bets (a question of value) for now are on Tim Scott and Nikki Haley for the nomination. If Kamala is the presumptive nominee, they will have their shot(s).

Meanwhile, the tell-all books from horrified public servants during the Turd Reich+ are raising a sensitive question:  Is it fair to call the Former President a Neo-Nazi?  

Have I argued as much with the "Drumpfenreich" label I’ve used for the previous regime? No, not really--don't forget that before the 20th Century there were two previous reichs (one was Bismarck, I think the other was Frederick the Great?)  Remove the "populist" con game cosplay, and naked Trumpian policy appeared sympathetic to autocrats, nativist, egoist, but had a lot of standard Republican bait-and-switch.  The advocacy for mass violence, social Darwinism and insurrection was well hidden by White House subordinates.  

*I go with QOP = Qanon Oldfarts' Party, rather than the popular GQP.  Nothing grand about them.

+Not my coinage, but I like it. 

Decision Time

Vote to Convict, Then Move to Censure
I didn't watch much of the so-called trial, but that was too much. 

There was a huge amount of discourse, from the counsel of the defendant in particular, about whether the two articles approved in the House were "impeachable" offenses.  Logically, that was completely erroneous:  the House approved the articles, and the Representatives, not the Senators, decide what is impeachable and what is not.  By definition, the House determined that "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are impeachable offenses.

I would argue that the Trump Impeachment* neither raised, nor lowered, the bar of what is impeachable; however, I would have preferred they include Bribery--specifically named in the constitution as grounds for impeachment, and very arguably an offense committed by Trump. That would've changed the more asinine of the Defense arguments to specifics of "the bribery statute in the US Code" instead.  That would've more successfully focused the debate, such as it was, on the venality of Trump's behavior.  This Year's Model was consistent with precedent and has specific similarity to the cases posed during the administrations of Nixon and Andrew Johnson.

The Senate trial should have been about a different question:  What is the bar for removal from office of a President?  For conviction? For this question, there really is no precedent in the affirmative, though Johnson's case, Bill Clinton's, and now this one will show historical precedents in the negative.  Nixon's arguably presents an example of what would have resulted in conviction (or in an obligatory resignation, as Nixon's was, which functionally works out the same), but that doesn't help too much because of the huge difference in evidence which ultimately was available to Nixon's prosecution after nearly two years of investigations.

The proper way to view this question is one of risk management:  How much risk do we face by allowing this impeached individual to remain in office?  And how severe is the damage, if things go wrong?

The calculation is one which combines time remaining in the term (so should be most strict, in the differing case of  lifetime appointments) along with assessment of the degree of damage, conditioned by the facts revealed in the case.  In that regard, those Republicans who reverted to the argument against removal in an election year, one which appeared stupid on its face, had the germ of a correct idea.  To give an extreme example, the last month of a lame duck Presidency would be a waste of effort for an impeachment-driven trial.  That argument in this case might have had value if it were not for the direct threat Trump's admitted interference posed to the looming election; in this regard we have to credit Pelosi's judgment.

What's the risk that Trump is going to do something unthinkable and damaging to the Constitution of our democratic republic? (alternately, to our society/our humanity/our planet)  It's quite high, as the recent fiasco-doppio of his rash decisions in the Middle East** prove.  Not to mention appeasement of That Country Invading Ukraine. We have a new Trump Unilateral Israel Peace Plan much more likely to spur a violent result than to bring any more peace.  I could go on--the risk is high, and compounded the longer we face it.

So, yeah, there are only arguments for removal, though the risk for acquittal at this moment is much less than it would be, say, in March, 2021+ .  That one about "63 million votes" I find especially shaky. 

Anyway, immediately after the vote to acquit Wednesday***, some intrepid Democratic Senator--Schumer would be the normal one, though I'd prefer someone like our Senator Tom Udall do it--should introduce a motion to censure the President.  The denunciation should be a simple statement that enlisting a foreign government to attack our election in any way is not permissible behavior for a President, nor anyone with an official capacity in the US government.  (Rudy Giuliani's crimes should already be covered elsewhere.)  It should be wordsmithed to maximize the number of Republican Senators who could support it. 

The second censure motion should address the recurrent problem of the disregard the Executive branch has proven to have of the Legislative one, particularly as regards the exclusive prerogative of Congress to control expenditures.  The third should address Attorney General Barr's intentional efforts to mislead the public and Congress on the meaning of the Mueller Report before it was released.

That's enough--for now.  Of course Trump will veto or ignore any censure motions, but they will be on the record, will provide guidance to those who come later, if not to the Dickhead, and should be approved without delay.  At least the first one.

Endorsement for President (20/20 Preface)
I begin by saying, first, this is not a prediction but an expression of my own personal preference.  Second, I have an impressively bad record of picking the person who is ultimately elected President.  I would describe it as disastrous.  Some examples:

• Hillary, 2016 -- OK, I'm in a lot of company, both good and bad;
• Gore, 2000 and 1988 -- In '88, Koch's endorsement killed him (and my hopes to repeal the Reagan Revolution);
• John Glenn, 1984;
• Wesley Clark, 2004. 
• Tom Harkin, 1992 (?)

The one exception has been Barack Obama. So, I write this in spite of my fear that my endorsement  may be like Ed Koch's proverbial kiss of death.  I hope not.

One thing you may accurately conclude is that "electability" was often a factor in my past considerations given where I lie on the political spectrum.   (Another is that I have been really inept at identifying electable candidates.) "Strongly liberal", as they often suggest as the leftmost option in online polls, is not so accurate; I would describe myself as closer to the feared and nowadays unused term "radical", in the sense of seeking fundamental changes. So, my choice each cycle tries to balance the political climate and my sense of possibilities.  (Clark in 2004 was a particular example--I thought he was the perfect guy to deal with Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his positions were not at all obnoxious.  He just wasn't right for the times, politically, in the party--like Glenn was not just the Cat to catch the Rat Reagan, my theory in early '84.)

The Much Ballyhooed Endorsement 
My preference for Elizabeth Warren relies on the belief that she is the best candidate to unify the Democratic party and maximize turnout of its supporters in the general election vs. Donald Trump. Among other characteristics, she is a person who is inclusive in her approach, a person who is open to ideas, and one with strong convictions and obvious passion and energy.  In terms of her approach to policy, she goes to the root issues--corruption, inequality, injustice--and develops both the right maximal objectives and the short-term strategies to move toward them. 

I have had a firm intention to avoid criticism of the other Democratic candidates here, as I may be passionately supporting them as the nominee later.   I will go so far as to say that my personal preference is that our "viable" choices not be limited to what I would call the "old B-boys"  (Biden, Bernie, and, yes, Bloomberg). The media seems to me to be prematurely fixated on the story that it is down to Biden vs. Bernie (unless Bloomberg can buy it).

In that regard, I agree with the choice of the New York Times to endorse Warren and Amy Klobuchar.  Warren is the "not B-boy" progressive (leaving aside Tom Steyer), and Klobuchar is the "not B-boy" moderate (leaving aside Pete Buttigieg).  If you believe that women can be a choice that is just as good, if not better, to oppose the Dickhead, then these are sound choices, depending on your degree of "aggression" (as Charles Barkley said the other night, reaching unsuccessfully for the word "progression").   For me, that's Warren, but, as you may see by the above, my second, third, and fourth choices are Klobuchar, Buttigieg (whom I suggest as the VP nominee, for almost any nominee), and Steyer (who I now recognize has added value to the campaign, apart from the mega-dollars he has spent in our general cause, as per Bloomberg).

New Mexico's primary is not until June 6;  95% of delegate numbers will have been determined by then.  So, my vote is about 95% likely to be meaningless, in that someone will have won the nomination by then.  That 5% that remains, though, could be significant in the big picture if no one has established a majority of delegates won.


*Trump I Impeachment, I mean.  Hard to tell how Trump II Impeachment will go at this point.
+Don't even!
**To be clear, to evacuate our troops from NE Syria and to assassinate Qassem Soleimani.  Somewhat fortunately, neither of the two has produced massive warfare and humanitarian catastrophe yet. Nor Trump's walking the talk of 'just walk away' in Idlib.  I repeat, yet.  (added 3/3/20) 
***If you check back, the vote will be just a few days sooner than I thought; it will probably not be as good as the 47-53 I predicted, and the focus, instead of on whether there were 50 votes to convict, ended up being whether there would be witnesses allowed (and whether Mitt Romney would volunteer for a starring role in a chapter in the next volume of Profiles in Courage).  So, while it basically went as I expected, there were surprises.

Notes on the Impeachment Trial: 20/30 at Best

(I need the reading glasses for the close-up stuff, like fine print, or in bad lighting.) 

The Dershowitz Slant
Prof. Alan Dershowitz' dismissal of the legitimacy of the trial itself on constitutional grounds was good prime-time fun confusing the "poorly educated" in the base, while also providing, as Jeffrey Toobin said, a "fig leaf" for those who need a constitutional-based justification, not just for voting to acquit, but to prevent any witnesses from being heard. In that sense, it was well-designed:  the actual content of the two articles finally selected, though they were chosen for being incontestably provable, suffers from being less than optimal as a constitutional basis for conviction..

Dershowitz particularly went after Abuse of Power as being a weak standard for impeachment, though we all know it was exactly the kind of thing* that ultimate sanction for the President was meant to address.  Dersh cited the example of Ronald Reagan, who could have been impeached for it (for Iran-Contra).  On the contrary, it shows the difference;  while Reagan's Administration allowed illegal actions, the proof of Ronnie's direct involvement never emerged, with the high-water mark of implication for the Ollie North escapade reaching no higher than the NSC and Defense Secretary Weinberger.  In this case, Trump's authorship of the directives to withhold aid and a White House meeting were evident to those a full Degree of Separation away who examined the handwriting, and the closer Trumpsters were to the idiotic rants that accompany his improper directives, the more certain they were of it.   Abuse of Power is what the Founding Fathers knew about Mad King George of Britain and they wanted to protect our republic from its variegated form.+

Hear ye, Johnny"Thunder" Bolton!
He is almost the ideal witness for the impeachment case, which is why it is so critical for the Republican Senate leadership, working hand-in-hand with the White House, to prevent him from ever taking an oath before the Senate.  He is a lawyer who takes organized notes, and beyond that has excellent recollection for facts, especially for the "errors" of others.  He will have detailed information on where and when our POS Conman-der-in-Chief made it clear what he wanted. And how awful it was, from every standpoint.

I was afraid that Bolton was going to take the middle road and insist that that despised aid conditionality was simply a policy difference, or a ruse of some kind, and within the purview of legitimate Presidential prerogative, at least temporarily.  Not a reason for Bolton himself to leave the Administration.  Instead, none of this seems to be the case, if we can judge from the published leaks from Bolton's unpublished manuscript.

Turns out he has some ethics, too. Such an improbable hero!  It may not play out to his benefit, and the Trumpists will circle the wagons on him, at least until such time as their Fearless Twitter falls.
I like Sen. Doug Jones' suggestion to simplify and subpoena the manuscript, seeing as how it seems to have been circulated widely within the White House:  why shouldn't the Senate get its look (in closed quarters, if necessary, as it has not had all sensitive material redacted)?

There is a simpler solution:  revive the tabled resolution to subpoena Bolton and approve it by voice vote.  No recorded vote needed; it would be an appropriate rebuke to the would-be Caesar that would not change the ultimate outcome, which is destiny itself. ** Mitch's whip count is binary:  either the votes are there, or not; and if not, unanimous consent motions give him more power, in the form of control over proceedings, which is what he craves.
 
Additional: 
If I have one suggestion for the House staff, it is to prepare cases for some second impeachment  round: articles on Bribery, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (in his capacity as ex official chairman of the Trump Organization).  Or maybe also Obstruction of Justice, with regard to--yes!--the Mueller case.  If not to bring them forward--and just unveiling them in a timely way might compromise some of the Republicans' arguments, requiring of them the nuisance of inventing new ones--then to keep the House staff in working condition to prepare for the worst.

  
* "Da Kine"
+ Like the Devil (to cite the Church Lady).  SNL started a theme they can use in the future, of visitations in Hades by those assisting the Drumpfster. Dersh got his turn last weekend, played incompetently by Jon Lovitz.  It was intentional, I'm sure:  Acting!  Divine Comedy!  In that series, I'd like to see Alec Baldwin as a Witch from Hell. 
**Beware the Ides of March, Drumpf!  

The 'Writer Beat' Experience

Last November, I was invited to join a shared weblog called "Writer Beat'. (Thanks to Autumn Cote for her efforts setting it up, recruiting people, and dealing with their gripes.)  Something I said got noticed, appreciated, and more was sought from me, something I am too willing to provide.   I do regret starving this blog a bit in favor of the more interactive site in recent months, but now it looks as though it may dwindle.

Writer Beat's format was an article, with whatever visuals appended, and then an open comment session moderated by the author of the article.  Depending on the subject, opinions could be fast and furious, or the article could drop right through the site's front page into obscurity. 

I liked having my thoughts challenged by others, even though many of them were hostile--that was one thing you could count on happening. The preponderance of active posters/commenters were from various factions of the Party of the Right--not real joiners, in terms of Republican party activism,  but constitutionalists, libertarians, curmudgeons of all sorts (yes, including racists and bigots), with a sprinkling of foreigners of various nations and a couple of liberals.

 A friend of mine, an activist of progressive tendencies, asked me why I bothered with it.  Surely I don't expect to change anyone's mind there?  Well, no, though I do think I made some progress in humanizing some people's responses to normal progressive expression (and I rarely fell into some of the uglier habits and sunk for long into ad hominem name-calling, snark, and insults).

The post and the discussions that follow were response to a few articles in which these very non-Democratic folks tried to give advice about what the Democratic party should do.


Bring Back the Whigs! 

"Lots of people told me" that Abe Lincoln signalled down from Heaven that he was giving up his membership in the Republicans of today.  The phrase Party of Lincoln can no longer be applied to any but the Whigs. 

("Lots of people told me" =  in Drumpftalk, what follows is a total fabrication.  If not a lie, it is because he pays people to say it to him.)

How the Democrats of the future will respond to the Drumpfist Dilemma--the idea that there really is a "silent majority" which defeats the glorious idea of democracy--remains just that, a dilemma.  I thank all for the contributions they made to that debate, which, I repeat, is an ongoing one. 

Let's turn instead to the fate of their opposite, the elephant in the room, the party which has had its justification exposed as false and failing, which has now been replaced by something awesome and ugly and all-too-factual.  

*******

Cleaning up my email file (as I must, every day, as it is about 5.5 lb. of mierda in a sacco of 5 lb.), I ran across a reference to this article from The Hill of July, 2016.  In it, various establishment-Republican types were bemoaning their party's fate, as in their view Hillary's win was inevitable and would be massive, due to the defection of major Republicans (like them).   

The result was even worse (for them).  It proved definitively that they no longer represent much of anything, constituency-wise.   Where will this disinherited mass of Washington stooges go?  (sounds like an episode of "Veep") The Biden campaign?  I don't think so. 

It's just--Can the whole conservative movement pin all its hopes and aspirations on the fate of that scoundrel? 

What a roller coaster, an incredible risk to take.  I find it hard to believe.  William Weld can light the way, but that is barely a candle in the wind.   Kasich, the Mittster (or a I call him, "The Suit")?--no stomach for the long haul.  Some NextGen Bush, willing to continue the vendetta?  Saddam is dead, my friend, so are his sons. 

There is a need for a Third Way, and it can succeed in being the successor to the "Republican" party of Trumpian legacy.  It needs a symbol, it needs a name, it needs....some disinterested advice from someone who has the least possible sympathy for their plight. 

It will soon be Time to Bring Back the Whigs, or something just like them.  The People who have some moral decency but reject the madness of the Democratic version of democracy need a place to go.  Resolutely anti-slavery (or at least its unconstrained spread throughout the country), against empire-building, a limited government constrained by laws and good sense.  The party of Tippecanoe (and Lincoln).  Numbers 9, 10, 12, and 13.  But that name....you practically have to wheeze to say it

You talk about your False Flag operations:  Try a search for "Whig party symbol".  It brings you to the amusing battle for control of the Modern Whigs' symbol.  I give you a free space to give your version for its symbol--the Owl or the Eagle?   Or you could try to tell me how the Drumpfian vision will guide us into the uncertain future? 

MAWhA!
(Make America Whig Again!)

Selection from the comments following 

That "Bush wing" that Thomas talks about--where will they go when they have been excised from the Trumpist party--even after Trump is gone?

I see our politics as 40% Trump (hopeless, deplorable), 40% Democratic (ineffective, due to infighting and being outmaneuvered), and 20% homeless never-Trump ex-Republicans and conservative/moderate ex-Democrats. It may be a small group, but what they do may determine the future course of our politics. That's why I think it's important.

When I look at the Writer Beat crowd, most are in that group that can't stand Democratic candidates but won't admit to supporting Trump. So, I ask you, where?

›

• 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  TexasLynn  chinshihtang • 7 days ago

  
  

  I... did not vote for Trump last time because he was not a conservative, and I had promised myself I would settle for nothing less (after being forced to vote for the likes of McCain and Romney).

  This time around, I may end up voting for Trump for two reasons.

  1) I see no acceptable candidate running against him. Personally, I think the Democratic Party is so far gone (left) that I doubt it can produce one.

  2) To send a message to the statist media, elite, deep state, and crazy left that has pushed all the overblown Russia collusion bullshit.

  All you guys give grief to those who held their nose and voted for Trump last time (2016), especially Christian.

  So, I ask you, where was the alternative? What candidate should they have supported instead based on their principles? Would you have rather they sat on their hands (and votes) and given the job to Hillary by proxy? (Actually, THAT is precisely what that particular criticism is about... Well, all I can say to that is we all hope those we despise and oppose are idiots.)

  
  ›
  
  
  
• 
  
• 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

  
  

  Stoner the problem I see is that you are asking wrong question/discussing wrong issue. Your concerns seem to centered on the parties. The parties are the problem. They are parties alright: theirs. We are not invited, except at election time. The parties are not going to be fixed. They both need to be destroyed. 

  
  
  
  • 

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    TreeParty  the burghal hidage • 7 days ago

    
    

    Little surprise coming from an "anarcho-libertarian gonzo". Political parties grow organically from the political milieu, and tend to evolve toward a two-party structure. Wishing that the two existing major parties "need to be destroyed" is about as constructive as wishing that Santa Claus was real.

    "Your concerns seem to be centered on the parties. The parties are the problem."
    Well, DUH! His concern is centered on the problem - how ridiculous is that?!

    Admit it, BH - you don't know or care what you are talking about...1

    
    
    
    • 

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      the burghal hidage  TreeParty • 7 days ago

      
      

      Youre close. I Know what you think, but I don't Care. You really need to work on your reading comprehension

      ›

      
      
  • 

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    chinshihtang  the burghal hidage • 8 days ago

    
    

    Fair enough, so I ask: How do you destroy the immobility of the two-party system as we have it? The answer has to be a third "force" (--Let's not call it a party, we can celebrate once it has succeeded.)--one that rejects the parties yet has some organizational quality to produce positive value. ( It is not the Trump movement, which is a clownlike parody of that idea.)

    I say in all sincerity (though as an outsider) that we need that moral force which conservatism could have to be restored to our politics to have any hope of resolving the stalemate. My best-case scenario for next year is discord between dRumpkins vs. the Repenticans, and the Democrat slide through. Sort of like 1992, or 1976. So my motives are dubious, however:

    As for the Democratic party, that would take care of itself quickly enough once the menace of control of the government by the Trumpist Republicans has receded. They (we) can't wait to have at each other, but the imperative is to hold off until Mordor falls. That could happen in 2020, in 2022, or it could take decades still, though we must believe justice will prevail.
    • 

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

      
      

      Jim I appreciate your voice in the conversation. I strongly disagree with most of your premise on things, but you do seem to be starting to recognize the source of at least some of the problems. Just my opinion, but you seem to be an old school Chicago democrat unable to separate yourself from the party identity. You can take boy out of Chicago, not the Chicago out of the boy 😁

      
      

      
      
      
      
      • 

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        

        chinshihtang  the burghal hidage • 8 days ago

        
        

        I'm more like one of the Chicago 7, but I can't pick just one. Maybe Bobby Seale (the one that was bound and gagged in the courtroom because he just wouldn't STFU). Not from Chicago, though.

        
        

        
        
        
        • 

          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          

          the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

          
          

          But I recall you had said that you did spend some years there?

          ›

          
          
          • 

            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            

            chinshihtang  the burghal hidage • 8 days ago

            
            

            Yes, you're right! I was an "economic migrant" from my adopted home (in New Mexico) to Ill. for a very good job, post-recession. (2011-2018) But now retired--lots of time to give you guys grief. 

            
            
            • • −

              

              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              

              the burghal hidage  chinshihtang • 8 days ago

              
              

              😆

            
            

          
          
        • Another conversation, this time about the Democratic party and where it's going: 

        
        
      • 
        
        
        
        
        

        chinshihtang  Jessica Colon • 13 days ago

        
        

        With regard to taking up arms for the Democrats' nominating a radical before the process even begins, I suggest calmness--it will be a very long ordeal.

        I would suggest one way to think about the process: if we think of Chief Twit as being the classic 'dorkhead' (a euphemism), then the Democrats' objective should be to nominate the least-dorkhead possible candidate.

        That would suggest certain qualities: a non-misogynist, non-racist, well-educated and well-spoken, knowledgeable about foreign policies and scientific thought, a good manager of people, clear-thinking, forward-looking and consistent in philosophy. Not Barack Obama, though, unfortunately.

        
        

        
        

        • 
          

        

        
        
        
        
        

        chinshihtang  Jessica Colon • 14 days ago

        
        

        Just as there are shade of differences in the words and actions of right-wing Republicans, there are variations in the positions of Democrats of the left (using the label for convenience only). Not to mention "the center", which is moving heavily against Chief Twit.

        The young women you are criticizing (there are others of all the other spectra of Democrats) come from heavily Democratic districts (one of the by products of heavy gerrymandering) which have moved to people with more radical positions as natural replacements for others moving on.

        The only moral of the story is: non-partisan redistriction after 2020. Nothing else to see here, move along.

        
        

        
        • 
          
          
          
          

          The Owl  chinshihtang • 13 days ago

          
          

          You are real short on understanding of the Supreme Court's view that district drawing is a patently political process and one made for valid constitutional reasons.

          I suggest before you make a bigger fool of yourself that you review the case law on the subject and the Court's Court's recent rulings

          
          
          • • −

            

            
            
            
            
            

            chinshihtang  The Owl • 13 days ago

            
            

            I know what it is, and why. I am advocating for change. We cannot leave this to the Court Court.

             It could be done at the state level (as some have done), but it would be better to standardize principles of House districts across states, leaving it mostly to states to determine their legislative boundaries