Midterm Election Preview

As I write, 14 Tuesdays before Election Day 2026, the polls are about to close in Michigan for that important Democratic Senate primary.  Recent polls still are showing Abdul El-Sayed with a lead of at least 10 points.  One would think that with a leadlike that, the election will be called for him almost immediately, but I don't think that's true.  For one thing, Haley Stevens may have the momentum at the close, and the vote for the black community in Detroit may be determinative, and its nature is unknown.  

I have a rule not to take sides in Democratic primary elections not in my state, so I just want to say this:  whoever wins the primary, better win.  This seat is not one the anti-Trump movement can afford to lose. Allowing Republican Mike Rogers to win in the general election, a real possibility whichever of the two Democrats wins the nomination, would likely end any chance for a change of control through the election. It is very hard for the Democrats to get to 51 seats without Michigan's. It's the responsibility of the candidate who loses today to give full support to the winner; I've heard they are willing.  

The Background

There is a lack of consistency between the popular electoral sentiment and the estimates of the resulting elections from the political think-tanks.* Their policy is to be very cautious on rating as probable losses by incumbents, a policy well-rewarded more often than not, and now with unlimited money? 

This is not a normal year, though, with the support for the administration and its Republican Congress abysmally low, and the prospects, 14 weeks out, that things will not materially improve.  The most that seems to be likely is an ongoing question whether the Fed will  raise interest rates, the opposite of what Trump and his new Fed Chair Warsh were supposed to do.  Regardless of whether he does or does not raise, or even if he lowers rates as Trump would like, this is a distraction with regard to the election, as is the likely positive but not convincing stock market situation. We can expect gas prices to ease downward but inflation to remain stickily high, in part because of the downstream effect of higher oil prices during the acute moments of the Iran war.   

The Senate

If we look at the question from the Republican side, their strategy resembles what is called the "Prevent Defense" in American football, ahead but vulnerable.  Looking to run out the clock and not give up the lead, which is three seats.  If they lose four or more, it will be lethal for Trump 2.0, as we should assume that kind of successful Democratic Senate gain correlates with the House results, and a hostile Congress will shut down a lot of the madness and mark the end of the Drumpfenreich.  

The Republicans will have few chances to go on offense to try to take one from the Democratic side:  Michigan, and to a lesser extent New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Then there's Georgia, but the Republicans are on the defensive under the onslaught of Jon Ossoff, who's executing an excellent re-election campaign.  For the GOP, it's all about defending this Trumpist regime. That is not easy to do, and Trump is not doing things that will help them to do that.  You could say that the Republicans are fortunate in that many of the challenged Senate seats are not being defended by their  incumbent, but that is no accident. 

In the search for those four seats to flip, we start with North Carolina, where Roy Cooper is not running against Senator Thom Tillis, who chose not to run. Cooper's opposition is not in good shape and Cooper is very good at winning elections in North Carolina.  It still a state that tends slightly red, though, so his win is likely, but possibly close. 

In Ohio, there is technically an incumbent, but the Republican in that seat was appointed to it, not elected.  So, a weak opposition and a very good Democratic challenger, Sherrod Brown.  I'd say slightly better than 50-50 that Brown wins. 

Maine and Alaska are the two close races where the Republican candidate is seeking re-election. Both states in the two northern corners of the nation look to be toss-ups, but the circumstances are very different.  Maine Democrats successfully shed Graham Platner when he became untenable, and in Troy Jackson they have come up with a viable challenger who combines much of Platner's political policy with a more congenial local persona.  Alaska has the best candidate the Democrats could find, Mary Peltola, who has proven able to win statewide, but she has an uphill battle in term of party support in what appears to be mostly a head-to-head matchup where the effect of Alaska's ranked-choice-voting is not so important.   I would rate each slightly less that 50-50, but not necessarily correlated for those differing characteristics. 

Flipping those four, and holding Michigan, etc. is the shortest route to success for Democrats, but there are many other possibilities, forcing the Republicans to play defense in many states.  They have plenty of money, though.  Leading the list of those opportunities described as "not-probable, but possible" is Texas.  James Talarico's argument to the inevitable "Why this year, after so many disappointments there before?" question is referring to the previous high-water mark in recent times, Beto O'Rourke's 48% vs. Ted Cruz in 2018, and then adding that sentiment is worse for the Republicans, their candidate is somehow even worse, and the unspoken third point is that Talarico is a better candidate.  No disrespect to Beto, but Talarico is a special rhetorical talent with a very interesting political platform that he can defend, and proven ability to raise large amounts of campaign funds.  Against that is a powerful system that seeks to stack the results for Republicans.

There are several additional states, very red in Presidential contests, where the unpopularity of the government is leaving an opening for challenge, though not necessarily a Democratic challenger, and usually not an incumbent Republican.  Iowa is the best shot for Democrats of these--a strong candidate (Josh Turek) against a Trumpist. Florida has an appointed Senator and is challenged by Alex Vindman, the original whistleblower in the case of the first Trump impeachment.  Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota feature independents making the challenge in place of a committed Democratic opponent.    

Winning one out of all those (TX, IA, FL, NE, MT, SD) would be a bonus, helping to cover for the risk in Michigan and for John Fetterman, the PA Senator who's gone rogue and could be liable to go with the Republicans at any time.  Given Fetterman, Democrats actually need to aim for 52 to have a majority that is truly functional.  

The House of Representatives 

Winning control of the House is the minimum requirement for Democrats in this election--falling short of that is not acceptable.  Still, the Republicans have mined the field with their redistricting gambit, and, while Trump's policies are disastrous for Republican candidates, he will do his best to create chaos during the election and while votes are being counted.  

It should not make a difference, if the public sentiment holds.  Based on analysis of the "generic House vote" polls and its close relationship with the Presidential approval level (or disapproval, in this case), we could project a national lead of 6-8%, which would translate to a gain of 20-30 seats, taking into account the reduced number of seats designed to be competitive.  Very much a maximal gain, under the circumstances.  

But the real starting point for the Republicans is 227 seats, given the net of +5 that they managed with the gerrymandering battles.   The resulting number is Republicans getting a number in the low 200's, while they would need 218 to keep control.  It will take some time for Democrats to pass 218, probably a week, during which the Trump-driven rants will peak. 

The prediction markets are giving Democrats about 80% chance of winning the House.+  In my view, that's a bit too high--I'd say more like 70-30.  

Statehouses  .   

Although the Congressional contest is so enormously important, that does not mean we should ignore the significance of the contests in all the 50 states, among which there are 36 governor contests. Those gubernatorial elections are important in themselves, but they also have a huge effect on state legislatures, which will have to be the firewalls for additional gerrymandering attempts in the next two years. Successful governor candidates have a strong positive effect on candidates all the way down the ticket, and on the Federal contests, too.  In particular, competitive races in Florida, Ohio, and Iowa could help the Democratic senatorial candidates' chances as underdogs.  A strong Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, might help the eventual Senate candidate get over the top, while a somewhat radical Democratic governor nominee in Wisconsin (Francesca Hong) might make Tammy Baldwin's re-election as Senator more difficult.   Arizona does not have a Senate contest this year, but the political battle between Democratic incumbent Governor Hobbs and her team against a slate of extreme Trumpists will be a critical contest that may also affect a couple of the truly competitive House contests, of which there are so few nationally.  

The Prediction  Democrats will gain two governorships, three state legislatures, net gain of 12 House seats (225-210) and four Senate Seats (51-49),  the Senate seats gained being NC, OH, ME, and TX.  The Michigan Senate race will be the last to be called.  Trump will be furious!

* Think Cook Political Report, Larry Sabato's shop at U of Va., Adam Silver's group or Real Clear Politics.

+ And about 40% chance for Democrats to win the Senate, a number that has come up 10% or more since the beginning of the year.      

Goy Goes Off On Israel

The Hamsa Flag**

 

 

 

In a recent post here, I argued that the Senate election in Texas is the most significant one this year.  That is not just because it may be the decisive 51st seat for the Democrats to gain a majority, if James Talarico can defeat Ken Paxton+ , but because of the longer-term significance of a long-sought Democratic statewide win in that giant state. What  happens there could have effects that transform the global reality!

There is another election this fall that could have that kind of effect:  it is the Israeli parliamentary election (the Knesset), which is scheduled just a few days before the USA midterm election, on October 27 (though it may come sooner; it is unlikely to be later).  The question before the Israeli electorate is whether the war government of Benyamin Netanyahu will continue. 

There are many international electoral contests to which I pay some attention, to a varying degree.* It is in part because of ties I have in those countries, people I know,  and my recognition that those results may affect them, and partly because I am a citizen of this planet and we are all one race. There can be another reason, though, and that is the effect outside events can have on our own nation, and on our own electoral events. 

I see there to be such an effect between the coming Israeli election and its outcome, and one critical election, in particular.  That is the Senate election in Michigan, a seat currently held by a Democrat, Gary Peters, who is not running for re-election.  The Republican candidate, for once, is not a no-name Trumpist stooge, but a respected Congressman, Mike Rogers, who has served responsibly as head of the Armed Services committee in the House.  

Michigan is accurately considered a swing state that tends slightly toward the Democrats.  The population centers of Detroit and Ann Arbor (U. of Michigan) are strongly Democratic, with most of the rest of the state strongly Republican, and the suburbs around Detroit are usually decisive.  Both Senators are Democratic, as is the outgoing governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who has served two terms and cannot run again.  If the Democrats run a good campaign, they should hold the governor's job and win the Senate race. It is incontrovertible fact that the Michigan seat is not one the Democrats can afford to lose in the effort to gain a majority. 

The danger comes from the likely Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, who has a primary coming up soon (Aug. 4).  His policies are clearly those of the progressive wing, as opposed somewhat to his two more moderate opponents, Rep. Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who each have significant support but are seen to be splitting the vote from the party's center.  El-Sayed has run a strong campaign, is viewed as an excellent campaigner in the mold of New York's Zohran Mamdani, and has a similar stance opposing Israel's war policies in the Middle East, in Gaza and in the West Bank.  Polling of statewide Democrats shows El-Sayed with a  small lead over the other two candidates, but with a large undecided number.  I would say that he is likely to win the nomination unless one of the two more moderates pulls out and endorses the other, and maybe even if that happens. 

Michigan has a larger Muslim population than most US states, and that gave El-Sayed a significant base, from which he has successfully expanded, by showing a strong fighting resolve against the Trumpist administration.  All well and good, but there is another constituency that may be heard from, one that could affect the outcome decisively in either direction.  Michigan has a significant Jewish population, also centered around the populated areas, particularly those suburbs--it historically has voted strongly Democratic. 

Heavily involved in this primary is the Israel lobby group AIPAC, and its Political Action Committee (UDP)--they have spent a lot of money already supporting Rep. Stevens.  Although there are other Jewish lobby groups with different stances, AIPAC has the largest funding and is uncritical in its support of Israel, and it punishes heavily those who go against it, and recently, especially against Democrats who do that. Against that, there is broad desire to move away from US' uncritical support for Israel,  providing armaments to it in the wars against Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  In particular, the Netanyahu coalition government in place since 2022 has been ruthless in its desire to harm Gazans, to support Israeli settlers in the West Bank who try to displace Palestinians living there, and in advocating ever harsher pre-emptive attacks on Iran and the Hezbollah in Lebanon--going beyond the aims of defensive purposes.  

The cleavage emerging in the Democratic party over the US-Israel relationship endangers the party's coalition, not just in Michigan but nationally, as is shown for example by the problematic results in New York City's Democratic primaries this week, where an anti-Zionist agitator won nomination for a Congressional seat that is securely Democratic.   Support for Zionism is and has been national policy, but where are the boundaries of Zion?  Are they limited to the UN-approved boundaries of Israel; if so, what about the occupied territories, where Israel's current government shows lack of regard for the Palestinian inhabitants, and a tendency to colonize with Jewish settlers who claim it for a Greater Israel? 

As for the Israeli elections, I find it hard to believe that Israelis will vote to retain Netanyahu as Prime Minister:  it was his government's lax security at the Gaza border which allowed the calamity of October 7, 2022, when criminal elements of Hamas overran the defenses and wreaked murder, rape and abduction on innocent Israeli civilians.  His government has pursued war endlessly since then which, despite the remarkable capabilities of the Israeli Defense Force, has shown time and again that the way toward peace in the region is not to be accomplished solely through military means. In particular, Netanyahu's coalition includes overtly racist far-right elements and rejects negotiation with Palestinians and Iranians.  

Israeli parliamentary elections are free, but complicated:  they have proportional representation with a minimum level of 3.25% vote for representation of parties.  Typically of such systems, there are lots of parties, a dozen or more, that can reach that level, each headed typically by a single prominent figure.  Then, the parties group together to form a governing coalition, an opposition coalition, and, usually, a set of Arab Israeli parties which get some 10-15% of the votes and seats but are not included in either coalition. 

Current polling suggests that neither the current Netanyahu coalition nor the grouping  of opposition parties--who generally support the war effort while opposing Netanyahu's heavy-handed mode of doing it, along with some of its policies favoring the Orthodox and new settlement activity in the West Bank, and alleging corruption-- is likely to come out of the election with a majority.  This means either a stalemate, or a possible coalition with one or more of the fragmented Arab parties, a strategy that was put together by the anti-Netanyahu coalition, somewhat unsuccessfully, prior to the last elections in 2022, when the Netanyahu coalition took power back. 

I do not take sides in primaries outside my own state (of New Mexico), and much less do I try to interfere in the elections of other nations, but I think it is of great importance that Democrats take a view towards the Israeli election that reflects our values and helps to maintain unity.  I don't think it is that hard to enunciate, something like this:  

"We are longtime allies of the state of Israel and support its continued success, but we are not wholly uncritical of its war campaigns.  We advocate for a government there that is peaceful in its intent, while prepared fully to defend itself and its people, and that provides all the residents of the territories it controls with humane treatment and justice.  We do not see that in the current coalition regime."   

If the Israeli election goes badly, in the sense that it would seem Netanyahu will once again somehow fashion a majority to continue his policies of unending war and oppression of Palestinians, that could create a fissure for Democrats in the last stages of this year's critical campaign.  What would likely emerge from that disaster would be a policy to oppose continued arming of Israel, which could be counterproductive,  both to the bilateral relationship and to the party.  Frankly, it would not even change Israel's policy under the circumstances, but it would further isolate Israel and thus make the situation even worse.  Let us hope the opposition wins the election decisively, or finds the means to include some of the Arab parties before or after the election in a way that does not fracture the level of its support and makes it possible for it to govern instead.

+Based on emails I am receiving, there are lots of other candidates for that "honor", including Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and, of course, Maine. 

* I don't pay much attention to elections like the one upcoming in the Russian Federation, where the results will surely be rigged to show a level of support for the illegal war in Ukraine that is surely not real.  Surprise me, Russia!

**The proposed flag for the concept of one nation combining Israel and Palestine, a radical proposal to be sure, especially since even the chances for "two-state solution" seems now remote in the current political environment in the region.  However, it is one that demography and the arc of justice surely indicates to be some kind of ultimate solution . Let's hope it doesn't take a thousand years!

 

Edit: The October 7 massacre was in 2023, not in 2022.   

Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

I realize it's way too early, and there is no need to distract from the current imperative, which is a big victory in the midterm elections in '26, but the moment demands that we consider this man and the possibility. 

For those who consider that the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket in '28 should be a straight white male, Senator Kelly is your man.  He is a proven national hero, driven by duty and honor, who has braved the worst physical and mental challenges this era produces and kept his sanity and his nose clean.  Shot into space, shot at over Iraq, counseling the recovery of his wife after she was shot in the brain--these are a few of them. 

Most recently, he took on the terror that is Trump 2.1.  He was the front man for a group of military veterans in Congress who took out a public ad to warn our military not to obey illegal orders.  Trump called the action sedition and requested the hanging of all nine of them. Wrong, and not happening, and Kelly has been out front and open, saying both that his group's actions were legal and that he's not afraid of the Wherever Man.  

The veterans who made the ad--one can not call it a protest, nor was it anything more than a repetition of a portion of the training given to all military recruits, let's call it a Shout-Out--have been dodgy about whether they were thinking specifically when they made it about the criminal order to kill the survivors of one of the first bombings of Venezuelan boats on the high seas. They have not called the intrusion of the military into US cities an example of orders that were illegal, either, but they have stated simply that there is reason to think this administration may seek to misuse the military in the future.  No doubt of that, and one can easily think of worse abuses that the White House might order.   Trump may have criminal immunity for such orders, but those who carry them out do not.   We will come back to the "Venezuelan initiative" in a moment. 

Back to the point, though:  Based on his record, Senator Kelly seems to be a centrist Democrat, loyal, but not particularly partisan, and uniquely able to communicate on the need for responsible gun regulation. He is not a career politician, but after some years--he was first elected in 2020, in a special election--he seems to be finding his voice, which is an authentic one.  Not an intellectual-sounding one.  The only issue on which I recall his being critical of Biden's administration was on the lack of action on the border--his border.  Stop me if any of this is a negative.  

 I see only two drawbacks to his chances--apart from name recognition, which is suddenly flooding his way, right in his wheelhouse.  One is that he is not one for self-promotion, and he doesn't show that burning desire for Presidential power.  That, in reality, only makes him more attractive as someone truly fit for the job, but it could keep him completely out of the conversation (present company excepted).   The other is that, prematurely bald, he might seem older than his 61 years. It might not seem young enough for some, but it's hardly "too old". 

 As for being a sitting Senator and thus disqualified based on the recent experience of failed Democratic Senators as Presidential candidates, I think that's pretty bogus:  he's got more than his share of real-world experience, yet enough Washington time to know what is needed.. As far as I know, he is not owned by the corporations, and he has an amazing wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it won't take a Washingtonian draft movement (as in, George W.) to get him to run.  If he runs, the starting blocks for his run will be a sweeping Senate re-election win in the critical swing state of Arizona in 2026.  I see the argument for his candidacy along the same line as that for Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, but Kelly is a superior prospect.  

The Venezuela Gambit

What explains the recent rash of murderous attacks on boats coming off from the coast of Venezuela, heading north?  

The opportunity to drive toward regime change, removing a military dictator and usurper with blood on his hands who's caused millions to flee and impoverished his country?  No, that's more typical of Trump's foreign friends. He would emphatically be against that (then would go to sleep). 

Looking to grab the enormous Venezuelan oil production and/or reserves (nationalized) for himself/the USA?  No, not really any of those variations--we have plenty of reserves, and more being drilled domestically than needed.  The Venezuelans would hardly look to give away their ownership, but instead would look toward better domestic distribution of the proceeds.  Not interested. 

Searching for active kinetic action for  Pete Hegseth to use for military practice (after the domestic use failed to provoke sufficient resistance)?  Without war?   I suppose that is part of it, though why Venezuela? There are plenty of other alternatives still on the table, aren't they? (Greenland, Panama, Canada....) Certainly the continuing search for distractions contributes, and Trump is always ready to take credit for cruelty and brutality. He is also using this series of actions to probe a further extension of his powers to take actions beyond the rule of law and without any authorization beyond his own whim. 

No, I think there is something more involved, something even more sinister.  I look at the relatively minor Venezuelan component of the international drug trade, and its alleged association with current national government officials, and I draw a different conclusion.  These guys are horning in on the existing cartel operations, and Trump/Hegshit are assets working for their benefit against the Venezuelan outlaws.  See also the recent pardon of the Honduran government drug king.  

The Most Critical '26 Electoral Contest

 In the desperately important election this year, every closely contested race is a battle worth fighting.  There are a few state governor contests of that ilk, something like 10 different Senate races this year that could be considered competitive*, but not too many more House races than that, post-gerrymandering war, and probably a few hundred seats in state legislatures across the country.  There is the overall contest for control of the House of Representatives and for the Senate, and those two outcomes are massively important , but each is the result of a number of different elections, so one can hardly focus on those, in themselves--it is necessary to go into the next level down and look at what will drive those victories, or defeats. 

The race that I think is most critical, though, is the Senate contest in Texas, between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton.  The latter candidate was just nominated by his party's voters in a run-off election that ran off 24-year incumbent John Cornyn (who will remain as a dangerous zombie Senator whose emotional status is uncertain, like Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, similarly jettisoned from the Titanic Trumpist Tragedy. (ETTTTTS)).  Paxton is the most Trumpist viable candidate ever, rating super highly on both the loyalty and corruption scales. Texas is only rated as something like a 35-40% chance for Democrats to win in the prediction markets. 

It's only one Senate seat, and so the chances that it will be decisive are maybe one in 10 (but a little higher since the Platner controversy has made gaining the Maine seat more uncertain), but the implications are much greater.  Talarico is not just an unusual talent, squeaky-clean, and uniquely suited to be the Democratic candidate in Texas, due to his convincing Christian-but-not-Christian-nationalist vibe, but a potential national leader--in a Democratic administration, like Buttigieg is, even if he isn't able to get elected this year. 

Beyond that, though, the Texas race has possibly decisive and enduring effect on the big picture:  control of the Federal government at the top. The thing is, we are used to looking at a certain set of midsize "swing states" as a fixed, or slowly changing, decisive group for purposes of Presidential elections.  States like New Hampshire, say, or Iowa, may be somewhat susceptible to flipping from one election to another, but they are too small in Electoral College votes to be at all likely to changing the outcome.+   We know the suspects; it starts with Pennsylvania, then it goes to Michigan, Wisconsin, and more recently Georgia and Arizona (the last two replacing Ohio, which went red, and Minnesota, now seemingly safely blue). 

There has not been a really big state that has looked even possibly marginal in its outcome since California and New York fell off the cliff for Republicans in statewide elections.  The only other states in that category are Florida, which seemingly remains inexplicably beyond redemption, and Texas.  If Texas were to become a "purple" state where the outcome of a Presidential election there is not certain, it would have a huge effect on the numbers--of Electoral College votes, and of spending on the contest, too. 

I'm way ahead of myself, but a Mark Kelly-James Talarico ticket, Kelly promising to serve one term, could carry the swing states and Texas and lead to the kind of 350+ EV rout that is needed (in 2028, or 2032 if we must defer our dreams) in order to put the GOP in its place, which is as a regional party no longer a threat to destroy our Federal government and our Constitution.  That would make reforms of the kind needed possible. 

* In order of likelihood of Democrats winning the contested seats (+4 net result needed):  New Hampshire (to retain vacating Democratic seat),  North Carolina (flip, Republican vacating), Michigan (again, to retain vacating Democratic seat), Alaska (flip, strong Democratic candidate), Iowa (Republican vacating), Ohio (flip of appointed Republican Senator), Maine (flip, with Platner being only moderately damaged in Maine voters' eyes), Texas (flip, vacating Republican due to the primary result), then ones like Florida (weak appointed Senator), South Carolina (good candidate flipping on flippant Lindsay Graham), and finally longshots in South Dakota and Louisiana.  Ranking above Florida are Nebraska and Montana, where the strong candidate who might flip the seat is running as an Independent..   I'm assuming Georgia is safe for Jon Ossoff against a disorganized Republican opposition.  He's also a Talarico-type rising star. 

 From this list, you could see that I rate Texas as the sixth-most-likely to flip, and thus not absolutely necessary, if Democrats hold their seats and come through in Maine, Iowa, and Ohio.  I'm counting on North Carolina and Alaska to get things started.  

+ Unless there is no majority in the Electoral College and it goes to the House, where the Constitution gives each state's delegation one vote.  That remains very improbable as long as there are only two major party candidates winning all the states (last time that didn't happen was 1968).  

A Structured Settlement for Iran

 

 I am inspired by John
Oliver's piece on J.G. Wentworth and its approach, to propose something along their lines to end this miserably begotten war with Iran.  When it broke out, I insisted it was Bibi and Drumpf improvising and trying to create a distraction in order to improve their chances to avoid electoral catastrophe later this year.  It failed to serve its purpose, and we shouldn't have to suffer for their bad decision anymore.

There are really four causes that Bibi/Dickhead sought.  The first was the decapitation strike, which went off, but was never going to make regime change--they had missed the chance they had a few months before with the riots and their suppression.  So, forget about that one. 

The second is also to be ignored:  Iran will not stop assisting their allies in the region to cause trouble.  They pursue their perceived national interest, which is promoting Shia and irritating Israel.  Those two can duke it out forever and we don't need to get involved.  Israel does very well on its own with that.  It's really just a corollary of failing to achieve regime change.

The third is the Strait of Hormuz.  Iran's claim to control it all is most unjust:  there are nations on the shores on the other side  of it (Oman, UAE--Dubai) which have just as much right as Iran to control their territorial waters.  Basically, Iran can do what it wants with its side, but the other side should be protected, and the Gulf States' rights actively patrolled by UN forces. It's a global priority.  I think China would agree, and Trump should use his presumed leverage with Putin to get them to go along--all his sucking up for these decades should count for something. . 

Finally, there's the real horned dilemma, that of Iran's alleged intention to build a nuclear weapon.  The fact is that Iran has always denied that intention, saying it is contrary to their interpretation of Islam to have one.  I say, take them at their word*, but put strings on it.  Let them do what they want with their nuclear program, but provide an effective deterrent to their changing their mind and building a weapon, or showing they were lying all along about that.

What would be an effective deterrent?  Quite simple, really.  We inform them, publicly, that the day after they test a nuclear weapon, we will destroy their nuclear facilities with a nuclear weapon, or a couple of them if they are strategically necessary to "obliterate" their capacity to make more of them.  We have a good variety of them and could choose the appropriate one(s) if the case becomes necessary.  We inform China and Russia that is what we will do, so there is no mistake. This would also apply if they do a dirty bomb as a terrorist act.  We don't need to cause the mass casualties of an attack on a populated area, but if they are so foolish as to hide their facilities with lots of people around them, we take those sites out on a continuous basis with conventional weapons. I don't think Israel would have any problem with following through on that aspect. 

Seems monstrous, but that's nuclear deterrence for you.  Iran is a signer to the Non-Proliferation Treaty--we should penalize them if they fail to honor it.  Anyway, that's what nuclear powers do to nations that don't have the weapons--we bully them. I'm not even going to talk about Israel's unacknowledged nukes, but I will say this threat is pretty much what Hillary Clinton said years ago when addressing the issue of Iran's potential nuke. 

As for the "structured settlement" part, apparently a bunch of their assets are frozen somewhere (was it Belgium?)   We can start paying out those in (relatively small) installments as soon as they stop hostilities, which might make them willing to come to the table.  Then they can get a lump sum  (reduced by a few billion for handling costs) if they make an agreement to stay on their side of the Strait--that will be their "reparations"--the most ridiculous part of their requests. 

So, Drumpf--ready to deal?  

 

* I will admit that, since ancient times, the Persians were famed for being liars, and the modern Iranians are clever and deceitful.  Still, the deterrent will work if it has teeth and serious intent.  

America > Trump

Of this I have no doubt, or fear.  Though we have allowed this person of the lowest character and subterranean behavior to be elevated to our highest political office, he does not rule over us in the way he thinks. Instead, he clings to the throne with underhanded means, writhing in his self-made bunker as his level of popular acceptance sinks further. Though I am observing him from afar at present, it only makes it easier to see him digging his sinkhole of madness ever deeper. His attempts to distract from his evil past actions only create more damage. Watching his underlings from a distance--imagine how they can possibly remain beneath him!--failing in their appointed tasks and drawing ridicule upon themselves brings gratification, knowing I am largely beyond reach of their putrid scheming. 

Truth be told, America is greater than just the United States of America, though I have covered that subject before.  It holds a great idea, that of the universal human goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the truth that is self-evident in the domain of mankind's affairs these days is:  power.  Nothing more. The USA's power is unmatched (still), but the national government's purposes in this time are not worthy of this great land.  Greed, indifference to the global community, and the shocking, reactionary impulses to subject other nations' to our selfish interests are the unmistakable content of our external actions, mirroring similar foul intent domestically toward those without power or the means to resist. 

Our Own Litmus Test 

Yet we, the people of the USA, do have the means, if we act collectively to fight back.  We have only one effective, substantive way to strip this evil regime of its power, and we must protect that chance with all our own powers of action. Though the forces of oligarchy and incipient fascism seek to make our votes meaningless, we have--so far--still our chance this November. Are we worthy of our unrivalled privilege as a nation? Let's not waste this shot. 

I know better than to appeal to the cause of saving our democracy.  We are far from being democratic--ruled by popular will--in our national affairs, and that appeal failed loudly in 2024--the response amounted to a big, lazy yawn.  Still, we can work within the limitations of our constitutional republic to overthrow part of the system driving us downward and begin the reclamation project.  All the corrupt maneuvering and manipulation is still unable to prevent us from expressing our will, if our numbers are large enough and broad enough.  What drives the electorate may not be such a noble purpose as dethroning evil, but it is enough that our sense of frustration and desperation at the destruction of our economy and the quality of our public life move enough of us for a decisive electoral victory.  

A "litmus test" is an objective measure, in chemistry a device to determine a binary result, acid or base, though it can also have a directionless result proving neither. So it will be with our election:  victory or defeat, though the result could end up less than definitive.  It is easy to define victory in 2026:  gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Plenty of associated results would accompany that victory, not least would be breaking the Trumpist cult's sense of superiority. Getting one and not the other would not be defeat, but it would result in two years of dubious stalemate before another climactic showdown in 2028, which would then be under less-than-favorable circumstances. The good news is that victory in 2026 is feasible; more than that, it is still attainable, despite the enemy's attempts to cheat us of our opportunity.  If the Republicans are defeated in Congress, the forces of authoritarian rule will be checked, put squarely on defense, and defense is something they really can't employ well; their only mode is attack.*

Somehow we will have to muster both our people's warmth and humane nature, and our revulsion at injustice and practical objections, all at the same time.  Both our moral sense and our common sense.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  The shape of this battle is now pretty well formed; I will have more to say about tactics in the 24 weeks to come. 

Light in a World of Woe

 Pope Leo's recent words are enough to make me a Follower, if not a Believer with a paid subscription.  I am so proud that our co-national, first ever to that high position of authority and grace, has chosen to speak wisely and confidently for us.  "Masters of war", indeed. Am I allowed to say "our Pope"?  Not from a nationalistic, possessive point of view, but isn't he supposed to be for all us humans, not just the Catholics who are bound to swear allegiance?  Of all the groups deserting the Drumpfenreich's support, it appears that Trump's blasphemous behavior has hurt him lately with religious observants of Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.  He'd already lost most women, the mass deportation fiasco reversed his gains with Hispanics, and his gross warmongering has undermined him with young men. Surely there can't be enough remaining for him to rig the election in his favor

 

*I give credit to Pete Hegseth for little, but he was right about that when he re-named his cabinet department.  A name is not everything, though, as he has proved that war is sometimes about more than killing more of them than they get ours, something we should have learned long ago. .  

 

 

Back to Bash

(Read while playing Amy Winehouse's "Back to Black", maybe) 

 To begin my discussion of where we are in the past few weeks since my last political rant, let's go back to the post where I suggested that acceleration had turned in the direction of reversing the harm Trump 2.0 is causing. That the brakes on destruction were being engaged, and I looked for and found signs that the reversal of that careening toward and over the precipice had begun. 

 

That was right before Trump and Netanyahu ordered their forces to renew the bombing of Iran, beginning with the decapitation strike on their political leaders. 

 

 To be clear, I said then that things were continuing to worsen, but I argued that deterioration would slow, ultimately reversing this enshittification. My perception was that our actual velocity was near zero, that the resistance internally and from the rest of the world was ending the bringdown

. Then they struck. 

 The outlines of the whole thing are clear enough now: there was an opportunity, deemed "unique", to take out the leadership in one fell swoop--"Seven in One Blow", if you remember from the child's fable--and it was seized. There were contingency plans for attacking Iran, destroying their military assets, going further with the infrastructure, but the exit strategy seems missing. 

 The results are indecisive, with a short-term reduction in Iran's capabilities to cause harm, and a new long-term threat in the form of Iran's ability to disrupt the economy (though at great cost to themselves). That's as of now, and basically it can be over if Trump shuts his digital yapper and hostilities end, driven by a lack of advantage for either side to continue. 

The only basis for believing that will be next is Trump's history with Taco Tuesdays. 

He's Drawing to an Outside Strait 

 I would insist that this diversion--assuming it does not escalate into a continuing conflict with global impact, hard to be sure what that would do to the Dickhead-in-Chief's popularity as he assumes an ever-more Big Brother-ish appearance--is Trump's attempt to regain control of his faltering momentum. Yet the winds of change remain against his success.

 So, I'm not admitting that I was wrong, just yet. Let's see if he really escalates, or if he does, just does it as a performance without substance. At any rate, I will admit that the my previous argument was one-dimensional (literally so), whereas the multifaceted status of deterioration in various fields of governmental failure differ in their speed, comprehensiveness of destruction, and reversibility, and the response is and must be a vector with directional change from the initial path. 

It's no more just left-right (long ago passed into irrelevance, all modern economies are mixed) or even freedom vs. authoritarianism (because we are stuck with a Leviathan, there's just too much power and money at stake), but it's Survival vs. Utter Destruction, for human civilization. And, as much as I'm trying to broaden my perspective beyond merely what is best for humanity to what will maintain life on Earth, the transformation returning to a state of nature between nations is too much for this society to endure.

Edit:  I forgot to say the obvious:   STOP THE WAR! 

 --

The Best Picture

 

Tonight the Motion Picture Academy will present its awards for the 2025 films they choose to honor.  In truth, all the nominated films have received their honor; this is about the show, and I have to admit that I am a total sucker for it. Somehow, the drama of this entertainment vehicle that has a little entertainment (Conan O'Brien this year) and a lot of tension and time-wasting gets me emotionally involved.  I know, not everyone feels that way. 

Anyway, the scuttlebutt this year is focused on the award for Best Picture, which is deemed to be a battle between voters for Sinners and those for One Battle After Another (hereafter OBAA).  It's gotten serious lately with lots of invective thrown around by backers of one against the other.  It seems to boil down, among the litigants, to some questions about which is more cool, more hip, more woke.  OBAA is accused by Sinners-backers of cultural disrespect of blacks and, well, Sinners is, in part, what they say it is, a violent celebration of vampire culture. 

Sinners is more than that, and in fact is worthy of serious attention in many ways.  I abhor the vampire trope and have had more than enough of it, and I'm not going to make allowance for Sinners' attempt to humanize or celebrate it.  It's simply not part of actual human experience, and never will be. On the other hand, Sinners is drenched in the blues, which I can always handle, and in the reality of Depression Era South.  The acting performance as Smoke/Stack by Micheal B. Jordan in it is profound, Oscar-worthy to be sure, much different in its complexity than his supposed main opponents for Best Actor, the rogue table-tennis freak played by Timothee Chalamet or the burnt-out rebel freak played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Remember, we're supposed to be voting for the skill of the actor, not the fame of him, the unusual nature of the charactor, nor the incredible lengths to which Chalamet goes to perform a role.  Though Chalamet's is the kind of role that wins, at least in the old days. 

No, back to Best Picture--that award-upon-award can not be reduced to two films; ten are nominated, including some foreign ones, and even ones not in English..  Spreading the candidacy among so many worthy films will water down the numbers, so that voters are not all funneled into one camp or another.  The result, in the modern days, is that the award for Best Picture has become one that can be unpredictable, even so unanticipated that it was read incorrectly off the card once.  That uncertainty has made that particular award less anticlimactic (usually). along with its going to some extremely unusual recipients lately (Parasite, Moonlight, Childhood, Everything..you know the rest). 

My choice, and it is unambiguous, with due regard both for Sinners and OBAA, is Hamnet.  I will give credit to Adam Baidawi, in an article about the film that focused on its lead actor, Paul Mescal, that it is "a body blow of a film"*.  That understates it--it goes through the heart, deep into the soul, and pulls it out.  It is unquestionably "best", in the sense "more good than any other", because it is about being a better person, about love, in a way that those two leading movies fail to represent. It will make its viewers better, and thus the world. It is only accessible to anyone who has been a father, a son, a daughter, or especially, a mother, or any woman, not to mention fans of The Bard. It is not out of bounds to claim it to be at least on the same film-making level as the other two (maybe not box office, or special effects). In particular, lead actress Jessie Buckley, in an unforgettable series of careful, fetching nature and close-up shots, is considered by most to be a sure bet to win Best Actress.  Chloe Zhao, the director, has won an Oscar before (though that's not a positive), and she has worked magic with the story of Hamnet, which I can't wait to read.. 

I don't guess Chloe will win, and I will grieve for that, but we can only celebrate the successes of the eventual winner, who will be either Paul Thomas Anderson for OBAA (often nominated, never a winner) or Ryan Coogler for his incredibly creative realization of a bizarre, but in its own way,  grounded story. That Best Director winner usually lines up with the aforementioned overall winner.  Sinners is the favorite, because there is a strong historical correlation between nominations and winning (and Sinners has a record 16 of them).  But just remember also this:  there is no best picture--we're talking about art here.   

 

*Really an excellent article in GQ magazine--something I'd never see--that came to me out of the blue on my phone.  Mescal is a highly-trained and awarded actor who was superb in his role as "Will" but was not even nominated for Supporting Actor.  That is an extremely competitive category with, besides Mescal's, four "sure thing" kinds of performances:  both Benicio del Toro and Sean Penn for OBAA, Delroy Lindo for Sinners, and the unheralded possible winner (he won the Golden Globe) Stellan Skjarsgard (sp).  

Fury at Epic Deflection

 I have only a few minutes to comment on the Iran gambit, which I admit I did not expect to come to pass so soon.  It was so unnecessary to open this box of hornets* as the deal which restored a block on enrichment was available.  Instead Trump yielded to the persuasion of Netanyahu, who has a make-or-break election of his own very soon, and went for the war option. 

The success of killing Khamenei adds a lot of complication to the affair, which could've been executed in a less maximalist way, but it was perhaps the intelligence that the Supreme Leader was having an early-morning meeting with his defense leaders that led Trump to act immediately.  For this, no doubt we can credit an Israeli spy on site, or near it. 

I will say that one who will find benefit from this is Putin's Russia.  One more hostile nearby neighbor to subvert.  It will raise the price of oil, which also helps them.  China will protest the action, even in the Security Council, because they will raise the very valid point that assassination strikes against foreign leaders are not conducive to effective diplomacy or government. 

The fanatics among the leadership of Iran will seek revenge in unknown places and times, so we must be aware that risks of life and limb are associated with this stuff.  We can hope that someone--perhaps the President of the state survived?--will be allowed to surface safely and soon, requesting an end to the carnage.

He was Bored of Peace, I say.  But never bored with a piece of gold. 

 

*In the Greek legend of Pandora's box, after she opened it and released all the evils flying out into the world, there remained one small, glowing object--hope.  I think of that as a firefly.  

  

Happy Anniversary!

We think of annual remembrance as being a public event, like New Year's Day, or as some would have it, January 6, as an event worthy of an anniversary, with this one being the special crooked number 5. 

The anniversaries that mean more to me are the subjective ones.  Two examples: 

--I put on a t-shirt today that I dug up recently, going through a suitcase of old clothes for things to give away.  It's a nice white shirt, from Speedo, that was given at a Knicks game that I went to.  It helps me remember what was probably my best NBA game experience ever, from the period, roughly defined as the Patrick Ewing era, that I was a devoted follower with a share of season tickets. I noted that the 30th anniversary of it is coming up this February.  It was late Jordan, and all the 3-pointers were going in for the Knicks that day, who won by over 30 points. I'm keeping the shirt. 

--The date our marriage was celebrated in 1993 was September 11.  We find it very convenient for reserving a table at restaurants.

So, I have no objection if you celebrate an anniversary today.  If what you celebrate is the survival of our constitutionally-mandated Federal proceeding, despite the obstruction, okay.  If it's the riot. go tase yourself.  

Things Move Faster Now? 

I'm hearing a lot of "I can't believe it's been five years".  I feel, on the other hand, that from a political point of view, it has been five very long years, notwithstanding the slow pace of the cases against Trump (the cases against the rioters went much quicker).  He hit absolute bottom, faced a real prospect of having to run for it, but then, with the covering fire from his movement, was able to overrun his party and capture Our Flag. 

 January 6, 2021 at the US Capitol is very much analogous to November 8, 2023 in the Munich beer hall putsch .  It took Hitler almost 10 years to gain power; Trump's grab for almost unlimited power took only four.  The difference was the ability of today's wealthy insurrectionist-in-chief to buy protection in the US court system from high-end lawyers and compliant judges, with the substantial aid from a cross-section of US oligarchs. Somehow there was a finding that just running for President meant that he couldn't be tried for his most serious charges. 

Admittedly, Trump moved very fast since his inauguration, faster than he could effectively manage. I am observing this occasion by reviewing the hundreds of emails received in the month after the election, when the shock was receding and folks began to think about what was coming*.  It turns out that virtually all of what has happened was clearly foreseen--there were even hints of the Venezuelan Gambit and the Greenland Gluttony (Apparently Trump had already stared at the 2-D maps showing how f--ing big it appears to be).  

It was seen then that Trump 2.0 would be liberated from the restraints he observed (if unwillingly) in his first term. The story is emerging now that he considered a swap with Pootie of Ukraine for Venezuela, or of Greenland for Puerto Rico (sounds like a good deal for Denmark!)  Certainly people could see pardons for January 6 rioters (and we shouldn't have been surprised if Trump just auto-penned them),  The mutant monster known as DOGE was rising from the valley, but apart from its obvious giant footprint the extent of its cruel trail of destruction wasn't seen clearly. 

 

 

*The review is necessary to keep my email (of 25+ years) going; it's maxed out on its space, and I can't buy more.  Thing is, I don't have that policy of 'read and save or kill' when they come in. I get too busy.  I generate a page (usually from the last five years, when the size of emails increased) at random and plow through it.  This time, it was mid-December, 2024.   

 

  

  

Pottery Barn Status: Just a Crack?

One thing that the realization of the Venezuelan Gambit makes clear is poor Venezuela will be "run" no better than the US is "run" by these clowns.  That being said, the military and CIA had their act together impressively for the capture mission, and we are grateful for that. 

I do appreciate Rubio's expressed point of view, that this is just the removal of a corrupt, criminal leader*, and not a signal for massive violence or political upheaval.  It at least gets most of it over the hurdle of the questioning of the whole sordid affair and into the courts.  "It" being the complete disregard for the formalities before beginning the large-scale hostilities. 

It won't work, though, in my opinion.  Trump will give it a try, as the negotiations continue on his share of the oil revenue and on the mass return of the refugees. I have doubt whether he can succeed with this approach toward the current regime, the best outcome for him politically--a clean operation, declare victory, take the bump, move on--but we all know he has other options, as long as they don't involve a prolonged ground presence.  In his case, he might call up and use the poor National Guard of some compliant state to maintain security for oil workers. 

Having described the best possible outcome, we now have to consider the alternatives.  First is trouble from the official government and military of Venezuela, which so far has had a mixed reaction there: some are ready to cooperate, some take a more resistant stance.  It could merely be that they are not yet bought in to the new Trump system. So to speak. If they don't play along over the key transitional period of a few months to a year, though, it could get ugly. 

Next consider the opposition, as Trump Co. may end up having to do. The Trump approach surprised me by freezing the organized opposition out, after all the mutual flattery and the Nobel Prize nonsense for M.Machado.  In the long run, this could end up looking more like Cuba or Afghanistan than Iraq or Libya, especially if the general impression is that the Yanqui imperialists are stealing their money, once again, and meanwhile the bad deal they are getting from the government is continuing to bankrupt the nation. One thing I have yet to hear is the cost in Venezuelan lives of this initiative.   

Finally, the real deals.  What he's doing is effectively to help knock out one criminal narcotics conspiracy, on behalf of a larger, more organized one.  And what percentage is the Don going to get up front and from whom?  The oil project is a more long-term one that could end up working or falling disastrously short.  The reserves are there, if you can keep them.  In the very short term, there should be a drop in the commodity price for oil.  

 If he's smart, he will do what they did in Iraq, but more consistently and successfully, and "invite" the top 100 of the power figures of the formerly-Chavismo power structure headed by A. Maduro to depart, with a bar of gold bullion each.  Being very experienced in dealing with rampant inflation, they'll want that instead of questionable dollar assets. But depart they must. Then it'll be easier to impose his will and get his cut.  

Finally, it should help Dickhead Don in the continual battle to find domestic political distractions from the Epstein Files virus and from affordability. Gas prices should continue to help though the summer as a reaction to this.  Foreign affairs give Trump a lot more leeway to do his will when the courts can't or won't intervene. Congress will squawk but do nothing, and they already are disadvantaged because it happened while they slept.  If he doesn't watch it, though, he could become subject to arrest abroad at some point. The criminal.  

I have to admit that they brought this to a head faster than I thought they would.  I thought it would take more clear signs of impending recession to spark the attack. There was a little uptick in unemployment and continued Trump jawboning the interest rate, but we are all poorly-informed on the real prospects for the economy in the near future.  A big risk, but the phrase "world's largest crude oil reserves" was vibrating in Trump's feeble but cunning mind. 

My big question is:  how many fronts are we going to be dealing with, by the time this faux isolationist fait accompli artist+ is through?  I see four, easily: apart from potential rebellion in America South,  Israel trying to dominate in the Middle East, China squeezing Taiwan and disrupting the rest of East Asia, and Russia in the former Soviet Union, or even Eastern Europe.   And probably a politically weakened, physically collapsing, seat-of-diapered-pants driving greedmonger.  Think Baron Harkkonen going for the "spice", if you permit a "Dune" reference.   

  

 Epilogue: 

My draft response to Adam Kinzinger's video, which he taped just after Trump's press event, in frustration as the news kept changing early:  

I'm afraid I must resist the appeal not to jump to outcomes--which, after the safe return of the US capture operation personnel, and the count of Venezuelans lost in it, is all there are:   
I don't agree that "this is not Iraq"--there is the same lack of a clue of a plan.  Instead, this time it will be transactional negotiation at the point of a gun.  The main topics are the US cut of oil profits (and our loan will follow agreement) and allowing return of refugees on a large scale.  The current regime will not come to agreement, so they ("we") will move on to the next.  

Finally, the person who won the presidential election was not Nobel-prize winner Machado but the person the opposition put up when she was not allowed to run.  Gonzales.   Why not stick him in and then supervise elections, rather than invade and bomb?  (and help the oil industry there get back to production, of course) 

My response, edited: 

 I don't agree that "this is not Iraq"--there is the same lack of a clue of a plan.

the person who won the presidential election was not Nobel-prize winner Machado but the person the opposition put up when she was not allowed to run.  Gonzales.   Why not stick him in and then supervise elections, rather than invade and bomb?   

 

* I would suggest that the indictment should read, or should have read, "Conspiracy to distribute narcotics outside of usual cartel channels. "    I know the grand jury had to do it in a hurry.  

+Two French expressions in one sentence.  Is that too many?  

The 60 Minutes Interview was Fire

 Or, it was must-see TV, if that is clear.   

At least the part I saw. 

Norah O'Donnell had him on the defensive on the domestic issues, the ones that matter for the election this week.  OK, he could look haggard, black-circled eyes and bad makeup and hair, but his face looked Trumpian.  That's just jet lag, basically. 

The side view, though, that CBS went back to show time and again, showed a sodden, pyramidal Jabba-the-Hut-ish pile, sitting oddly on a high-backed chair with he fully six inches in front of it, spouting nonsense.

I saw her hammer him on his violations of law and order, ICE, the tariffs, and especially the shutdown.  He got aggressive, threw out the usual bullshit, and showed himself extreme and unwilling to compromise.  So, he didn't come back any wiser than when he left. 

He may have compensated in the last part, with the more softball questions that he could answer by throwing in his foreign affairs successes, his great relationship with Benyamin Netanhahu, how he could destroy this and that if he wanted to.  He got a chance to brag about Iran and look Presidential. He looked brutal and scary. But that was too late to save his numbers. 

He got a few digs at the Democrats, staying with the tired line about how "all they have to do is vote" for his bullshit, no changes, he won't be coerced. As for the Senate Republicans, he both threw them a bone ("nuke" that filibuster) and threw a bone at them, depending on your point of view.  

This was his last-minute shot at the elections this week:  pump the base's turnout.  The limitations of this approach show it to be very much short-term, basically a bet that 2026 will be OK, or a war. 

2028: The Final Question

Trump's blowing his cool was evident, particularly in the first part of the interview, as what was shown (edited; this time with his permission, I'm afraid) more than sufficed. It will definitely hurt the Repubicans' cause, if not in 2025, in the larger, later contests. I give CBS a little credit for asking some of the tough questions, a situation he rarely faces in a public setting. His answers were definitive, defining insanity itself.  He took great pains to saw his lines, pains to all, in fact. 

I had to go out for a minute, so I missed the part about destroying the environment, or about the Epstein File.  Maybe that's when they happened. 

But I did come back when we saw that we can finally stop worrying about 2028.  He basically admitted he won't do it, so why talk about it?  

Anyway, if he did find some underhanded way to do it and run, then Obama could counter it and do the same, even starting after the convention if necessary. I know just how he could do it, too--it would be to use the Electoral College for the Democrats cause, for once.* I think the White House's team of soulless skunks** realized that Obama could kick any of the Trump clan, or any other of the other guys in a fair fight. They're pretty much all the same, now.

The 2025 Preview, and to 2026

The Democratic response to the inputs that suggest the Republicans are making general-election level effort in Virginia and New Jersey, instead of off-year election level, then, is President Obama's appearance on the scene there.  Let's just make sure we get that extra 2-3% that didn't show up for Kamala. 

It's a very basic, sticking-with-fundamental strategy, if Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill represent the national Democrats' bid to regain the center in swing states, ones of the type that will absolutely be needed in 2028. It's a serious approach, with good, well-known candidates--a true test. 

There's a lot of talk of Mamdani, and the future he represents, and Gavin Newsom is the leading candidates for the states' resistance through the gerrymandering vote, which he seems sure to win.   Those last two weren't the target of the GOP's guns, though.  They are of relatively limited importance nationwide, unless Newsom fails somehow to deliver the numbers on the referendum, which would be career-ending and a significant handicap in Democrats' ability to counter the Republicans' power play for the House next year.  Finally, Andrew Cuomo looks ready to take the dive into the Hudson. 

I'm looking at two states in particular next year, beyond individual congressional races in a few states and an interesting shot at picking up a Senate seat in Alaska.  They are Texas and Ohio, two states given up as hopeless after the 2024 voters there gave  Kamala/Biden's administration the heave-ho by ten percent or more.  James Talarico (or Colin Allred or Beto, if they surprise me) in the Lone Star State represents a more convincing case to get that extra 5% or more the Democrats have been seeking in statewide elections since the turn of the century, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio is looking to reverse his 2024 Senate loss by tackling the appointee (elected only to whatever) Governor Dewine picked to fill J.D. Vance's hole. So to speak. We're going to need wins there; if we get them, we can take back control of the Senate, filibuster or no. 

 

*You know, the states' Electors--they can be pledged to vote for Obama or the Nominee of the Democratic...)    

** What's left of the White House, that is, the dank dungeon parts.  The soulless skunks, they remain a-plenty. 

The Shutup

I'm taking off the filters and calling the thieves and reactionaries for what they are in this post, so please excuse the blunt and uncouth language, if you can. 

This ending of approved Federal government funding is a "massive opportunity", as King Dickhead I himself said, but for different reasons than the ones he cited.  The Democrats are holding many government activities hostage, as a weaker force surrounded by hostile enemies is wont to do (see Hamas).  The hostages should not all be released, but only in exchange for real benefits to our people, and for real political damage to Trump 2.0 and its attempts to steal the 2026 elections, our last real hope to save our polity.  

The continuing resolution ploy proposed by the Republicans in Congress is a trap into which our Opposition must not fall, even though its allocation of spending is undoubtedly much better than the alternative, the painstaking working through budget negotiations which is going to produce only terrible outcomes, which the "CR" approach would allow to happen (though the time frame originally proposed for it will be over before you know it).  

Instead, some budgeting should be approved and others blocked. Military pay and air traffic controllers  should get paid.  The alternative to paying our soldiers is not only unjust, but also quite dangerous:  history tells us that soldiers who are not paid are likely to rebel.  In this case, Dickhead and Kegbreath having pissed off the top brass tremendously, the coup threat of that outcome is multiplied.  A regime headed by our military, though disastrous to our constitutional republic, would likely be less oppressive and dangerous than what is happening now, to our nation and to the military itself.  But that's short-term thinking:  pay our military, we will give you the votes.  

Same with the air traffic controllers:  we want them to show up for work.  The alternative there is bloody, for certain.  And while you're at it, add funding to get more of them. 

No money for ICE--forget about the Big Stupid Bill's provisions, entirely. No money for the State Department, which is doing us wrong in the world.  No money for EPA, FTC, CFPB, Energy, all of which have been captured by our opponents and are working diligently to eviscerate their stated missions.  The eventual funding for the DOJ and the FBI could be restored, after the full and mostly unredacted Epstein Files virus is spread upon the land.  Protect only the names of the victims.  I for one do want to see the video Jeffrey took of some young girly jacking off our future Dicktator with her face blurred beyond recognition. Other Homeland Security provisions could get approval, on the condition that ICE Barbie is replaced with someone who knows what is right and wrong, nothing more. 

Funding for the IRS should be approved--we don't want the rich grifters and conmen to get away unaudited--but the price for that is something that will benefit us all in the long run and hurt the Republicans in 2026:  an agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, a regressive tax that benefits only the high-income people and will eventually imperil the whole program. Suck it up, tax cheats! 

As for funding our judiciary, the price for that is some reasonable term limits on future appointments.  We can promise not to stack the Supreme Court when we get power back in 2029 in exchange for that.  Right.

Budget negotiations ultimately can begin--say, next year, when the pain becomes extreme, but on the conditions that Congress pass legislation removing Presidential immunity (in particular, we need personal accountability in the form of civil damages) for illegally impounding funds or spending unauthorized ones, and that electoral ratfucking of the 2026 elections will be criminally prosecuted. I'm sure those are both illegal areas of proposed Project 2025 evil, but it needs to be restated.  Make Trump veto them. 

The tough call is really the healthcare question, the hill Congressional Democrats have decided to defend at all costs.  We should all be fully aware that, if we get into negotiations with the Republicans on restoring the cuts, doing so in a way that can become law, they will put a variety of asterisks on the funding that will make it painless for theirs and painful for ours.  It's all or nothing--rescind the cuts in their entirety, or no deal.  

Yes, the Republicans may ultimately counter by removing the 60-vote requirement for ending Senate filibusters.  I'm OK with that, as it has been weakened tremendously already as a safeguard.  It will cause a lot of bad in the short run, but when we get the trifecta back in 2029, and that is already on the table, we will be able to reverse their illegality with the force of law.  For all its noise and fury, Dickhead 2.0 has operated almost entirely through Presidential orders, the majority of which violate the law, though the emergency lawsuits and restraining orders often can only close the barn door too late to prevent harm.   

While we're at it, give the judiciary some enforceable force. It won't cost very much, and it would make a big difference.  Basically, make US marshals answer also to Federal judges, with their jobs and more, and provide gun-toting protection for Congresspeople (when they ask for it) and courtrooms. 

More Domestic Disgrace

 

 I am annoyed that the latest news from the US' political quagmire must take precedence over subjects that are much more fun, like sports, music, film, the beauty of this season, or more consequential, like preserving that which remains of our planet's beauty and bounty. Some subjects in the US' current disaster and recent escalation of violence, physical and verbal,  need to be addressed, even if their importance is transitory. 

Unforgiven 

In the above film, without a doubt one of the greatest in the history of the genre called "Westerns" the Clint Eastwood character makes the following statement as he rides to an expected violent confrontation in a lawless town: 

It's a hell of a thing to kill a man.  You take away all that he's got, and all that he's ever gonna have.

That is my main reaction to the murder of the man, Charlie Kirk, shot down as he engaged in political debate at a Utah college. It is the same I would have for anyone unjustly killed, like the students in too many schools, or other victims of politically-motivated violence in the US.

 I mourn for his family, and that he will never have the opportunity to redeem himself from his hateful, bigoted rhetoric.  Because I do believe it could have been possible; he seemed sincere in his beliefs, but he needed that critical human encounter that might have changed his mind and his tone. Enough about him, though.  I reject the attempt to make him a martyr for his cause, because his cause is not just.   And I never followed him or read any of his words when alive, so his death is no personal loss for me. 

One thing more I want to say:  we should not assume anything about why the killer did it, not until we have more evidence or capture the perpetrator.  I would submit that the shooter was either extremely lucky, or more likely a highly skilled marksman, given the range and angle indicated for the single shot that pierced Kirk's neck.  

We Should Let it Shut Down for Awhile 

The product of this Trump final term is all bad--all of it.  This, once again, is no surprise, and this is all part of his evil plan.  We who oppose it have no reason to facilitate its continuation. 

The Republicans in the Senate need seven Democratic votes (at a minimum) to continue normal operations of the Federal government beyond the end of September.  My position is that we will not call them, they must call us, and what they have to offer to get any support is a major change in direction, one that will force Trump to sign, or veto, and thus accept that his power will be diluted, or that he will own the shutdown that results. 

My suggestion, once again, is that in order for Democrats to fall in line with a resumption of government function, there must be a reversal of tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for consumers.   The best way to do most of this is through a bipartisan agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, which end annually at about $160k of income per year. The resulting revenue increase will fund the program indefinitely and scale down the budget deficit problem.  Direction on tariffs should follow; Congress could give Trump some authority to set them, subject to Congress' oversight.  Finally, the measure must include language which restates what the Constitution demands: that money cannot be spent without Congressional authorization, and that spending approved by Congress and signed into law must be spent (with strictly limited exceptions). 

Democratic Senators who do not show toughness in this moment must be voted out. By us. 

More About Migration 

In a very recent post, I went over some of the basic, global principles that govern the movement of people, those that should apply, and those that will remain regardless of the obstacles. The current immigration policy violates all of them, but it is really the enforcement policy, with its violence and unnecessary cruelty, that makes us cringe. 

 We need to rethink the whole attitude toward our treatment of undocumented immigrants and stop the outrageous violations of our own laws.  If we have fair policies on the treatment of those here without the rights of citizens or of residency or visitation, if they are understood, defended by our citizens and implemented with respect for individuals and consistency,  then, maybe, we could move toward an intelligent strategy, one which will then end excessive migration into the country and allow for a true reckoning of those who reside here.  

The main point is that the US should not be the nation where people can burrow into hiding indefinitely without the knowledge of the authorities, which is the root of the issue today.  

We must accept true refugees from the Americas, seeking political asylum or escaping cataclysmic economic or environmental failures, for as long as is necessary, and we should apply sound judgment to those whose move here would be voluntary, not forced by circumstance, in order to enhance our society.  

 

Diplomacy in the Age of Indiscretion

 When Trump meets Putin in their summit in Alaska, he should start out in the way he does with all the other heads of state--demand the outrageous, as a gift.  In this case, Kamchatka:  I'm sure he has learned its strategic importance, like Greenland's, from playing Risk.  He can claim the Russians have not properly developed its colonization there, no doubt citing some disaffected indigenous complaints, or manufacturing them. Truth is, the population of that wintry and volcanic wilderness has dropped 40% in the last 3 decades.  He's been saying publicly that there would be a "swap", with territories going both ways.  I'm pretty sure he knows the Russians will not give back their conquered lands in the Ukraine, so maybe this?  Doing this would let Putin know that his is no longer automatically a "most favored nation" in Trump's eyes, unless the Russians kowtow.  

Why would he think he could be the arrogant strongman with Putin, when he has been so pusillanimous toward him in the past?  The key could be the Epstein Files virus; since it is out, and he is (partially) outed, perhaps the compromat that Putin had on him all along is no longer so salient.  Just a theory; I'm sure Vladimir has a few details he could remind Donald of, if they get a moment to speak privately.  The tipoff will be if Trump is his usual overconfident, aggressive self, or if he is deferential to the little thug. In this particular case, I'm looking for the bully side to come out, here on our own turf. 

There are enough other topics that Russia and the US could have a productive summit without spoiling it with unproductive yelling sessions about Ukraine.  You know, nuclear weapons, the fate of mankind, that kind of thing. At least the Ukraine war kiss-off could be scheduled toward the end of the meeting, with everyone going back to their corners afterwards.  If, at the end of that session, Trump is in the corner with Russia, he will have failed country and mankind once again.  

Since we expect nothing, our President must be instructed to tell Putin he will not win his war, that this is his chance to avoid failure.  To drive the point home, if the meeting fails utterly, sanctions should be expected.  But more:  Trump should subtly get Putin to understand there would be an increase in Ukraine's armaments, should there not be, at a minimum, a ceasefire.  Call it an armistice, it sounds more official. 

I do hope I'm not too late with this advice.  

The International Court of Justice Would Say It's Against the Law

 Its recent ruling was clear and directive:  climate change causes harm to people, therefore it is expected that states will do what they can to mitigate the damage.  If they do not, they are liable.  That responsibility is not only for those countries which have entered into international accords, or in our case that have exited them abruptly, or that have committed themselves (or have not done so) to measures to reduce fossil fuel emissions.  Here's a legacy of Drumpfenreich 2.0 and its abhorrence of our natural environment--we will be paying for it for decades down the road. 

The ICJ is easily confused with the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, Netherlands, an institution to which the USA does not belong.  The ICJ, on the other hand, is a central part of the UN's function, helping to define international law and adjudicate disputes, and the USA actually has a judge on the court's panel.  This "member" is Sarah Cleveland, appointed to the Court in 2024. So, we must obey? Tell it to the Republicans in Congress which just made policy going high-speed in reverse. 

Migration 

We in the US tend to think of this as our unique domestic issue, but it is not only a global one, it is intrinsic to human nature.  When it's not working out where they live, people will look to go somewhere they think gives them a better chance. This has been true since the earliest days of our species, and it's an important reason why we're still around.  

Is there not a basic human right to live where one wants to be?  Anyone might agree, in the abstract, that one should not be forced to stay, any more than that they be forced to leave. 

 Having said that, then all of the qualifications on that statement line up to oppose it.   There are, or should always be, many reasons to stay.  The impulse to go must be stronger than all one's many ties holding them back. In that sense, they are forced to leave--an important consideration in today's view of migrants.  In the more common case, there are ties to those who have gone before, and thus the scale is tipped more toward it being voluntary. In either case, though, there is the question of whether they could lose their right ever to return, which affects their choices and their status in society. .

Even more immediate for those departing, though, is the question of whether they can stay at their destination, if indeed they have had the luxury of choosing it.   The reaction of those already residing at the destination cover the entire range of responses, from effusive welcome to hostile gunfire.  Thus it has always been. 

In modern times, though, it has become a matter of the policy of nations with regard to the borders with their neighbors. For a century the US has been a leader in the strategy of defining limits on the numbers of immigrants permitted, factored by nation of origin of the immigrant.  It is the reduction in the effectiveness of those controls, which favor certain countries of origin, to which Trump rebels in the pattern of recent migration originating from the southern border.  To be clear, that means not enough racism of the right kind. 

Regardless of the regrettable Trump policies, which are extreme in the sense that they violate that basic right to remain where one lives, compounding it with brutality and the most destructive of motives, the Democrats have lacked a counter-strategy that has any electoral effectiveness.  In retrospect, I would say it was not their adherence to principle that was the problem but a lack of flexibility to the dynamics of intra-continental migration.  Going forward, they should advocate for adhering to those natural, age-old principles, like neighboring countries being the first refuge for forced refugees, national discretion over  the volumes of voluntary migrants based on economic and social considerations, global responsibility for reconstruction, preventive action to avoid environmental disasters.