It's Past Time For All The Dem "Minnows" (Vanity Candidates) To Exit The Debate Stage

"I predicted that either Corey, or Beto or Castro were going to do the John Kasich suicide pact. 'I'm just gonna go for the front runner and try and take him down'.  That's the only way he could bring attention to himself."  - Jason Johnson, on MSNBC Post Debate Analysis last night.

"It was just a stupid thing to do.  Democrats want to be united this time, and don't want their differences exploited by the Republicans.  Everybody's a pundit now and when they watch they're going to be asking 'Are Republicans going to turn this into a talking point?'  If you do go that route you electrocute yourself."  - Jonathan Alter, on MSNBC Post Debate Analysis last night.

"This is why these presidential debates are becoming unwatchable. It just reminds everybody of what they cannot stand  about Washington. Scoring points against each other, poking at each other..."  - Pete Buttigeig last night in the ABC debate.

"I think Secretary Castro who likes to talk about learning from history, clearly didn't learn from the first two debates.  Taking personal, cheap shots at Vice President Biden actually doesn't work out that well particularly for the candidate who takes such shots.  Especially since Castro's claims were factually inaccurate. Many reporters covering the debate have already pointed out that what Castro said simply was not true."-  Anita Dunn, political commentator, on MSNBC last night

It is more than past time for all the Democratic candidate minnows - not serious contenders - to get out of the public eye and especially cease the rhetorical bomb throwing and spilling their bile in the debates.  What stood out last night was Julian Castro's desperate ploy using ageism to try to take down  Joe Biden .    The debate point was whether people who can't afford health care would be automatically enrolled in   Biden's health plan and not have to "buy in".   Biden clearly stated "They do not have to buy in", but Castro tried to portray him as having the classic "senior" moment, e.g.

"Are you forgetting what you said two minutes ago?  You forgetting already what you said two minutes ago? I can't believe that you said two minutes ago that they had to buy in and now you're saying they don't have to buy in. You're forgetting that."

In fact, Biden wasn't forgetting a damned thing. He said they did not have to buy in and Castro merely used the opportunity as a "Hey, look at me!" moment.  Basically, to use the parlance of commentator Jason Johnson, resurrecting Repub John Kasich's own suicide pact idiom.  As Jonathan Alter and other commentators have noted it was a patently stupid move, and likely even cost Castro a VP spot.  It was a desperation move to try to get attention like Kamala Harris tried to pull on Biden using the school busing issue two months ago. Now, look what's happened to all the losers who tried to tar Biden, including Eric Swallwell and Kamala Harris.  They are tanking as 1 percent poller Castro now will (well, even more than he is).

Below are a few brutal facts for any political observers out there, or viewers, readers who have a serious interest in the Democratic primary and future candidate:

1) ALL the primary candidates and indeed all who would be the elected president in the 2020 general election are septuagenarians.  That list includes: Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Trump.  Like it or not those will be your choices, so get over the fetishism for some young Turk or stud, or pining  for a "young blood" to save the nation's bacon..  Ain't gonna happen, no more than aliens landing in the middle of the White House lawn.  So you're stuck with oldies. Deal with it. (But don't use that as an excuse not to vote!)

2)  Like Joe Biden or hate him, his consistent 20 plus percent polling is based on very firm African-American support, up to 48 %.  Unless other candidates come close to that command there is no way they will compete with Biden for the primary, and offer any competition to Trump in the general.

3) The outlier candidates (Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennett, Tim Ryan, John Hickenlooper, Julian Castro et al) never really stood a chance against those with top name recognition.. All they did was clutter the debate stage, distort the debate format and distract viewers.  Hence, their belief in the "Trump model" - that an outlier could get the presidency again - was misplaced..

The only three serious Dem candidates (i.e. who have any chance), according to the Real Clear Politics (and other)  polling are Biden, Sanders and Warren. Harris - who took her cheap shot at Biden earlier  - is now barely scratching at 7.2 % while the Dem trio are all at 20 percent plus.   In other words, the other seven candidates are all minnows who stand no more chance of reaching the primary than I have of being elected Pope.  Sorry, that's the reality, the way it is.

The irritating D- minnows have merely led their own vanity campaigns, and also - in multiple instances - provided fodder for Trump and the Republicans in attacking the main candidates and sowing divisions. Castro did it last night and in the first debate in Miami. There he pinned everyone down on border crossings - and we saw all those hands go up - and Republicans had wet dreams on how they could use the scene in ads.  Castro is a minnow, and a toxic one at that, who needs to recognize - like the other minnows - that his 15- plus minutes of fame are up.

 That includes the irrepressible Beto O'Rourke who also is a bottom feeder with nothing to lose, so felt emboldened to yelp; "Hell yeah we're comin'  for your AR-15s and AK-47s too!"    Thereby scrambling  a reasoned Democratic message on gun control, as Sen. Chris Coons pointed out in the wake of Beto's bark. Oh, and providing fresh fodder for RNC ads and adding fuel to an already hot fire stoked by the Foxites warning of "blood and civil war" if the Ds try to take their friggin' weapons away.

This is not to say Beto's passionate statement was 100% wrong, but just mis-timed, out of place. You don't belt out a full -throated gun seizure vow on a national  debate stage in front of 14  million viewers when your party's trying to oust Trump. Especially given many of those watching are independents and look askance at any suggestion of government force to seize  their guns.   Suggest voluntary assault weapons' buybacks? Yeah sure! But not outright seizures, unless you want to toss red meat to the GOOps to use next year.

 So we also need Beto  to get out of the picture and leave the stage to the 'big boys' - the actual players polling at least in double digits.

Castro's antics as well as Beto's and Harris' (in the 1st debate)  show why indeed these fulsome media encounters have merely become vanity exercises.  They provide a disproportionate stage for those without a snowball's chance in hell to reach the primary,  to pop off  and toss rhetorical bombs  in desperation.  All to the detriment of the party-  and the eventual Dem nominee.

It's a damned annoyance and I am certain wifey and yours truly aren't the only ones who believe so. We need the DNC to exact higher debate qualification thresholds to finally reduce the debate stage  to the three prime contenders.  This as opposed to being cluttered with the ego-besotted minnow pretenders.  Pretenders whose only recourse is to now become 'bomb throwers' or Kasich suicide pact emulators - to the detriment of the front runners and the party.

Take the cue from John Hickenlooper, pack  up your vanity bags and leave. Hasta la vista, minnows!

That's my 0.02 and I am sticking with it!

See also:

Cody Fenwick

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (1)

2020 Elections | Democrats

Here Are the 4 Winners and 3 Losers of the Democratic Primary Debate

Mueller Report Is Out - Summary Soon To Come- Now Everyone Needs To Take A Chill Pill

Robert Mueller, special counsel, turned in his report Friday.



Letter from AG William Barr, sent to  congress on Friday.

Can we admit now that the much anticipated Mueller Report has finally been released - after 22 months - the media is going pop-eyed, gobsmacked bonkers?   What about when the summary is released in another 30 minutes? Will they still be in feeding frenzy mode? Yes, they will!  They have  hours of time to fill and what better way than bloviate and speculate?  

 In the aftermath of the release on assorted news and pundit shows from Friday evening through Sunday, it's been like a total 24/7 cable (and satellite news) feeding frenzy.  Feeding almost entirely on speculation concerning what will and will not appear, and whether Mueller was cowed by the Dotard in giving no other indictments.  Kind of forgetting the 34 already handed down, including 12 GRU agents.  

Much hand wringing  -  including by Janice and many other liberals -  has been that FOX News and the Right will use any ambiguity or loose ends - as well as failure to indict for conspiracy (not "collusion" which has no federal statute) -  as a means to blow the result out of proportion. i.e. in Trump's favor: "See! No collusion! All a witch hunt!"  And even, god forbid, to "weaponize" the report as a way of propelling Trump's re-election.

As I told Janice, we already knew that whatever the result, the Repukes would seek to spin it in their favorite traitor's favor, and especially to further propagandize the 20 m zombies hooked on FOX News. That's just the way they roll, and no one can be astonished they'd fight like cornered rats to protect the 'boss' rat.  

But all this is premature in terms of what Mueller actually found. And bear in mind underlying the summary - which AG William Barr (see his letter above) will deliver any minute now, there could still be a web of elements that - while not pointing to  specific criminal acts- point to definitely impeachable ones. That includes outright demonstrations of obstruction of justice, as well as violating the Emoluments clause to enrich himself and family while in office.   Even if AG Barr and Rod Rosenstein find nothing on which to hang a crime, you can bet your last dime the Dems will - and they will insist on all ancillary evidence to do it.

In effect, too many hand wringers seem to forget the biggest lift was always going to be by the Dem -governed House, not Robert Mueller. Mueller  was never a "savior" given he was restricted to investigating specific criminal behavior, while the purview of the House Committees extends to high crimes and misdemeanors.  As Michigan Rep. Dan Kildee, 

Pointed out on MSNBC barely 2 1/2 weeks ago, House Dems have a constitutional obligation to provide checks and balances on a run amuck, deranged occupant of the WH. In other words, to hold Trump accountable for his actions.  Moreover, as noted by Rep. Kildee:

 "We in congress have to get to the bottom of this because unfortunately, we can no longer trust the U.S. attorneys operating under the supervision of William Barr, the attorney general, are actually going to turn over the findings of their investigations."

This is an extremely critical and relevant point!

It also means Barr and the other sources (FBI docs, grand jury material)  that factored into the Report - via whatever evidence - will have to be provided to the specific Committee (e.g. Judiciary) that demands it.   As Jerrold Nadler stated after the release, and Rep. Eric Swallwell seconded on 'Real Time' with Bill Maher, anything less than full transparency will be met by subpoenaing the full report, as well as likely calling Mueller and Barr to testify.

In the meantime, citizens need to recognize we're in a "holding patter" until Barr releases whatever he has.  Hopefully the summary today or tomorrow, and then as much as possible of the actual report. If not, if he stonewalls or isn't forthcoming with all details, the House Dems will do what they need to do, and hold Trump, Barr and even Mueller to account if need be. 

 The main thing now? Be patient!  Yes, read the summary the DoJ is going to release any minute and maybe hear a few talking heads' opinions on CNN or MSNBC. Then get away from the 24/7 news cable cycle and read a good book like I am.  Anyway, please go to:


See also:

Donald Trump | Robert Mueller

Mueller's End, and Only Trump's Beginning

by P.M. Carpenter | March 23, 2019 - 6:33am | 

And:

Donald Trump

These 6 Ongoing Legal Threats Continued to Loom over Trump — Regardless of What the Mueller Report Says

by Matthew Chapman | March 23, 2019 - 6:45am | 

And:

Donald Trump

Witch Hunts and Learning From History

by Jaime O'Neill | March 24, 2019 - 5:35am | permalink

Trump's Revocation Of John Brennan's Security Clearance Undermines U.S. Security - And Proves Again Why He Merits The Hangman's Noose

The  traitor occupying the WH and what he deserves.... now more than ever

 "Trump's claims of 'no collusion' are hogwash. Trump  clearly has become  more desperate to protect himself and those close to him which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance....I've seen this type of behavior on the part of foreign tyrants and despots. I just never ever thought I'd see it in the United States. " John Brennan yesterday.  

"The message this sends to the intelligence community is don't tell the president anything he doesn't want to hear."  - Andrea Mitchell, on Morning Joe' today

"I call it the rigged witch hunt.... it's a sham and these people led it. So something had to be done."  The Traitor -in -chief, quoted in WSJ

"I've sensed in the last week or two a kind of quickening or panic on the part of the president and the people around him about the way the walls are closing in. So this has the feel of an act of desperation, particularly when you see how transparent it is." - Former Acting CIA Director John McLoughlin

As the news of the Traitor Trump revoking the security clearance of former CIA head John Brennan broke yesterday, the mainstream media again delivered interpretations based more on superficial takes than any deep politics insight.  For example, that the move was a blatant distraction coming as it has after a week the maggot-ridden White House has been rocked by the Manafort trial (where Trump's former campaign manager could  face life in the slammer for banking and tax fraud), and by allegations of using the N-word from former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman.

 Brennan's use of the T word was also given as a reason for Trump's "payback" e.g.

"Trump's press conference was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin."

But the more serious and sober take is that the Traitor filth desecrating the White House  by virtue of his illegitimate occupation has endangered U.S. security - which I will get to in a bit.

Reading a prepared statement in the White House briefing room, the inbred press propagandist and liar, Huckleberry Sanders,  railed against Brennan. She claimed “he has leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive info to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on internet and television about this administration” 

In other words, cutting all the fulsome crap, Mr. Brennan just issued an honest assessment of the dipshit poseur  we have  fouling the White House.  A pretender, grifter and conspirator with a foreign adversary who ought to have been hung by the neck long ago. 

Sanders also said Brennan’s “lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets”.  Sounds to me like she's talking about her master Dotard -who spills state secrets to foreign adversaries like he spills bullshit from his Twitter account. (Such as early last year when he met privately in the Oval Office with Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak and raised the hackles of U.S. security officials  with what he voluntarily shared with the Russians  NO, you can't make this shit up!)

On Twitter, Brennan responded by saying: “This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent.”

He added in an MSNBC interview: “This is not going to deter me at all. I am still going to speak out.” He described it as an effort “to cow individuals inside and outside the US government” and compared it to behavior from “foreign tyrants and despots”. (See top quote)

In other words, Brennan will not stand idly by while a traitor tries to strip away his first amendment rights. This brings us to the more critical issue, that the revocation is hurting Brennan and removing a "courtesy" as opposed to endangering our country. 

As  former Bush security official Fran Townsend explained it this morning on CBS: 

"Many of us, former security officials, maintain our security clearances because we volunteer our time back to the government.  This is not a professional courtesy as the White House has suggested. We do this out of a sense of continuing public service. So the notion that you're going to pull somebody's clearance because you don't like what they say is deeply disturbing and very offensive, frankly."

An even more serious perspective was noted on 'All In' last night by former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. He emphasized that John Brennan was the "point person" for the take down of Osama Bin Laden back in May, 2011.  If anyone then had the right - and indeed obligation - to enumerate the current occupant's multiple failures to discharge the duties attendant on a solemn office, it was John Brennan. He also, more than anyone else, has earned the right to declare how  all Americans need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government, and how abnormal, irresponsible and dangerous these actions are.  

Yes, Trump is acting under Article II powers (under the assumption of being a legitimate president - which he is not), but the reasons given for Brennan's revocation fall nowhere in the document criteria for such action. (There are 13 stated reasons for revoking a security clearance in the 26-page Executive Directive governing standards for classification and security clearances, as well as revoking them.  Not one of them matches anything close to what Sanders provided in the July 26 (dated) WH statement.)

For many of us who've been engaged in deep politics research it is self-evident our government is being subverted from within by a literal Manchurian candidate. This isn't hysterical,  nor is it "hype".  It is as factual and real as a heart attack.  We gloss over it or dismiss it at our peril.  What is the nature of that peril?  As former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes set it out, regarding John Brennan's import:

"John Brennan was the point person in the Obama White House on the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. He knows a lot more about defending our nation than someone who uses security clearances to punish his political adversaries."

Hence, and following on from Fran Townsend's take on CBS this a.m., this is precisely the person you want to keep close to you - including with security clearance - in a hostile world laden with threats, whether from ISIS,  North Korean missiles, or homegrown terrorists. As Rhodes put it: "He knows more about terrorism than just about anyone in this country. Given any great threat to the American people you would want him as a resource".  

Hence, to remove his security clearance in a fit of pique, is to put this country in danger. If one is opposed to any form of terror, one does not remove the single person who can help you ferret out and take down the bad guys before an attack happens.  One must thereby conclude Trump is happy leaving this nation exposed to another Sept. 11th  type of attack. In other words, confirming his traitor bona fides. Rhodes himself was blunt about Trump's motivations in his appearance on 'All In' last night, e.g.:

"You asked about motivation. Donald Trump and his associates are under investigation for potentially conspiring with a foreign adversary to undermine our democracy. That investigation has already produced indictments and guilty please and that is closing in on Trump and his associates."

As I said, a traitor.  And no, I am not afraid to use that word as too many mealy -mouthed Milquetoasts in the media (i.e. NBC's Chuck Todd)  are. I call a spade a spade.  So does Rep. Eric Swallwell, also appearing on 'All In' last night. In his words:

"It makes us less safe. The security clearance is not to benefit John Brennan. It's not to benefit any of the other officials who worked in the Obama administration. It's to benefit us. So that when Gen. Mattis, and CIA director Gina Haspel and others consider threats against the United States they can reach back and talk to people who have faced the same threats and get their candid advice."  

Smallwell went on to relate how he called another security official to ask if he was overreacting to what Trump did.  The official emphatically stated 'no way' - and what Dotard has done makes the country less safe. Indeed, it could become manifestly much worse, as the list of former security officials also lose their own security clearances, so can offer no insight or inputs. All this because they may have said something on MSNBC that riled the traitor, as opposed to becoming his lapdogs and sycophants.

As Swallwell put it: - "There will often be a number of decisions that have to be made on the fly and require information- in a life or death situation -  that only officials in prior administrations have access to...."

Does Trump need to be hung before he causes vastly more damage? Before he subverts this nation and its principles much further?  Before he opens us up to terror attacks?  You decide. I've already made my mind up, and I know that my Revolutionary War ancestors would agree.


See also:

Trump Admits the Real Reason He's Targeting Former Intel Officials — and It All Comes Back to Russia

And:

'Drunk on Power': Former CIA Director John Brennan Comes Out Swinging Against Trump and the Republicans in Maddow Interview