Showing posts with label Julian Castro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julian Castro. Show all posts

Friday, September 13, 2019

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's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (1)

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Mueller's 9 Minutes of Fame Punts The Ball To Congress As Trump & Co. Continue Spinning More Lies


Image result for brane space, mueller
Robert Mueller delivering his nine minute statement earlier today, which left most Americans seeking courage, unimpressed.

"Bob, your trail of bread crumbs just isn't good enough. We're just not that smart anymore! America is now an aging shortstop.  You have to hit it right at us."  Bill Maher on Real Time, Friday, April 26, on why Mueller's indirect, detached approach is useless

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."  - Robert Mueller, earlier today.


Well, at least one major milestone was passed earlier today, we finally got to hear Mueller's voice live and in person. No filters. The problem is it was mostly pro forma and the message enunciated: "If you want to see what I found, read the report."  Righto, like 100 million Americans will now rush to read it ASAP. Hell, I already published the 'juiciest' parts of Vol. II (with all the obstruction behavior involving WH Counsel Don McGhan that- propelled  GOP Rep. Justin Amash to call for impeachment) and  42  have read it to date. Not an auspicious sign.  On the upside, reading between the lines - or rather interpreting between Mueller's careful words- one beheld he wasn't letting Trump off the hook. Also, it was now time for House Dems & Pelosi to get some cojones and initiate impeachment inquiry - at least.

Bottom line: Mueller punted again but basically - in his Volume II - left the means to bring impeachment proceedings against the Vulgarian criminal fouling the highest office.  On the other hand, he isn't keen for any more public appearances, basically averring if the House Dems subpoena him to testify all he will do is read what's already been published, nothing more. Well, hell, at least it will be kinda like a parent reading a bedtime story to his kid - when the kid wouldn't have opened the book on his own.  It would be better than nothing, and hey, for each question Mueller could direct willing readers to the key parts of Volume I or II as he reads. It sure beats the Mr. Silent Sphinx Act we've beheld the past two years. At this point we will take anything, and so should Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems.  Pelosi claims she's still seeking facts and evidence of obstruction, but what do you call Trump's universal blocking of all subpoenas  - laughing them down, blowing them off - as he metaphorically pisses down the Dems' throats and laughs?

Finally launching an impeachment  might even shut up Trump and his top sycophant ass licker, Sara Sanders, who predictably came out with their own forlorn lying spin and distortions, yapping crap like "case closed", and "it's time to move on."  No, it's time for impeachment!

Mueller himself in his 9 minute spiel gave the usual reasons cited earlier for not going the whole hog and failing to issue and indictment: basically that DOJ policy (from the Office of Legal Counsel) "doesn't allow it".  Which is bull pockey. It's only a guideline, a policy after all, not an iron clad law or rule. And we've seen in the past two months how Dotard has spit on norm after norm blocking subpoenas  while congress is made to sit on its fingers fuming.  The correct interpretation of Mueller's citation of limits in issuing an indictment is:  "We found Trump guilty but the DOJ wouldn't allow us to say it."

Never mind. Dotard and his retinue of sycophants tried to spin this to mean "exoneration".   The first tool they used was to interpret a partial affirmation as a total negation. Thus, Mueller admitted he found "insufficient evidence" to identify a conspiracy with the Russians (in Vol. I). But Trump, his malleable cow press secretary Huckleberry Sanders and others tried to portray that as meaning "nothing was found" and hence "exoneration".  Nope, because insufficient evidence is not the same as zero evidence. One may have insufficient evidence a neighbor bludgeoned his wife with a hammer, as there are bloody fingerprints on it. But there is no confirming DNA evidence to match the suspect to the actual weapon and crime.

Mueller did (in Vol. 2) identify 10 incidents in which Trump attempted to obstruct justice, for example by firing the director of the FBI, though he stopped short of charging the Dotard with a crime.  Never mind, because again by the OLC guidelines Mueller's hands were cuffed on the issue of finding crimes. (As already explained.) But again, he clearly left the process open for congress to pursue "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Article I powers allotted to it.  

Mueller himself fucked up badly during his soliloquy,  asserting:

"A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.  That is unconstitutional."

No, it would not. As one legal specialist and former prosecutor noted on MSNBC, "there hasn't even been a court decision to render a verdict on constitutionality".  Adding, he could find just as many to assert it was constitutional as not. In the end it is an OLC "guideline" that appears no where in the Constitution per se.

As MSNBC legal specialist Ari Melber and others put it (e.g. former DOJ spokes person Matt Miller) it wasn't a 100 % nothing burger. There were some actual ounces of 'meat' in the statement terms of Mueller saying (between the lines, as it were): "I could not deliver a criminal prosecution but congress can still act on its own".

Bingo! But most Americans - even with IQs in the normal range- might have missed that. As Bill Maher once put it in a New Rules segment (see top quote) on Real Time, Americans are like aging shortstops. They need the ball hit directly at their midsections to make the play. Or in this case, the connections. The perfect illustration was one of the Michigan voters  highlighted at a recent question-answer session held by Justin Amash. This woman was astonished to learn- after Amash educated her- that Trump was NOT "exonerated" in the Mueller Report. She'd only heard that by having been isolated in the conserve media (i.e. FOX, Rush Limburger ) echo chamber the past 8 weeks.

At least a number of Senators - following Mueller's performance- have sounded the proper perspectives to counter the balderdash of Trump and his minions, e.g.

Julian Castro:

Mueller made clear this morning that his investigation now lays at the feet of Congress. No one is above the law—Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry.
May 29, 2019

Elizabeth Warren:

Mueller leaves no doubt:

1) He didn't exonerate the president because there is evidence he committed crimes.

2) Justice Department policy prevented him from charging the president with any crimes
.
3) The Constitution leaves it up to Congress to act—and that's impeachment.
May 29, 2019

Kamala Harris:
What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this president accountable.

We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation
.
May 29, 2019

Again, I present the link to the full Mueller report which readers can access here:

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Please read it yourselves to see why the above takes by the D-Senators are correct. If pressed for time, at least read my transcription of Vol. II to do with obstruction of justice involving Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn! (May 22 post).

Your country will thank you for it, and so will Democrats when they begin impeachment proceedings.  (IF they do!)  It will mean one less segment of citizens to have to educate.  In any case, I am for the Jerrold Nadler and House Judiciary Committee bringing Mueller in to testify - even if it means only seeing and hearing him read sections of his own report.

Something is better than nothing!   

See also:


And:


And:


Alex Henderson's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)