Old School Politics Must Go! That Doesn't Work Any More

Personally, I like Hakeem Jeffries.  I thought his management of the Trump impeachment trial was impeccable and professional.  It is unfortunate that partisan loyalty prevented justice from being done, but that wasn't Jeffries fault.  

But I'm having trouble with his position on some issues, and I'm baffled by this recent meeting he took with Jared Kushner, "to determine where there can be cooperation between the two parties."  

I'm sorry, Congressman Jeffries, but that ship sailed a long time ago.  Rush Limbaugh helped the GOP weigh anchor and it's only been made worse under Trump.  There can't be any meaningful cooperation with a political party that has enabled the destruction of American Democracy.  

It Might Be a Good Idea For Democratic Establishment Leadership to Pay Attention to Their Constituency

Defeating Trumpism and removing any vestige of its influence or existence from American government is the priority of the Trump opposition.  You know, this massive group of Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans who have marched and rallied and pointed to the grievous mistake this country made when it elected Donald Trump, worse the second time than the first.  These are the same people who have energized the candidacies of dozens of Democrats running for current Republican-held seats in Congress and in the Senate, and in state legislatures and for governorships and have flipped the polling data on its ears in the past eight or nine months.  They are the reason why Democrats are going to win the midterms, not some long narrative on political reform.  

They are the reason why the polls have been virtually stymied and stunned when primary elections have gone fifteen points outside the Emerson or Quinnipiac or ABC prediction in favor of some of the younger, progressive candidates over establishment Democrats.  It hasn't caught on everywhere, but it is clearly the definition of a movement that so many progressive, Democratic Socialists are the party's nominees for seats in Congress.  And in most cases, the enthusiasm they carried into their primary election is going to win them the seat, because their message is on target with a mass of voters who are just finally and gloriously fed up with the orange headed buffoon in the White House.  

I'm a lifelong Democrat, the son of a Union member, who can count on one hand the times I haven't voted straight ticket.  I'll be less than a year away from starting my seventh decade on this planet on election day.  What do I want to see?  Well, the last thing I want to see is a meeting between the House Minority Leader, soon to be Speaker, and of all people Jared Kushner.  If that's the guy the Republicans have representing some kind of deal to find places where the two parties can cooperate, then there isn't anything good that I see coming out of that for Democrats.  The fact that Jeffries could even sit in the same room without vomiting is concerning.  

This is NOT what we want.  So remember that, because we're going to be voting soon.  And this isn't "bashing" or attacking or discrediting a Democrat.  It's expressing a legitimate disagreement in the hopes that the leader is mature and open minded enough to accept it and be open to debate and discussion.

It's Legitimate to Question This

We will not fix or repair what is wrong with the nation at this point by negotiating and cooperating with the very people who are bent on destroying it.  What will be the basis of cooperation?  Will they trash the hateful, arrogant, misguided Heritage Foundation?  That would have to happen for any meaningful cooperation to come from Democrats.  Will they force Trump to resign and then back off as he is brought to trial for his crimes in office and sent to prison, which is, as far as I am concerned, a non-negotiable position for Democrats after the mid-terms?  

Those would be the starting points for any kind of cooperative attitude or position from Democrats as far as I am concerned.  

And ultimately, then, if this is how Jeffries feels, who else is involved in this move?  Schumer? And do I want them to be in the leadership of the Democratic party at this point?  I've expressed it before, and I think the terms are accurate.  I want leadership that will kick ass and take no prisoners.  That is the only acceptable position for the Democratic party now, after more than thirty years of any kind of cooperation between parties being trashed and abandoned by the GOP.  And that makes me think that someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez needs to be speaker, and someone like Jon Ossoff needs to be Senate Majority Leader.  

Which Matters to the Democratic Party Leadership?  Corporate Influence or Voters?  

I don't want to fill this whole piece with cliches, but I certainly do smell a rat here.  It has all of the characteristics of big corporate PAC money buying influence.  It's an attempt to sabotage what has shaped up to be a massive blue tsunami that is even flooding the shores of places like Texas, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Maine, and apparently is reaching into South Carolina.  The GOP hasn't even tried to hide its fear, and its open plans to try and steal as much of this election as they can in whatever way they can.  

Democrats do not need to appear to be "cooperative" to try and pick up votes from some wavering conservatives.  For one thing, we're not going to get those votes anyway and for another, there aren't enough of them to make a difference at this point.  Democrats are going to win based on the turnout and energy of the party's left, which has combined with the almost 70% of independent voters who are sick of Trump and done with MAGA.  So looking "cooperative" is not only not necessary, but it can be interpreted as a sign of weakness.  

Democrats who are interested in holding on to their leadership positions on committees and in Congress when the tsunami rolls over the GOP had better take notice and get out of the failure of the old school practices of the past, or they will drown in the blue wave too.  

Issues of Importance to Progressive Democrats

The most important political issue in America at this moment is finding a way to neutralize Trump's political power and for Congress to be made up of enough patriotic Americans to shut down his agenda and remove his political power and influence.  The possibility of getting enough Democrats elected to the Senate to follow through by removing him from office following an impeachment is a remote one, not impossible, but not likely either.  But a Congress in which both houses are controlled by Democrats would be able to effectively end the madness and significantly limit his power.  

And that is the most important thing I believe the new Congress in 2027 will have on their agenda.  Democrats have said repeatedly that Trump is the greatest threat to American Democracy since World War 2, and I agree.  Now I'm going to expect them to live up to their statements.  I want to see visible results of Democrats leading the effor to do all that is constitutionally possible, with a majority in both houses, to end MAGA Trumpism and bring the man to justice.  

I've supported the more progressive wing of the Democratic party since George H. W. Bush was President.  I've listened to the lengthy political agenda that Democrats claim is important to the safety, welfare and prosperity of the United States.  I've been disappointed when that agenda wasn't enacted when Democrats had the power to do so, or when it was put on the back burner by Republicans.  The time is coming when the votes of those who are all united on the side against Trump need to start counting for more than just temporary shifts in who controls Congress.  

They need to start achieving the goals they set out for the benefit of the average, working class, paycheck to paycheck American, the people on whose back the prosperity and security of this country now rests. 

Agenda Item No. 1:  Repudiation of MAGA Trumpism and Restoration of Justice

Restoring the trust that was once part of what made the American Republic work will require more than just defeating Trump and then putting a different agenda in place.  Our values have been challenged, opposed and trashed.  Justice has been mocked and ridiculed, abused and distorted.  Repairing the damage from eight years of MAGA Trumpism will require repudiation of it, not merely winning over it at the polls.  

Trump committed crimes against the American people for which he must be brought to justice, he and everyone who enabled him.  There must be consequences for threatening our democracy and damaging the public trust in government.  In order to put up a defense against this kind of abberation ever happening again, and to discourage anyone who thinks they can try and get away with it because Trump did, justice needs to make sure that Trump gets away with nothing.  

This is an absolutely necessary step in restoring this country and repairing the damage.  Trump incited a seditious insurrection against the United States government and that must not be overlooked, and he must be brought to justice.  Evidence needs to be laid out which shows Trump has been lying through his teeth about election fraud.  This is a completely made up lie and whatever it takes to communicate this to the American people, like another highly publicized Congressional investigation, needs to take place.  People make up their own minds, but flooding the media with factual information about these crimes committed against the American people goes on the record, and consequences need to follow.

Constitutional free speech protects even the most anti-American ideology, but committing crimes to remain in power is a much different matter, and the American people need to see the difference, and they need to see that a nation of laws doesn't tolerate lawlessness.  The rest of the world needs to see this as well.  Every constitutional violation needs to be brought to justice, and if that means the Supreme Court needs to be packed with justices who will rule according to the law, then the list of qualified jurists who know, understand and respect the Constitution and who can overturn the injustices of the current court needs to be compiled.

The Democratic Party Needs to Become the Party of Working Class Americans Again

Where do we start with getting this done, noting that these are long term progressive goals, not necessarily what we will be able to accomplish over the next two years with a lame duck Republican still in the White House, and a highly corrupt and partisan Supreme Court.  Ultimately, taking back the White House and then neutralizing the massive corruption on the court are two long term goals.

The first thing will be to get corporate money out of elections.  Getting the Citizens United decision overturned in the Supreme Court will be a very tough proposition, but that needs to be the focus, and that means that the filibuster must be done away with in order to give a Democratic senate majority the ability to amend the judiciary act to add seats to the Supreme Court.  Then, the Democratic President who is elected in 2028 can make getting this done his or her priority.  

Using wealth to influence politics needs to be turned into a criminal act and enforced.  These are long term goals, since as long as there is a Republican in the White House, there will be limits on what can be done. 

In the meantime, on top of the mid-term victory that Democrats seem to be headed for in 2026, popular opinion has already made affordability the top issue for the next two years.  And there are a lot of things that Democrats can do to improve the current situation for middle class Americans, starting with ending the Iran War, and restoring the nuclear deal that was in place under President Obama.  

It's time for a Franklin D. Roosevelt kind of New Deal.  

Democrats need to be seen as actively pursuing the kind of reform that will benefit the working class.  There is a lot that can be achieved by simply blocking everything that Trump wants to do, and that's going to be how the next two years will go, unless the Democratic senate majority gets to the 60 vote margin, or Democrats decide to blow up the filibuster.  But the eighties are over, and so is the age of compromise and negotiation with the Republicans.  They have refused to cooperate, and so it is long past time for Democrats to adopt the same kick ass, take no prisoners kind of approach to their politics.  

Socialized Health Care

This is a big one.  

We've been talking about this for decades, but the fact of the matter is the current corporate dominated system of health care cartels and insurance monopolies in the practice of American medicine must be completely dismantled and rebuilt into a single payer, Medicare-for-all kind of system.  I don't think that private ownership or involvement in either health care provision or insurance must be completely eliminated, but it must be heavily regulated in order to prevent the massive overcharging and profiteering that costs Americans more than any other country in the world.  

There are multiple sources and studies which show that half of every dollar Americans spend on health insurance or health care goes to profit, and not to the actual services they receive.  The amount that would be required to make Medicare for all work would be a far smaller payroll deduction than current monthly insurance premiums, and it would benefit everyone involved by providing more resources for health care professionals and institutions, top to bottom, while saving patients money.  The only ones who wouldn't benefit are the one percenters who provide no services but only collect dividends.  

Think about it.  Instead of an individual or their employer paying a $595 a month insurance premium, the monthly payment for Medicare for all would be about $280, a savings of $315 a month, $3780 a year instead of over $7,000. As far as medical services to be received, nothing would change.  There would be a $500 annual deductible, and co-pays for some services, under the current Medicare configuration, with an additional amount for prescription drug coverage and perhaps, for what is currently referred to as "medigap." And these are just general figures, drawn from various proposals.  There's a lot more that could be done with some creative thinking. 

If Democrats could succeed in doing this, and there is absolutely no reason for this not to work, considering the multiple models for socialized medicine that exist in Europe, Canada, and other parts of the world, it might bring about an era of political success that would open the door to decades of political dominance and economic prosperity.  

In the Words of Senator Bernie Sanders, "Corporations and Billionaires Need to Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

The tax burden on the middle class is unacceptable.  

Closing loopholes and favor granting needs to end.  I've read various proposals for what would be fair, and of course, I have my own idea.  "Fair" is that corporations and billionaires pay a percentage of the tax burden proportionate to the overall benefit that they receive.  All of what government has provided for them to make it possible to earn a profit costs something.  Transportation infrastructure, military protection and security, especially for those who operate internationally, local police and fire protection, all of that is paid for by tax dollars.  And in most cases, the lion's share of the expense is borne by the working class, the paycheck to paycheck people who are also, in many cases, underpaid and lack acceptable benefits. 

The difficulty here is that Democrats have had tax proposals on the floor before, and couldn't get them passed.  That's because not everyone is on board with this, and they haven't felt the pressure to get it done.  Senator Sanders has been talking about this ever since he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016.  It hasn't been done yet.  It's a political win for Democrats, because this is something that, if it is done right, will be immediately felt and appreciated by the working class.  

That's Not All

The recognition of organized labor as a political force and as agents of change needs to be legislated back to effectiveness.  American business is among the most profitable and prosperous in the world, and those benefits need to do more than trickle down to the employees who make it possible for executives to become billionaires off of their labor.  This is one of the keys to Democrats becoming the party of the working class again.  

The question is, will the support exist among the party members who find their way into Congress after the mid-terms, and beyond, to get this done?  Among everything that was accomplished during the Biden administration, and during the two years when we had control of both houses and the White House, the party didn't really move in this direction.  But the primaries, especially this election season, have changed the narrative quite a bit.  Will those who return catch that message, and stop the bickering and infighting to bring Democrats back to their roots?  

I certainly hope so.  

 

My Hometown is An Example of How Democratic Socialism Works

So-cial-ism [soSHElizem] noun  A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  

So, if we add the term "Democratic" to this word, we are putting a double emphasis on the involvement and responsibility of the community in whatever business is being owned and regulated.  Let me share some examples from the community in which I grew up that were of benefit to its members in providing services that would be difficult to acquire in the community if profit were the sole motivation behind the operation of the business.  That's because in the small Arizona town where I grew up, there would not have been enough business to make a profit if that were the motivation behind providing some of the services.  

The Hospital District

The local hospital, an essential part of health care in this community, because it had a large retired population, and was located next to a busy interstate, was especially necessary because it provided an emergency room and a level 4 trauma center, operated the local general practice clinic with three physicians and a couple of NP's, and provided acute inpatient services and care.  It's a 26 bed facility that basically follows up on patients who enter through the ER.  

It started out as a private hospital, operated by the local medical clinic doctors, but when a new facility was needed in the late 1960's, a hospital district was formed that included the city limits and a radius of about ten miles into the surrounding rural area, a total population of about 10,000. The hospital district's income comes from property taxes that are assessed within the boundaries of the district and it covers everything related to the operation of the building, maintenance, custodial service, utilities, purchase of equipment and any staff other than medical personnel, so that these operational costs do not have to come from income derived from patient care.  

Medical services are provided on a contract basis with a non-profit, rural health care organization that provides nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, certified nursing assistants, doctors and clerical personnel.  The same organization also has contracts with two other small town hospitals in the same county, and some of the personnel, mainly the doctors who are specialists, are shared with the other two.  Because the tax dollars cover the other expenses, the prices of medical services are much lower than they are in a private, corporate owned hospital.  And there is a big advantage in being able to provide specialists available in the community instead of patients having to drive 50 miles or more to see one.  

This fits the definition of socialism.  It is a government operated business which takes tax dollars and spreads out the cost of operation to provide a full service, rural hospital that would not exist if the hospital district and tax dollars were not available.  

The Electric Cooperative

The electricity provider to this community, as well as to several other nearby towns and rural areas, is a rural electric cooperative.  Everyone who gets their electric power from the cooperative is considered a member of the cooperative, and have the privilege of attending an annual meeting and voting for the board of directors, and the budget.  There are about 70,000 total customers, representing about 21,000 electrical hook ups in the area served by the cooperative.  

The cooperative collectively owns the infrastructure needed to distribute electricity.  It employs about a half dozen dispatchers who sit in their computer room and purchase electricity off the grid at the best prices they can negotiate.  The power is generated and distributed by a cooperative which owns its own generating plant and distributes what it produces on the grid.  So the rate that the cooperative's customers pay is the rate that it has negotiated with the provider, plus its operating cost.  Any amount over and above the budgeted cost of operation is divided up and credited to every member's January electric bill.  

What makes this socialism is that the customers own the cooperative, and determine its business operation by electing the board that runs it.  Because of operational costs and the fact that this mostly rural area doesn't have a large number of customers, the member-owned cooperative provides electricity at relatively low cost.  Had it not been for the cooperative, there would be areas of the county where development would not be possible because electric service would not be available. 

Of course, within the area of the cooperative's operation, there is no other choice of electricity providers.  But, the average electric bill in the cooperative area is 10% less than what customers of the private, for-profit electric providers in other parts of the state charge, since the cooperative does not make a profit or pay stockholder dividends.  And I've seen bonus credits on those January bills add up to as much as $150 at times.  

The Farmer's and Rancher's Cooperative

The rural area around the community where I grew up is primarily agricultural in nature.  It is a big beef, poultry and pork producing area, with a lot of traditional ranches, and there are a lot of family-owned dairies in the area, along with several big hydroponic tomato farms and poultry farms with egg production.  Back in the 1970's, as big corporations began buying up these kinds of family owned businesses, and then cutting their prices to undercut the family owners and force them to sell out at a lower price, the farmers and ranchers in the area formed a cooperative for the purpose of pooling their resources and then being able to sell their products in higher volume to compete with the corporate food producers.  

The cooperative members elect a board of directors to represent them and the board then calculates the amount of produce or milk or eggs that are potentially being produced and then sets a competitive wholesale price which it uses to negotiate contracts directly with the major grocery store chains.  This eliminates the "middle man," and increases the profits to the farmers and ranchers who are the producers.  

There are those who would say that this isn't socialism, because participation is voluntary, but the fact of the matter is that virtually all of the private farm and ranch owners in the area are members of the coop because they get more money for their products than they would if they sold to a middle man distributor.  But it fits the definition of business owned and regulated by the community as a whole.  And one of the benefits of the cooperative to the people in the community that are not in the agriculture business is that surplus goods are sold directly to the public through a coop-owned store, eliminating much of the cost of distribution.  The selection is limited, but the price is very reasonable.  

Most People Wouldn't Think of This as Socialism 

But, it is socialism.  By definition, in its purest form. 

If not for socialism, this community would probably not have a hospital, not even an emergency room, and perhaps one or two general practice doctors, if they had some kind of loyalty to the community.  And while it would have electric service without the cooperative, the cost of providing it to the area would make the electric bills of residents much higher.  The family-owned dairies and farms are slowly being bought out, or disappearing, as each succeeding generation is able to go off to college and they frequently don't take over the family business, so the culture there is changing as it is all over the country.  But it provided some cost effective alternatives for the entire community for decades.  

It's a conservative community.  It has, in the past, seen vote totals in elections for Republicans go as high as 55%, though in 2020 and 2024 those totals were slightly lower.  They just see this as the way to have necessary services, but they wouldn't call it or identify it as socialism.  But it is.  It is socialism, brought about by the will of the people.  Democratic socialism, if you will. 

This is how Democratic Socialism works.  It requires looking at the humanity that is involved, rather than simply relying on a profit motive, understanding that some human values cannot be measured by monetary value.  What does it say about people, and their patriotism and pride, when they are willing to let a rural hospital close, not because there is no longer a need for it, but because it can no longer generate a profit?  

Democratic Socialism is about placing the higher value of our society and our country and its communities on its people, rather than on profit.  It's not about eliminating private enterprise, it is about stepping in where private enterprise is not willing to invest, and providing for what we, as Americans, believe are basic human rights.  

We, as Americans, believe in some fundamental rights and core values that transcend a transactional existence.  Our founders believed that government was created to protect the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is not to guarantee that everyone who invests in society will profit from it.  

Are there Democratic Socialists who would like to see a much larger segment of our culture become socialist?  Of course.  But I think the basic values and principles here are to ensure that those who have benefitted from the collective labor and effort of the nation's people and have become wealthy from profit that they earned because of the security and the opportunity that everyone contributes to providing should contribute in proportion to how much they have benefitted from it.  And that does require some redistribution of the wealth, via a fair and equitable taxation.  

It would not be accurate, or fair, to call these folks in rural Arizona, who are using socialist principles to provide for needs in their community, communists.  Nor is it accurate or fair to call those members of the Democratic party who are progressives advocating for Democratic Socialism communists, either.

 

It's Long Past Time to be Tired of This

The aberration of Trump's re-election to the White House after a first term loaded with criminal activity, major corruption, bad politics and general incompetence is not yet even through the second year of the second term, and it has already been a disaster.  We are fortunate that his mistakes and his inability to carry out even the simplest duties of the Presidency puts us in increasing danger, not only from our enemies, who are now doing things behind our back and taking full advantage of the inept and demented commander in chief, but from potential economic collapse due to economic policy that makes the rich richer, and which has run up $20 trillion of a $40 trillion dollar national debt. 

There are so many things with which to lose patience, that it is impossible to even think about where to start.  

One of our political parties now rests on the absence of any kind of moral or ethical values.  The GOP works on behalf of the 1% who hold 99% of the nation's wealth in their hands, and on behalf of those white Americans who still mistakenly and shamefully hold on to white Christian nationalism as some kind of legitimate answer to the world's, and nation's problems. The Republican party has pushed to keep power in the hands of Americans who are white and wealthy over the course of my lifetime.  But with the presence of Trump's MAGA movement as the primary party control and influence, it has become nothing but the enemy of the common, working class American.  

 

This didn't just start with Trump.  Dubya's administration got us well along the road where the government was being slowly swallowed up by corporate interests which bought elections with PAC campaign contributions.  And let's not just slide by the fact that a lot of Democrats are obligated to the corporate interests that finance their campaigns.  How else do we explain the lack of resolution to problems that were created during Trump's first term, the slow-walking and foot dragging of a justice department that seemed loathe to follow through with his indictments and allowed a few legal maneuvers to short circuit justice and not only let him slide, but nothing happened during the two years the Democrats controlled Congress to prevent this travesty from happening again, so ultimately, we are now much worse off than we were before. 

So that's one good reason to be tired of all of this.  Tired of it to the point that I'm way beyond ready to get this midterm election over.  

But I Have a Feeling My Frustration Isn't Going to be Resolved After the Midterms

Trump's incompetence and his inept handling of every single aspect of the Presidency, something we saw the first time he was in office but which so many Americans ignored, forgot, or were just too stupid to notice, has caused him to be a colossal failure as President.  It has also put Democrats back in position to win control of both houses of Congress.  Our bought-and-paid-for news media is toning down the rhetoric, and the facts that support the coming blue tsunami, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats are going to win the midterm elections, not on the merits of some complicated political narrative that meticulously explains their plans, and bores most voters to tears, but because Trump has become so unpopular.  

But it seems that Democrats, handed this good fortune without having to make any real effort to earn it, and in spite of failing to handle the mistake this country made when it elected Trump in the first place, are trying their dead level best to keep the victory that is coming from being as large as it has the potential to be.  It's not because Democrats are still being political wonks that have trouble communicating the message they want voters to support, it's because they can't seem to figure out that this is not the 1980's, and politics have changed.  

So, instead of maintaining focus on the most important job at hand, neutralizing Trump and winning as much of a percentage of Congress as possible, Democrats are bickering and fighting and criticizing each other.  I mean, seriously?  With a little over two months left until the November elections, Democrats are sniping at each other because there's just too much turf protecting and nest feathering going on, and the greater good, which is being the party of working class people once again, is being ignored.  

Or is this a Republican strategy, to use the media, which is no longer a free press, to make a mountain  out of a mole hill, and push Democrats into bickering with each other, instead of attacking their vulnerabilities and making this into an even bigger landslide than it has the potential of becoming as it is now.  

I used my primary vote to help elect candidates who are closer to my own perspective of what Democrats stand for, and what should be our agenda.  I'll admit it, I'm a progressive Democrat, and there are things that are high on my list of priorities, though nothing is more important than neutralizing the threat that Trump poses to American Democracy, something that most Democrats claim they are also supporting, though actions sometimes speak louder than words.  I see few establishment Democrats on the front lines of the Trump opposition.  

And I'm tired of the bickering, the infighting, the foolish statements and the threats that will do absolutely nothing except help some Republican candidates win elections they shouldn't win, or couldn't win unless Democrats stay home because of this divisiveness.  

I voted in the primary election and cast my ballot for those candidates who had a kick-ass, take-no-prisoners kind of attitude when it came to fighting Republicans.  There were several candidates on the ballot here in Illinois, supported by Leaders We Deserve who articulated the danger that Trump continues to pose to American Democracy and who don't think Democrats need to court a few scattered conservative voters that won't make a difference anyway, but instead realize where the enthustiastic center of Trump opposition exists in the electorate, and will work to motivate them to turn out.  And many of them won the party's nomination, including for the senate seat Dick Durban is vacating.  

Now, heading into the general election, I will enter the voting booth, and click on the one box that I believe is the key to America freeing itself from Republican oppression and the threat of white, racist Christian Nationalism, and that is "straight ticket Democrat."  

I'm a progressive Democrat, and I would describe my political views as leaning toward a Democratic Socialist perspective.  The enthusiasm that is being generated going into this election is coming from the left of center, not from the moderate establishment, of the Democratic party and they have been joined by the scads of independent voters who are fed up with Trump.  I have a list of specific issues that I, as a financially supporting member of the Democratic party, will expect those who get my vote to support.  That includes undoing every Trump administration initiative of the past two years, and bringing Trump to justice, impeachment and removal from office.  

Can we see that this is where the focus needs to be?  If we want to fight with each other and bicker over how liberal the Democratic party should be, let's save that for after the midterm elections are over.  I'll be ready.  But right now, the priority is pushing the Republicans out of power, and after that, it should be bringing Trump to justice and making sure they never get their hands on Congressional power again.

Ever.  

White, Christian Nationalism needs to be stomped out, and the Heritage Foundation needs to be defeated and neutralized.  The constitutional way to achieve this is at the ballot box, and afterward, and that means a surprisingly large margin and a decisive win in the midterm elections in November.

Vote Blue, No Matter Who!

There have been some primary season surprises on the Democratic side of American politics during this primary season.  Yet another one happened last night in Florida as Angie Nixon, a left wing Democratic socialist, defeated Alex Vindman, who outraised and outspent her by almost 10 times more, won a surprisingly big 56-44% victory.  This one is difficult to figure, except considering it's a statewide race, and independent voters can't vote in a partisan primary in Florida.  Democratic party turnout was high, equalling the Republican turnout in a state that is more red than purple.  

Vindman, whom I like personally, billed himself as the candidate who had a chance to win the general election.  He does have name recognition, and a reputation as a never Trumper, as well as being somewhat of a centrist who leans a little bit more to the right.  And that turned out to be fatal to his primary nomination hopes.  

What's happening to cause these surprising election results is, as it almost always is with Democrats, in the messaging.  The realization that the sitting President is an incompetent boob is something that more than 60% of voters accept as fact.  Democrats are very likely to flip both houses, the senate side looking particularly promising over the past few months, and that will effectively stop Trump and make him a genuine lame duck with two years left to go, if he sticks it out.  The biggest issue is affordability as prices of everything have soared because of his stupid decisions.  

And while the Democratic party establishment is still feathering its nests, protecting its turf, and taking corporate campaign contributions, the message of Democratic socialists is resonating with voters, and they are responding to it.  And where there are candidates who are pushing that strong, working class narrative in clear, understandable terms, without all of the party gobbletygook, they are winning primary elections.  They have limited resources, because they won't take corporate money or accept AIPAC funds, so there are limits on their ability to get the narrative out there to the voters.  

But they are right on target with the message that is appealing to working class Americans, and as it spreads and grows, more and more of the candidates who wear the Democratic Socialist tag are winning primary elections.  And frankly, because that message resonates with so many independent voters, they are the better choices for winning in November.  

It's that narrative and messaging thing that Democrats seem to have so much trouble with that is pulling in this unusual coalition of liberal Democrats, the vast majority of independent voters turned off by partisan pushiness, the resistance to Trump showing up in No Kings rallies and literally now all over the place, and disaffected Republicans who realize that Trump must go or they lose.  That is going to produce a large enough coalition to win elections.  Establishment Democrats must get on board, not that they have to change their messaging or narrative, but that they must turn out and help every candidate with a D beside their name win their general election.  

You know, "Vote blue, no matter who."  That's been the Democratic mantra since Trump started running.  It has been the establishment's mantra during those times when there wasn't a lot of bold risk taking going on when we did have power to bring Trump to justice and stop this madness.  So now, the establishment needs to take its own advice and its own slogan, and put it to use.  

Vote blue, no matter who, even if the candidate is a Democratic Socialist.  

The Agenda is Very Simple

For those who have paid attention, and are waking up to why this message is appealing, it's pretty much what the average, working American who lives paycheck to paycheck would like to see.  

• Opening up the housing market by eliminating the ability of corporate entities to buy up housing and control the supply and demand to drive up prices. 
• Making the top 1% and the multi-billion dollar corporations pay their fair share of taxes.  No loopholes, exemptions or government favor granting.  Windfall profits tax on the worst abuses.
• Socialization and government intervention in areas where the profiteering has been the worst, most notably in health care.  Many Democratic Socialists are 100% in favor of a government owned, single payer health care system like most of our European allies, and Canada, now have.  
• Immigration reform that reflects American idealism. 
• No offensive, aggressive wars.  Turn the War Department back to the Department of Defense. 
• Increased government control in the energy industry, utilities, water supply.  
• Increasing the resources to provide for more infrastructure expansion and improvement to resolve supply issues and work to bring retail prices down, especially on supplies of food which are abundant in this country.  
• Major reform in agricultural development, so that farmers are not risking losing everything or being bought out by corporate interests.  

Let me point out that these issues are all in the common interest of Americans, there is nothing remotely communist about it, and in terms of being consistent with the Constitution, they are all designed to protect the American people from exploitation, which is the job of government.  

Vote Blue No Matter Who!

Let's be clear that there is no Democrat running for election during this cycle who would be worse than their Republican opponent.  Not one.  Focus on the issue, which is stopping the single worst President we have ever had in American history from doing any more damage to our country.  

That's the message, and the political interest and focus of Democrats now.  This needs to be as big a victory as possible, and I tend to think that the polling data, comprised by people who are mostly afraid of Trump, is significantly underestimating what is going to happen in November.   If this doesn't happen, and there's still a risk of that, given all of the bickering and infighting that is going on, a foot-shooting contest that could still turn into disaster, then we will lose the America that we know permanently.  

So, you know what to do.  Go out and do it. 

"I am pledging to vote for Democratic party candidates up and down the ballot in November.  If my state permits it, I will check the box for "Democratic Party Straight Ticket," if not, I will cast a vote for every Democrat who is on the ballot.  I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a Republican."  

This is Why Trump and Hegseth's Incompetence is So Dangerous

Joe Conason on Alternet: Trump Just Handed America's Enemies Everything They Wanted 

Thomas Kika on Alternet: Trump Handing His Fiercest Enemy a Huge Victory

Even if Donald Trump had actually written 'The Art of the Deal' (he didn't write a single word of that bestseller, his first big fraud) it would be foolish to expect that the President or his hapless envoys can deliver a viable agreement with the Iranians anytime soon.  Taken together, they lack all the qualities required to achieve the complex diplomatic resolution required in this crisis--like the nuclear agreement that Trump so cavalierly discarded in 2017...

The problem isn't only that Trump and his team of morons neglected to fashion any plan for their sudden urge to attack a faraway country with a million men under arms, a big weapons arsenal and a long history of ideological resiliance.  That was a historic and particularly stupid mistake, characteristic of Trump's shallow intellect--but now, after inflicting massive damage on Iran, the world and our own economy, he and his government are evidently stuck in the quagmire they created.  --Joe Conason, Alterned, April 2026

And so on it goes.  

The United States attack on Iran will go down in history as another lost war.  Trump launched the attack at the urging and behest of Benjamin Netanyahu, because Iran is Israel's most dangerous enemy and they do not have the military capability to deal with Iran while they are bogged down in the Gaza war.  When Trump scuttled the nuclear deal with Iran that was negotiated during the Obama Administration, he put Israel, and our other allies in the region, in much greater danger.  

Attacking Iran did not remove the ongoing threat to Israel.  It may have temporarily degraded Iran's ability to be a threat to their security, though the missile attacks on Israel have been worse than anything they've experienced from the Iranians before.  In spite of lies that pour forth from this President's administration on a daily basis about everything they do, especially this war and the effect it is having on the American people, it doesn't appear that anything has actually changed.  The Straits of Hormuz remain closed, choking off oil supplies and other kinds of shipping, driving prices up on all kinds of goods, but also depleting America's strategic oil reserve by dangerously high percentages, and depleting a military stockpile of weapons that will take years to replace.  

Iran remains a threat to Israel, and to the United States.  The attitude they are displaying, flaunting defiance and letting Trump open his mouth and make statements which they immediately contradict and defy, is a clear message to the world that they do not feel defeated.  Their ability to fire off clusters of missiles at Israel, and at our allies just across the narrow waterway between them, and to continue to vex traffic in the Straits would indicate that this is a long way from being over, and that Trump's threatening approach is not working at all.  They have gained the upper hand. 

And if that's not enough diplomatic stupidity, Trump uses social media to send a message to his "Secretary of War" to back down and substantially reduce joint military exercises with South Korea.  Let me repeat that, in case the significance of that statement hasn't yet sunk in.  He used social media to tell the Secretary of War to "substantially reduce" joint military exercises with one of our closest and most loyal Asian allies, South Korea.  

I do not understand why that announcement, and the way it was done, did not cause a media firestorm in this country.  That is the equivalent of handing China, who is one of the biggest threats to the United States in just about every way, a blank check.  The strategic importance of South Korea to the security of the United States should be one of our highest military and diplomatic priorities, but the sitting President uses his social media account to degrade its strategic importance and announce a backdown from activity that supports this priority.  

What's more frightening than the danger this puts us in is the fact that there are still too many Americans who have absolutely no idea about any of this, and are ignorant to the significance of these actions which demonstrate an intolerable level of incompetence from this President and his advisors.  Along with that is the fact that there won't be anyone in the Republican party who will stand up for the United States and defend us against our enemies.  

And there will still be plenty of ignorance and stupidity that will show up at the ballot boxes across this country on election day, even after all of this.  

 

 

Priority For Democrats Down the Road, In 2028 is Expanding the Supreme Court

The Washington Post reported today that Democrats have at least five different plans for a future overhaul of the Supreme Court, including expanding the number of justices from nine to thirteen, cutting lifetime terms to 18 years at the most, creating and enforcing an ethics code, and placing standards on how the court rules from its "shadow docket."  [WP, August 16, 2026]

[The story, by Julian Mark, appears in today's Post.  I an citing it for reference, rather than providing a link to a story which is behind a paywall.] 

According to the Post, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said, "There's constant and building dismay about the increasingly appalling record of the court.  And I think the continuing interest in reform springs from continued dismay and concern about the court's misbehavior." [WP, August 16, 2026] 

Such moves are considered to be turning the court "political," according to many Republicans.  What they fail to see is that the court they've created is very political and partisan, and Senator Mitch McConnell used some very disgusting and dishonest statements to justify unethical, if not illegal, acts in which he manipulated the judicial approval process to the benefit of the GOP.  And the justices who benefitted from it have amply rewarded both him and his party.  

And what has happened as a result is that the Republican Presidents who have had the ability to appoint justices, namely Trump, and his GOP predecessor, Dubya, have pointed political idealogues, rather than actual judges, to the vacancies they've been able to fill.  So they are the ones who are responsible for turning the court into a political body, rather than a judicial one.  And since they are willing to live with that, and benefit from it as well, then I think going to 13 seats when Democrats have the power to do it after 2028 is just fine.  I hope whichever Democrat wins that Presidential race will find the four most liberal jurists in the country, all under 40 years of age, and appoint them to the court.  Then start overturning prior decisions until the Republican-appointed justices damage is eliminated. 

We Had the Power to Do This During the First Two Years of Biden's Term

The Democratic party theme during the entire 2020 election campaign was the very real threat that Trump posed to American Democracy.  And as the expression goes, "we had him, dead to rights."  When the Supreme Court moved to protect him from prosecution by their very unconstitutional and unAmerican immunity ruling, that should have been the signal for Democrats to get started on amending the judiciary act to give President Biden four new seats to fill with left wing judges.  

There were several Democrats who were on board with that and said so, among them Senator Bernie Sanders, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others.  And while it certainly was a theme for the progressive side of the party, it was an idea which, matched with the federal indictments he received, would have brought the criminal to justice and knocked down the barricades of delays he used to get out of it.  

While the current conservative-biased court rules against the spirit of the law, a court more constitutionally centered, which means it would be made up of a majority of liberal justices, would have knocked down the immunity ruling, overturned Citizens United, and eliminated the Dobbs decision in one short session.  That would have opened the door to Trump's "speedy" prosecution on the criminal charges for which he was indicted, and landed him in prison where he belongs.  

The congressional investigation into Trump's seditious attempt to overturn the 2020 election, and subsequently, his theft of classified documents, discovered at Mar-a-Lago, would have then moved forward, especially if Biden had appointed a more aggressive and savvy attorney general.  It's even likely that the case in the hands of Aileen Cannon would have been removed and given to someone who could be more fair in judgment.  

But apparently, there are a lot of Democrats who don't really see Trump as the threat to American Democracy that he is.  Even after an almost year-long investigation into the January 6th sedition laid down a mountain of evidence of his tampering with and involvement in election results, there was fear that any further push might "look political."  There were an awful lot of frustrated Democratic voters, myself included, with the failure to prosecute that will be a black mark on the Biden Administration's legacy.  We would not now have to endure what we are enduring if the effort had been made to add those four seats in 2021 or 2022.

So This Topic, Which Isn't New, Is Now Finally Getting Some Traction

Two years into the second term of America's most inept, incompetent, and absolutely worst President, we are now finally seeing a movement among Democrats to, as the saying goes, "pack the court."  It's as if no one remembers that this came up in 2020, and no one wants to acknowledge that it was an idea that got floated around, and shelved.  But now, the process is made much more difficult by the fact that we no longer have a majority in Congress, nor the White House, and therefore have to wait, and hope and dream that we will be in charge following the election of 2028, so we can get this done.  

Not surprisingly, it is the more progressive wing of the party who is now picking up this theme and waiving the banner.  This can't be done in time to save us from Trump, though I hope the Congress we elect in 2026 puts an end to his ability to do much more than be ceremonial, if that.  But the immediate effect of a liberal court would be getting corporate money out of elections and returing that power to the people.  It would also restore the rule of law, to which the President would be subject equally, and make him an ordinary citizen when it comes to his desires to commit criminal acts.  

We need this.  

The other ideas put forth should all be added to the Judiciary Act.  Ethics rules should be in writing, reflecting the consensus of the will of the people when it comes to the behavior of members of the nation's highest court.  And that includes the kind of behavior that slipped by Congress when Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed.  Justices who say one thing during their confirmation, but rule another way when on the bench should be subject to review, probation or removal from the bench for lying and misrepresenting their position.   

Term limits should also be imposed, and while 18 years was mentioned, I'm in favor of limiting justices to 10 year terms, all up and down and through the federal court system.  That's staggered enough to give Presidents an equal number of justices to replace during any four year term.  

Justices should have to divest their investments, and their business holdings before they can be nominated.  If they are not willing to do that, then it is time to move on to the next candidate.  

I'd also be in favor of establishing a citizens review board, empowered to recommend justices for impeachment, in the event that decisions start getting out of line.  Having to answer directly to American citizens and voters might cause some real reform to break out spontaneously.  

If Any Politician Wants to Earn My Vote...

Then support for judicial reform should be part of the Democratic party platform.  If the belief that Trump is an existential threat to Democracy is as much a democratic party ideal as anything, then this should become a campaign theme, and voters need to hold the politicians accountable for their level of support.  

No excuses.  If we gain the majority and have a Democratic House and Senate, and White House following 2028, the prospects of which look absolutely rosey right now, there will be no reason not to do this, except for those Democrats who still dip their hand in the corporate cookie jar and let them finance their campaigns.  The first two years should be a rush to get all kinds of anti-Trump legislation passed, and figure out how to make most of it stick.