Buttigieg Looking to Capitalize on the 2020 Version of Democratic Primary Shenanigans

Seven months before the first primary election date, Pete Buttigieg is already courting superdelegates. In other news, Donald Trump just moved one step closer to seizing his second term.

When a candidate is already looking to capitalize on a system that short circuits the democratic process, you have to wonder if there is a hidden ethical problem.

For those who don't know, the superdelegates do not vote until the second ballot in 2020 if necessary. Unless the field is pared down quite a bit when the voting starts, a second ballot is going to happen. If you remember 2016, it was the superdelegates that gave Bernie Sanders too much of an uphill battle to win the nomination. They are party insiders that favor establishment candidates that have their hand in the corporate till which buys influence with politicians. A simple check of Buttigieg's contributors (compliments of Open Secrets), we already see that he is immersed in corporate money.

When the loudest messages on the campaign come from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, there will be trouble if there is an establishment takeover on the second ballot. It will cause a rebellion with the progressive wing of the party because the message from Warren and Sanders is that the corporate establishment is corrupt. 

The establishment took over to a certain extent in 2016, and we got Donald Trump. If it happens again, get ready for four more years of ridiculous tweets and xenophobic policy.

Conventional wisdom says that the superdelegates will not pick Buttigieg this time. They will court Elizabeth Warren instead. She has been known to play ball with the establishment from time to time and would be more likely to spark a rebellion. They certainly aren't going to pick Bernie Sanders. They might have to settle for Bernie light.  In the meantime, Buttigieg is showing some colors that a lot of voters aren't fond of.

Handicapping the Field - Joe Biden

Now that the debates are here, I thought I would produce a series of posts that look at that Democrats applying for the nomination and try to summarize the outlook.  I am not going to predict the winner; that would be naive.  However, I am going to opine on who has the better paths to win.  Of course I am not going to go through all of the candidates because that would take longer than some will be in the race.  However, I will take a look at some that I think will last the longest.  First up, Joe Biden.

Biden is the front runner for a number of reasons - the most obvious is name recognition.  Everyone knows Biden's name because he has been around forever and his most recent gig was vice president for Barack Obama.  I remember that because Biden won't let anyone forget it.  He is always name dropping "Barack" anytime he gets a chance.  I am surprised that he doesn't call him "Barry" at this point.

Advantages:  In addition to name recognition, Biden has the advantage of having the image of bringing normalcy back to the White House.  He is genuinely a nice guy and is a safe, moderate pick for people who have political fatigue. He also has the DNC stamp of approval because he is the darling of the establishment.  That means he will be protected to a certain extent by the mainstream media and will have built-in surrogates every hour on CNN and MSNBC.

Disadvantages:  Nice guys finish last - particularly in this country. Four years, ago at this point in the election process, Jeb Bush was the huge front runner for the Republicans.  He was also a nice guy.

More specifically, Biden doesn't have anything new to offer.  His platform so far is that Donald Trump is a bad guy and that he is no Donald Trump.  The policies that he has hinted at seem to be retreads of old policies that he and Barry put together.  That isn't going to fly with the party that falls in love as opposed to one that falls in line.

Being the establishment darling and moderate will ensure he will get no support from a faction of the party. He is seen by some as the Hilary of 2020 and that leaves a bad taste for those that feel like Bernie Sanders got hosed.

Biden is also a gaffe machine.  He will, undoubtedly, say some things that he should not.

He is also dealing with old baggage.  He has been on the wrong side of things that have the woke Democrats up in arms.  He wasn't very accommodating to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. In addition, he earned a reputation of being pretty handsy.  He was also an architect of the controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which has earned the ire of the African American community.

In addition, Biden has to carry the baggage of being an old white guy.  In this election season, it is perfectly acceptable to hold age, race, and sex against an individual as long as it is elderly, male, and white.  That isn't to say that white males haven't had a power lock on positions of political power that must be addressed; I am merely speaking of how it will affect individuals in this particular election - for right or for wrong.

Outlook: Although Biden looks strong in the polls now, like Jeb Bush did, it is a long shot in my mind that he can take this LONG campaign wire to wire.  People have short attention spans and they are going to jump to the next shiny thing sooner or later because they get bored easily. The front runner is the big target and Biden will take a beating from other Dems and Trump.

Biden's only hope is to parlay political fatigue, establishment coddling, and his "nice guy-ness" to the nomination.  He must hope that a lot of people will latch on to him and tune out of the election process due to fatigue.  If the establishment dems and media come to his defense like they have so far when he is attacked, that will help establish him as a sympathetic candidate and also allow him to hold on to freshness.

Relation State FINALLY endorses . . .

I have been putting off this post because it has probably been the most difficult piece to write. This election illustrates how dire our situation is in the United States. With this cast of characters running for the highest office in the land, the future looks bleak no matter what happens on election day.

First, allow me to define the term according to

the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Endorse:  to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially :  to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate>

Keep that definition in mind as we go through the candidates.  I will cover each one in reverse order of popularity as measured by the Real Clear Politics composite poll.

Jill Stein (Green Party) - Stein has no relevant experience in governing - especially for a national office.  She has run for president twice (2012, and presently), governor of Massachusetts twice, and has also ran for other down ballot offices.

Stein’s platform is basically the same one that Bernie Sanders ran on in the Democratic Primary.  In fact, she requested that Sanders become the Green Party candidate when he fell short of getting the nomination.  I have no issues with Stein’s platform as I endorsed Sanders in that primary because of his platform.

The negatives that Stein brings to the table are inexperience and judgment. She hasn’t held any public office of note and starting out as POTUS is an example of one's dreams outreaching one's arm span.  That concept paints this candidate as kooky among other adjectives in that vein. In addition, her selection of Ajamu Baraka shows poor judgment. Baraka is a controversial figure who has said a lot of things that are not conducive to running for office. He is a drag on the ticket and encourages people to not take the ticket seriously.

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) - Johnson has relevant experience.  He was governor of New Mexico as a Republican. He has also run for president twice as the Libertarian candidate (this year and in 2012).

Although Johnson is a Libertarian; he is also a corporatist. Other than personal liberty issues, he tends to remain Republican in his fiscal policies. 

The problem with Johnson is he doesn't come off like a serious candidate.  His pro marijuana stance is so well known it is associated with his personal choices.  He is practically the Bill Maher of the presidential candidates.  He doesn't seem to know or to be interested in knowing basic world happenings like “What is Aleppo?”  In addition, his running mate, former Massachusetts governor, William Weld has already shown support for Hillary Clinton.  Ron Paul, probably the most popular Libertarian in the country, chose to endorse Jill Stein over Johnson, if that tells you anything.

Donald Trump (Republican) - Trump has no experience in public office and is proud of that fact.  He touts his business acumen and deal making as being some of his positive points. His biggest positive, however, is that he presents himself as being anti-establishment.

I am not going to get into a lot of details on Trump’s policies for a couple of reasons. For one, he doesn't have a lot of details other than he is going to “make America great again.” His methodology for doing that is a little cloudy but he insists that we should just trust him to do it.  He does promise to secure the border by building a wall and also to cut taxes.  He vows to bring industry back to the country by threatening tariffs.

Trump’s negatives are almost too many to mention.  He lacks transparency as he is the first president in recent history to refuse to release his tax returns.  He has alienated Mexicans, Muslims, and women.  He is charged with horrendous deeds by women and has also made money off scams such as Trump University.  Pardon me now while I sigh.

Hillary Clinton (Democrat) - Clinton is obviously the most qualified when looking at all the candidates' resumes. Her experience in the executive branch as first lady is unlike any other first lady we have had since Eleanor Roosevelt.  She actually worked on policy, namely health care. She also has legislative experience as a popular senator from New York.  Finally, she has foreign policy experience as secretary of state for Barack Obama.

Clinton’s original platform is a moderate, corporatist Democratic one.  Since Bernie Sanders worked out his endorsement deal with her, she has adopted about 70% of his policy initiatives that brings her platform to one of the most progressive in history.

Clinton brings a ton of negatives into the contest, however.  She is allegedly involved or associated with a number of scandals.  The first one being her poor judgment in having her own server in her home to do State Department business. The FBI investigation showed extreme carelessness and FBI Director James Comey even revealed her dishonesty as she discussed her emails with the public and to Congress.  In addition, the Clinton Foundation is being investigated for shady dealings - to which Clinton’s State Department may be a party. Also, there is evidence showing that collusion existed between the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the primary. Even more, WIkileaks has released emails that apparently show the Clinton campaign was coordinating with supporting PACs which is illegal.  Double sigh.

On to the Endorsement

Trump’s problems are too big to ignore.  His rhetoric suggests that he will not represent all Americans; that is disqualifying.  The fact that he isn't transparent with his taxes (the first candidate in five decades) and that he has no detailed plan to institute anything we can see as positive change takes him out of serious consideration.

Clinton’s legal problems, trustworthy issues, and lack of good judgment is ALSO disqualifying for her. I went back and forth between Clinton and . . . ANYTHING ELSE (other than Trump) for a long time before making my decision.  It is the reason this endorsement post is so late in the game. However, when playing out the scenarios to their logical conclusions, I have determined that I cannot endorse this candidate.  

A Hillary Clinton administration will be bogged down in investigations and hearings for perhaps her entire term. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah, the head of the House Oversight Committee, has already stated that there is enough evidence to look into her activities for years - and he is determined to do so.  The reality of that is deterrent enough, but the knowledge (via WikiLeaks and FBI investigations) that there is some legitimacy to these investigations makes it that much worse.  The country doesn't need an administration with this much of an albatross hanging around its neck.  

I have heard from a number of people when discussing Clinton’s alleged corruption say that it is just the reality of politics.  However when we support and elect these candidates, we are saying that we care nothing about the integrity of our government.  Wink wink, nudge nudge is not the methodology of a government that is supposed to be a beacon of democracy. Politics is only dirty because we allow it to be.  Count me as one that will no longer be apathetic to a system that represents big money and special interests rather than the people who dutifully exercise their franchise.

Thus, the only candidate that can possibly be deemed worthy of endorsement is Green Party Candidate, Jill Stein.  Sure, she is short on experience, but that doesn't seem to be a concern to half the country supporting Donald Trump.  While examining both candidates, Stein seems to be much more versed in policy and how government works compared to Trump.  

She fails to have anything close to the resume qualifications of Clinton, but she has nowhere near the baggage either.  She has a solid core of values that she puts on the line by actually showing up places where she finds injustice.  Her only legal baggage is a misdemeanor charge against her in North Dakota for standing up against the North Dakota Access Pipeline that threatens to desecrate sacred lands of Native Americans and poison the drinking water - an issue on which Clinton hasn't had the courage to even comment.

Stein is honest and willing to put skin in the game to take the country out of the establishment muck that it is stuck in.  She has virtually the same progressive platform as the Bernie Sanders primary campaign which, in my opinion, puts her on the right side of history.  Her honesty and willingness to commit makes her a newbie president that we can work with. While every president shares the same observation that NOTHING can prepare someone for the presidency, I accept that Stein will happily fit into that scenario.

At the beginning of this piece, I defined the term “endorse” as to "express support or approval of publicly and definitely." I cannot do this for Trump, Clinton, or Johnson. However, I can for Jill Stein.  She isn’t perfect, but she is someone that Americans can be proud of as president.

I don't make any unrealistic assertions that Stein has a chance to pull a big upset in the election. However, there is an additional incentive to vote for Stein (or even Johnson). Enough support for the Green candidate will help take away the monopoly of power by the establishment two-party system. If five percent, or more, of the voters find it impossible to support Clinton or Trump and vote for Jill Stein, it will open up the process to the Green party in the next election. They will be eligible for matching funds which will help get their message out. Presently the two parties, as much as they show complete contempt for each other, collude to orchestrate that the two party system remains. We have seen the disaster that this system has become and we have an amazing opportunity to do something about it. The founding fathers warned us about it; perhaps now is the time we will listen.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.  --John Adams

Election 2016 Exposes the Media as Fraudulent

Nauseating has been the operative word for this election season. However, the one aspect of the season that is more than sickening is the fact that we can no longer trust what we see or read in the media anymore. There is too much coziness between the media's parent companies and presidential campaigns. Even the on screen talent and beat writers become "too familiar" with the candidates and their staffs. There is no wonder why the words "shill" and "rigged" are being thrown around so much this year.

Jordan Chariton, from The Young Turks Network and Mediaite, has painstakingly filtered through WikiLeaks for all the evidence illustrating that the mainstream media has descended to an aid to the powerful instead of the noble entity it once was.

Traditionally, the role of media has been to keep us informed and remain the watchdog over the authorities and ruling class. Today media follows a different model. For the most part it merely echoes the opinions of the elite.

In an article that Chariton wrote for Mediaite, he exposes the media bias for Hillary Clinton while covering the presidential election. In a section concerning CNN Contributor and DNC Chair Donna Brazile, he shows how she played an integral part in the campaign's “media division:”

"Brazile is joined by a long list of phony 'analysts' and 'strategists'—as well as anchors and reporters—who were clearly in-the-tank for Hillary Clinton all along . . . Brazile and those like her do what they do best: scheme to help get, and keep, their friends in power, and then go on TV and pretend to be on the level, offering their expert “analysis” on the same people. Does this make Brazile and other pundits bad people? No. But does it expose the platforms they operate on completely and utterly fraudulent."

This just isn't crooked, it is a cancer. We turn on the news and hope to get the unvarnished truth so we can make decisions about our lives. However, when I turned on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning I saw a panel talking about how the WikiLeaks have nothing troubling for the Clinton campaign. They cited an email that talked about general campaign strategy when the panel said nothing of the numerous emails that show a direct cooperation between the Clinton Campaign and their PAC's, for example - which is explicitly illegal.

Case in point:

Credit: Wikileaks, and @JordanCharion on Twitter

This isn't meant to be an anti-Clinton rant.  No, not at all.  Clinton, Trump, and those who follow in the elections that have yet to come, will emerge and fade away.  This post is about something much more significant than who becomes the president in the remote year of 2016. The most frightening part of this election season is that we have discovered that we are manipulated into thinking whatever the mainstream media, and those who pull their strings want us to believe – true or not, in order to advance the corporate establishment agenda. Since this seems to be the model now, there is no reason to think that we will ever be able to count on knowing the truth about our world. We are now, and will undoubtedly continue  to have the "blue pill" shoved down our throats.

“When the people who control the political power in this country . . . can rig the media, they can wield absolute power over your life, your economy, and your country. They control what you hear and don’t hear, how its covered and even if it is covered at all.”

--Donald Trump

That just goes to show you, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The "Berners" are ready to Occupy the News Channels for Bernie Sanders

There is a movement afoot that has Bernie Sanders supporters ready to occupy the media for next Tuesday's primaries.

What caused this stir is something Chris Matthews, of MSNBC, stated on the air to Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager, "I'm told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7th, the day of the California primary, . . . that at eight o'clock that night Eastern Time the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top - that she will have won the nomination. In numbers, it's done! What will that do to turn out if that's five o'clock Pacific time with three more hours to vote in California, who will be least likely to vote?  Sanders' people from 5 to 8, or Hillary's?"

It was at this point that Humpty Dumpty establishment finally had their big fall. This arrogant proclamation by Matthews infuriated the Bernie crowd.  Afterwards, social media became abuzz encouraging the faithful to stand up to these establishment media giants in the same spirit that Sanders has crusaded throughout his life - through peaceful protest.

The issue is that only the pledged delegates, i.e, those that are mandated by the voters, are locked-in delegates.  The superdelegates are basically floaters.  They can change their mind everyday from now until the convention.  Nothing is written in stone for them.  Weaver explained to Matthews that the pronouncement would be inaccurate because the superdelegate count is basically a poll, not a vote. He compared it to calling the California primary election based on polling numbers rather than the voters on election night.  

What made matters worse is the response Matthews gave to Weaver, "I don't want to have this conversation."  

Of course he doesn't but it was too late for that.  As a result the "Berners" are mobilizing. There is talk of showing up at the door of NBC at Rockefeller Center, CNN at Columbus Circle (both in New York City) to express their displeasure with the establishment media who they are convinced has been out to get Sanders from the beginning.

What makes it look particularly bad for MSNBC is the hypocrisy.  It is hard to reconcile that their commentators routinely chastise Republican policies that suppress the vote while their basic reporting policy will do the same thing come Tuesday night.

If the media follows through with its pre-mature announcement,  it will be just another in a long list of ways the entire establishment has been trying to contaminate the democratic process in the primary process. It is this kind of system that gave birth to the Trump and Sanders' phenomena.  It will be interesting to see how they all attempt to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.