Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Could You "Choke It Down" And Vote For Kyrsten Sinema? Let's Look At New Jersey

>

Hugin & Menendez-- living proof of why primaries are so important

Sinema (AZ) is the worst Democrat in the House-- the one that is most supportive of Trump and most opposed to a progressive agenda. She's the chair of the Blue Dog Cause; she's grotesquely corrupt-- soliciting money from Wall Street from her perch on the House Financial Services Committee (bribes amounting to $2,167,231 this cycle)-- and she's a crackpot who could easily do anything from abandoning the Democratic Party to sneaking a gun into the chamber and shooting a colleague who angered her. You have to take my word for it; I've known her for years; she is not just putridly conservative; she is c-r-a-z-y. Schumer selected her as the Democratic candidate for the open (Flake) Arizona Senate seat not despite all that, but because of it.

But the Democrats need that seat to take back the Senate. There's a good chance she'll win-- 538 gives her a 64.7% chance to beat Martha McSally-- even though the Democrats lose the Senate and then they're stuck with a right-wing sociopath who will constantly vote with the GOP and constantly work to water down all progressive proposals.




So... do Arizona Democrats hold their nose and vote for her? Choke it down? That's what the Newark Star Ledger says to do in their "endorsement of Robert Menendez, an ethics-free unconnected criminal. The brand new poll from Emerson shows Menendez leading-- despite a 53% unfavorable rating (and just a 34% favorable rating). His favorables are lower than Trump's 36% in the state but Trump's unfavorables (57%) in probably what's keeping Menendez alive.




The Star-Ledger editorial board calls the choice "the most depressing choice for New Jersey voters in a generation, with two awful candidates whose most convincing argument is that the other guy is unfit to serve... both candidates are slippery characters, even by Washington standards." But the editors want you to vote anyway.
Before he was caught in 2015, Sen. Robert Menendez broke Senate rules by routinely accepting expensive gifts, including private jets to luxury resorts abroad. He kept those gifts secret, breaking another rule. He then used his office to promote the personal and business interests of the man who paid the bills. All that was the unanimous conclusion of the Senate ethics committee, including all its Democrats.

It's a miracle that Menendez escaped criminal conviction, and an act of profound narcissism that he stayed in the race despite this baggage, putting a Democratic seat at risk while Donald Trump sits in the White House.

The Republican challenger, Bob Hugin, is no better. He's using the closing weeks of his campaign to spread the most vicious lie of this election season in New Jersey-- the suggestion that Menendez patronized child prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

Hugin estimates that he earned up to $200 million at Celgene, a pharmaceutical firm known for its vigorous fight to keep cheaper generics off the market so it could repeatedly hike the cost of its expensive cancer drugs.

It gets worse. Celgene paid $280 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit charging that the firm deliberately deceived doctors by concealing potentially fatal side effects of its cancer drugs. If that shocking accusations is false, then why did Celgene pay such an enormous sum without a fight?

The suit also charged that Celgene under Hugin defrauded Medicare. If that's also untrue, then why did Celgene direct more than $250 million of that settlement to the federal government? Hugin has no credible answer to those questions.

Which candidate is worse when it comes to personal ethics? Ask a philosopher, because to us it seems neither man can claim much advantage.

And when you get past ethics, the central issue in this race is Donald Trump. The question is which candidate can best fight Trump's toxic policies, his grotesque appeals to racial and ethnic tribalism, and his corrosive attacks on the pillars of our democracy, starting with the rule of law.

That makes this an easy decision: Menendez is the better choice, by far. He has our endorsement... Our hope is that voters remember that Trump is on the ballot, that they choke down their reluctance and vote for Menendez. He's no gem, but he's better than Hugin.
Better candidate?!? Nonsense. Clearly he's the less horrible-- or at least the least likely of the two to enable Trump. Menendez is not fit to serve in public office. But that's the big tent Democratic Party which runs on one basic premise: "we suck but they suck more. Our candidate is the lesser evil." The Star-Ledger is correct to point out that "It's a disgrace that Democratic leaders like Sen. Cory Booker and Gov. Phil Murphy rallied to support Menendez early on, when a stronger candidate could have beaten him in a primary. This race is a rated as a tossup now, in a year when a generic Democrat could win in a walk." With the exception of Andy Kim, who appears to be a genuinely good candidate and is running against Trumpist Tom MacArthur, every Democratic congressional challenger in New Jersey this cycle is simply the lesser evil. Jeff Van Drew, going right to the bottom of the shitpile, is probably going to accrue and even worse voting record than Sinema has! These are all nothing but lesser evils:
NJ-02- Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog)
NJ-07- Tom Malinowski (New Dem)
NJ-11- Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog)
So... most New Jersey voters can forget about making America a great place when they go to the polls next week. But if they hold their noses and vote for this pile of human garbage that the DCCC has selected, they might be able to make our country less horrible than the United States of Trumpanzee. Wouldn't it be great if the Democratic Party was awesome and more than just a career protection operation for a bunch of corrupt politicians and a selection machine for lesser or two evils candidates? Can Bernie clean out our very own stinking Augean Stables?

Labels: , , , , , ,

6 Comments:

At 9:25 AM, Blogger leu2500 said...

Do you want to see another tax cut for the wealthy, do you want social security & Medicare gutted, do you want more draconian immigration policies, do you want more “very fine people on both sides” etc.

IMHO, the pros & cons are different after ~2 years of single party Republican rule than during 2016.

 
At 9:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To vote for such candidates is to delay necessary changes. Such candidates are far more likely to support GOP plans than they are to vote for the benefit of We the People. Where is the benefit in that? We have enough Joe Manchins already. Giving the GOP more turncoats isn't taking over the Congress, but is ensuring instead that it isn't taken over.

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

leu... what diff? 9:36 has almost got it. As long as the democraps exist as the "other" caucus, congress will always be as it is now: a corrupt body of/by/for the money.

The only difference a democrap majority would bring is a tiny bit less overt hate... maybe. Nothing progressive will ever come about.

"But the Democrats need that seat to take back the Senate. There's a good chance she'll win... even though the Democrats (will likely) lose the Senate and then they're stuck with a right-wing sociopath who will constantly vote with the GOP and constantly work to water down all progressive proposals."

This could describe 40 or more of the current 49, and you would not be wrong to use this to describe scummer... the democrap leader.

Just as all house majority prospects lead directly to a corrupt, progressive-smothering fascist caucus because of Pelosi, any such flip of the senate will yield exactly the same dearth of anything useful in the senate.

Leu is absolutely wrong. The pros/cons today are exactly the same as they've always been since the DLC took over the party from the top down.

The cons are you may end up with a Nazi majority **AND** you may end up with a democrap majority that serves only money.

The pros do not exist. none at all.

 
At 12:04 AM, Anonymous zeeman said...

Forget about the bullshit posts before me. AZ vote by mail, wife and I voted for "Cinema" w/'our industrial strength clothes pins' attached. A 'D' in the Senate is better than any 'R'.
The 'R' candidate will defeat her.(This is AZ).Still am amazed about the amount of morons who still watch the propaganda ads on terrestrial broadcast media.In our late '60's, we are subscribed to the 'cyber world', such as this great blog.Have not watched a O.T.A. broadcast (and don't have cable)program in years. This includes AM/FM also.

 
At 6:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While Zeeman is wrong about the diff btw a Nazi and a democrap senate -- the only diff is the speed and overt enthusiasm with which fascist change occurs -- zee is correct about AZ.

sinema probably won't win, but if that anti-red wave is big enough, she might. But only for a cycle. And the Nazis won't lose anything if she's there. she, manchin, jones (thank gawd the child rapist Nazi didn't win, eh?), several others and scummer will still never ever do anything remotely progressive and most of the time will help the Nazis with whatever hate-filled and tax-cutting thing they want to do.

most of all, she'd act to discourage voters from ever coming out to vote for democraps again.

you remember.. like obamanation and his congress in 2010.

 
At 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

leu really doesn't understand 'paygo', clearly.

If you get your democrap house, all you'll see is 'paygo'. But that's fine as long as you don't have a clue what that means.

Was that you with the sign "keep your government hands off my medicare"??

 

Post a Comment

<< Home