Some "Democrats" Say Progressives Are Being Too Mean To Trump And His Cronies

The DCCC recruited some real dogs for the 2016 cycle. Most lost and the few who won are now in Congress voting with Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy for the Republican agenda. That would be "ex"-Republicans Charlie Crist (FL) and Tom O'Halleran (AZ) and wretched Blue Dogs Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Stephanie Miller (FL), and Lou Correa (CA). House Democrats would be better off without them. The DCCC wasted millions and millions of dollars on electing and trying to elect these crap conservative candidates. The ones in Congress have exactly one function: allowing Ryan and McCarthy to tell the media that their horrific legislation is "bipartisan," thereby infuriating and alienating the Democratic bases. In committee, corrupt conservatives, especially Crist and Gottheimer, are already helping the Republicans to push their agenda forward.

On top of that, the DCCC and Pelosi's House Majority PAC wasted immense amounts of money on dreadful losers-- some in blue districts that Hillary won-- but who just couldn't motivate voters. Plenty of voters who, for example, cast their ballots for Hillary in CA-25 just couldn't pull the lever for a crap candidate like Brian Caforio. Same in VA-10, where Hillary beat Trump by a very hefty 52.2 to 42.2%, but where the DCCC's horrid candidate, LuAnn Bennett, lost against a very weak Republican incumbent, Barbara Comstock by nearly 25,000 votes, 52.9% to 47.1%. The DCCC and Pelosi wasted around $6 million on that race. Shit candidates like Lon Johnson (MI-01- $2.2 million), Joe Garcia (FL-26- $5.5 million), Pete Gallego (TX-23- $3.5 million), Colleen Deacon (NY-24- $1.1 million), Monica Vernon (IA-01- $1.5 million), to name just a few, were horrendous recruits who no one is held accountable for.

Hillary beat Trump in TX-23 49.8% to 46.4% but the Blue Dog who TX-23 Democrats had already been ousted in 2014 after disgusting them, Pete Gallego lost a race in a district where the population is 71% Hispanic. So what does Pelosi do? She re-ups DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan to another term. And what does Lujan do? He re-ups conservative shithead Denny Heck as chairman of-- wait for it-- the DCCC Recruitment Committee. And scared-of-her-own shadow Republican-lite shill Ann Kuster was put in charge of incumbent protection-- which always amounts to protecting (as in financing) the Democrats who can't get any grassroots enthusiasm going because they vote with the GOP (like Kuster does). And so on...

Heck was whining at the House Democrats' retreat the other day that the special election districts are too tough for the DCCC. Maybe someone should sit him, Lujan and Pelosi down and explain to them that in business, real success depends on developing a long term strategy, not going to a one-cycle quick fix. Under Pelosi, who has zero understanding of how business works, the DCCC has never looked beyond the current cycle, which is why they not having losing ingrained in their DNA. That's going to be very hard to break free of but I can guarantee one thing-- re-hiring losers like Denny Heck and Ben Ray Lujan ain't gonna do it.

And then you have Garbagcrat Jim Webb, the ultimate fake Democrat-- remember when he ran for president and couldn't even get to 1% in any polls?-- on Meet The Press for some reason. And what does he want to moan about? What do racist pigs like him always want to talk about? Yes, that the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left and that they're not honoring slaveowners and are being mean to Trump and his fascist goons. That's the kind of messaging the Republican wing of the Democratic Party in Congress loves to hear-- the New Dems, the Blue Dogs, assholes like Lujan and Heck... and the horrible recruits Rahm Emanuel disciple Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL) is trying to re-recruit the garbage candidates who lost last year, last cycle. These people never learn. Let's hope this new Dan Sena guy is smarter than his bosses and learns how to ignore them.

Proof: It Was Trump, Not Richard Gere Who Did That Thing With The Gerbils

Meet The Press booked Jim Webb for Sunday's show. Had Chuck Todd gone outside the studio and scraped some dog shit off the ground and put it in the chair he would have had a guest more worth listening to. Or he could have booked Charles Blow, the NY Times writer whose column the next day may have been inspired by Webb-- one of the last of the notorious fake-Democratic racists who doesn't belong on national television. After all, part of Webb's right-wing schpiel Sunday was how rotten progressives are making a big mistake by being so mean to Trump and his regime. Blow reminded his readers this morning that "Trump is a vulgar, uninformed, anti-intellectual, extremely unpopular grifter helming a family of grifters who apparently intend to milk their moment on the mount for every red cent." Why would anyone be mean to him?

The Trump resistance movement is stretching its wings, engaging its muscles and feeling its power. It is large and strong and tough. It has moved past debilitating grief and into righteous anger, assiduous organization and pressing activism.

Welcome to the dawn of the fighting-mad majority: The ones who didn’t vote for Trump and maybe even some who now regret that they did.

They are charging forward under the banner of sage wisdom that has endured through the ages: Show up, get loud and fight back. Do it with your body and words, with your time and money, with every fiber of yourself. They see what this dawning regime means and they don’t intend, not even for a second, to wait around to see what happens. “What happens” is happening right now and it’s horrific.

But a grifter? A family of grifters? What does that mean? Back to Blow:

Trump still hasn’t released his taxes or fully disconnected from his businesses. His wife is suing The Daily Mail because she believes the newspaper may have injured her “unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to “have garnered multimillion-dollar business relationships for a multiyear term.” When his daughter Ivanka’s clothing line was dropped by Nordstrom, Trump lashed out at the retailer on Twitter, citing Ivanka as something of his moral compass: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person-- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” This begs the question: “Why do you need someone to push you to do the right thing?”

Then, top Trump adviser Kellyanne “QVC” Conway, from the confines of the White House briefing room, said during a televised interview: “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would say.” She continued: “I’m going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody; you can find it online.”

Unethical is too kind a word for these classless cretins. Furthermore, Trump has nominated, and his Republican conspirators in the Senate have confirmed, a rogues’ gallery of some of the least qualified, most questionable appointees in recent memory. Aside from some of them being the fiercest critics of the very agencies they are charged with leading, some have also been accused of bigotry, plagiarism, insider trading and overall vacuousness.

Jim Webb, clearly, has no understanding of who or what Trump is-- let alone what Trump/Bannon is. We're lucky that many of our political leaders do. Republicans-- led by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell-- see the problem and recognize it as a way of getting their toxic, soul-killing agenda signed into law. But thank God for real Democrats-- not the Jim Webb types-- like Ted Lieu, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren and, of course... Bernie. And don't we need Alan Grayson back around now?

And in response to Jim Webb, the right-wing racist piggy who thinks there should be more Democrats like him who revere slave-holders: "Trump is not normal. He is not competent. And we will not simply sit back and suck it up." Oh... and John Oliver is back on TV! The Virginia racist should watch; everyone should.

Referring To Herr Trumpf's Fans As "Life's Losers" Isn't Going To Win Them Over

Yesterday Jim Webb, a sometime Democratic, but not really a Democrat, who flirted briefly with running for president as a Democrat, announced on Morning Joe-- he certainly went to the perfect venue-- that he would not be voting for Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination, but that he is still open to voting for Herr Trumpf. His chief strategist, Mudcat Sanders, has also announced that he wouldn't be voting for Hillary either. They both feel she'll just be a continuation of Obama's policies, although neither talked about which Obama policies need to be changed. During his single term in the Senate, Webb was a kind of right-of-center populist. I think most Democrats were relieved when he threw up his hands and term-limited himself. Whenever someone wants to throw around the name of a Republican-friendly conservative Democrat for a nomination, Webb's name is always at the top of the list. Some of the monsters who dominate the Clinton campaign have been touting him lately. At least that's over!

Webb seemed to be willing to enable Trumpf's racism and xenophobia; sounded very much like... Jim Webb. "The reason Donald Trump is getting so much support right now is not because of the 'racist' (dismissive air quotes) etc etc. It's because a certain group of people are seeing him as the only one who has the courage to step forward and say 'we've got to clean up the stables of the American governmental system right now. We've got to make it work.'" I wonder if Webb is a heroin addict.

The day before, George Lakoff had warned that in order to push back effectively against Trump it is essential to understand his appeal. "Arguing against him," he wrote, "just helps him." Lakoff's essay-- excerpts of which are below-- divides American politics between the Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative). He helps his readers understand Trump's popular appeal from the perspective of cognitive and brain sciences, his field.

 

Why Trump?
-by George Lakoff

Donald Trump is winning Republican presidential primaries at such a great rate that he seems likely to become the next Republican presidential nominee and perhaps the next president. Democrats have little understanding of why he is winning-- and winning handily, and even many Republicans don't see him as a Republican and are trying to stop him, but don't know how. There are various theories: People are angry and he speaks to their anger. People don't think much of Congress and want a non-politician. Both may be true. But why? What are the details? And Why Trump?

Many people are mystified. He seems to have come out of nowhere. His positions on issues don't fit a common mold.

He likes Planned Parenthood, Social Security, and Medicare, which are not standard Republican positions. Republicans hate eminent domain (the taking of private property by the government) and love the Trans-Pacific Partnership (the TPP trade deal), but he has the opposite views on both. He is not religious and scorns religious practices, yet the Evangelicals (that is, the white Evangelicals) love him. He thinks health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, as well as military contractors, are making too much profit and wants to change that. He insults major voting groups, e.g., Latinos, when most Republicans are trying to court them. He wants to deport 11 million immigrants without papers and thinks he can. He wants to stop all Muslims from entering the country. What is going on?

...In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others-- who are responsible for themselves.

As the legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said, “Winning isn’t everything. It's the only thing.” In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Quite simply, because he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game. In strict conservative eyes, that makes him a formidable winning candidate who deserves to be a winning candidate. Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories-- deserved victories.

Consider Trump’s statement that John McCain is not a war hero. The reasoning: McCain got shot down. Heroes are winners. They defeat big bad guys. They don't get shot down. People who get shot down, beaten up, and stuck in a cage are losers, not winners.

The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. The hierarchy is: God above Man, Man above Nature, The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak), The Rich above the Poor, Employers above Employees, Adults above Children, Western culture above other cultures, Our Country above other countries. The hierarchy extends to: Men above women, Whites above Nonwhites, Christians above nonChristians, Straights above Gays. We see these tendencies in most of the Republican presidential candidates, as well as in Trump, and on the whole, conservative policies flow from the strict father worldview and this hierarchy.

...Direct causation is dealing with a problem via direct action. Systemic causation recognizes that many problems arise from the system they are in and must be dealt with via systemic causation. Systemic causation has four versions: A chain of direct causes. Interacting direct causes (or chains of direct causes). Feedback loops. And probabilistic causes. Systemic causation in global warming explains why global warming over the Pacific can produce huge snowstorms in Washington DC: masses of highly energized water molecules evaporate over the Pacific, blow to the Northeast and over the North Pole and come down in winter over the East coast and parts of the Midwest as masses of snow. Systemic causation has chains of direct causes, interacting causes, feedback loops, and probabilistic causes-- often combined.

Direct causation is easy to understand, and appears to be represented in the grammars of all languages around the world. Systemic causation is more complex and is not represented in the grammar of any language. It just has to be learned.

Empirical research has shown that conservatives tend to reason with direct causation and that progressives have a much easier time reasoning with systemic causation. The reason is thought to be that, in the strict father model, the father expects the child or spouse to respond directly to an order and that refusal should be punished as swiftly and directly as possible.

Many of Trump’s policy proposals are framed in terms of direct causation.

Immigrants are flooding in from Mexico-- build a wall to stop them. For all the immigrants who have entered illegally, just deport them-- even if there are 11 million of them working throughout the economy and living throughout the country. The cure for gun violence is to have a gun ready to directly shoot the shooter. To stop jobs from going to Asia where labor costs are lower and cheaper goods flood the market here, the solution is direct: put a huge tariff on those goods so they are more expensive than goods made here. To save money on pharmaceuticals, have the largest consumer-- the government-- take bids for the lowest prices. If Isis is making money on Iraqi oil, send US troops to Iraq to take control of the oil. Threaten Isis leaders by assassinating their family members (even if this is a war crime). To get information from terrorist suspects, use water-boarding, or even worse torture methods. If a few terrorists might be coming with Muslim refugees, just stop allowing all Muslims into the country. All this makes sense to direct causation thinkers, but not those who see the immense difficulties and dire consequences of such actions due to the complexities of systemic causation.

There are at least tens of millions of conservatives in America who share strict father morality and its moral hierarchy. Many of them are poor or middle class and many are white men who see themselves as superior to immigrants, nonwhites, women, nonChristians, gays-- and people who rely on public assistance. In other words, they are what liberals would call “bigots.” For many years, such bigotry has not been publicly acceptable, especially as more immigrants have arrived, as the country has become less white, as more women have become educated and moved into the workplace, and as gays have become more visible and gay marriage acceptable. As liberal anti-bigotry organizations have loudly pointed out and made a public issue of the unAmerican nature of such bigotry, those conservatives have felt more and more oppressed by what they call “political correctness”-- public pressure against their views and against what they see as “free speech.” This has become exaggerated since 911, when anti-Muslim feelings became strong. The election of President Barack Hussein Obama created outrage among those conservatives, and they refused to see him as a legitimate American (as in the birther movement), much less as a legitimate authority, especially as his liberal views contradicted almost everything else they believe as conservatives.

Donald Trump expresses out loud everything they feel-- with force, aggression, anger, and no shame. All they have to do is support and vote for Trump and they don’t even have to express their ‘politically incorrect’ views, since he does it for them and his victories make those views respectable. He is their champion. He gives them a sense of self-respect, authority, and the possibility of power.

Whenever you hear the words “political correctness” remember this.


There is no middle in American politics. There are moderates, but there is no ideology of the moderate, no single ideology that all moderates agree on. A moderate conservative has some progressive positions on issues, though they vary from person to person. Similarly, a moderate progressive has some conservative positions on issues, again varying from person to person. In short, moderates have both political moral worldviews, but mostly use one of them. Those two moral worldviews in general contradict each other. How can they reside in the same brain at the same time?

Both are characterized in the brain by neural circuitry. They are linked by a commonplace circuit: mutual inhibition. When one is turned on the other is turned off; when one is strengthened, the other is weakened. What turns them on or off? Language that fits that worldview activates that worldview, strengthening it, while turning off the other worldview and weakening it. The more Trump’s views are discussed in the media, the more they are activated and the stronger they get, both in the minds of hardcore conservatives and in the minds of moderate progressives.

This is true even if you are attacking Trump’s views. The reason is that negating a frame activates that frame, as I pointed out in the book Don’t Think of an Elephant! It doesn't matter if you are promoting Trump or attacking Trump, you are helping Trump.

A good example of Trump winning with progressive biconceptuals includes certain unionized workers. Many union members are strict fathers at home or in their private life. They believe in “traditional family values”-- a conservative code word-- and they may identify with winners.

Why Has Trump been Winning in the Republican Primaries?

Look at all the conservatives groups he appeals to!

The Democratic Party has not been taking seriously many of the reasons for Trump’s support and the range of that support. And the media has not been discussing many of the reasons for Trump’s support. That needs to change.

There are about 15 million hard core Trumpf fans participating in the Republican primaries and caucuses. That may be enough to win him his party's nomination. But he'll need another 50 million to win the general election. Hillary is a strong primary candidate. Low-info Democrats are voting for her as much as low-info voters are voting for him. But in the general election, she's as bad a candidate as the Democrats could field. She is the establish, went and the status quo at a time when voters crave real change. She is one of the least trusted politicians in the country and independents don't like her at all and won't vote for her. You want to make sure the next president is not Herr Trumpf, please consider tapping on the thermometer and doing what you can. It helps... a lot.

LOOKS LIKE HILLARY DOES KNOW NOW WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THEN... OR DOES SHE?

After taking an unpopular (at least unpopular among her idiotic colleagues) and principled position in standing up for free speech against the Republican efforts to demonize and stigmatize citizens who criticize the Bush Regime in the form of a newspaper ad, Hillary demolished the good will that brought her by throwing in her lot with Lieberman and the foul Regime itching for a military confrontation with Iran.

Today she hastily tried to ameliorate the damage by announcing she is co-sponsoring a bill introduced by Virginia Senator Jim Webb that would prohibit the use of funds for an attack against Iran (S. 759). The bill has languished in oblivion since March but now there is hope that Hillary's endorsement will bring it to the forefront of the debate.

Hillary's statement: "In February, I took to the Senate floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Given recent reports about Administration military planning toward Iran and to ensure that Congress plays a proper role in the authorization of any potential military force, today I have added myself as a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Senator Jim Webb which prohibits the use of funds for military action in Iran without authorization by Congress... Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims."

Sounds good. Unfortunately she then does a little waffling with an idiotic statement, the kind that keeps progressives from getting behind her all-but-inevitable candidacy: "I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime." It makes many wonder if she really would make a good president. Better than the pathetic bunch of pygmies™ the GOP is offering? Of course. As good as what we need to start cleaning up Bush's mess? The more I hear from her, the less sure I am.

A postscript to Howie's post (below) about the vote tomorrow on the Webb Amendment: Do we have a senator more useless than Holy Joe Lieberman?

"For some reason, the political establishment persists in seeing him as some sort of independent player when he has actually been one of the more destructive forces in the congress, using his status as elder statesman to give cover over and over again to the worst excesses of the GOP."
--Digby, in a rip-roaring, raging post, "Webb's Righteous Amendment," on Campaign for America's Future

Who's the "elder statesman" who's got Digby in a lather? Of course it's soon-but-not-soon-enough-to-retire Virginia Sen. John Warner, who actually said of fellow Virginia Sen. Jim Webb:

"I certainly support the concept he brings. But I am in the reconsidering posture."

{Hey, you can't make this stuff up!)

"Now we find," Digby writes,

that one of the great statesman Warner's last acts may be to pull the football out from under Jim Webb, whose Amendment to allow the military a decent interval between deployments is coming up for a vote. [See Howie's post, below.] Like clockwork, Warner, who had supported the bill is now saying that he may not since the Bush administration has agreed to his propaganda ploy to bring home a handful of troops for a big Christmas pageant, (which I'm sure the President, the Vice President and Senator Warner will milk for all its worth.) You could make big money in Vegas by betting on Warner to stab Democrats in the back every time and take some cheap shiny trinket from the White House as a reward.

The Webb Amendment is a powerful piece of legislation, backed by the Military Officers Association and many military families who are seeing their loved ones deployed over and over again until their marriages and their finances are at a breaking point. Although it may serve to force the administration to withdraw troops more quickly than they wish to, this is not a political ploy. Even before the surge, experts said that the Iraq war was breaking the military. Now it is far worse. Someone has to step in and do something about this problem and it's obvious it isn't going to be the Republican party.

Digby supports a common-sense proposal made by Mark Kleiman last week:

The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.

If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.

As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...

Really, this isn't very hard. With the voters overwhelmingly interested in getting us the hell out of Iraq, the Democrats can make full use of the power of the purse without worrying about a backlash, especially with Webb as the public face of the campaign.

Footnote Plan B is to pass the amendment in the House and let the Senate conferees accept the House version. Then it goes back to the Senate for a straight up-or-down vote, with the Republican dead-enders in the position of directly voting against money to fund the troops in the field. Not a vote I'd care to defend, especially if I were up for re-election next year.

Works for us, Mark. Senator Reid?
.