Michigan Democrats Recruited Thanedar to Split Vote, Hamstring El-Sayed

Can I prove this? Of course not. But crazier things have happened.

“He appears to have become a Democrat for purely strategic reasons, yet claims to be inspired by Bernie Sanders. “

-The Intercept

Here’s how the results shook out (source: Wikipedia):

NPR went out of their way to call Gretchen Whitmer’s victory a “landslide.” But, was it really?

We already know that El-Sayed had some difficulty distinguishing himself from Thanedar. Or maybe I should say that white voters were the ones having a hard time. Two brown people on the same ballot? It’s too confusing. It goes without saying that there were enough people who simply knew El-Sayed as the-brown-guy-who’s-with-Bernie.

And let’s take time to consider Thanadar—a guy who was the center of a Mr. Burns-esque corporate scandal that dredges up images of the C.L.I.T. (none of you are safe). A Burnsian corporate villain who tortures animals? You would think this is red meat for any tree-hugging rank-and-file of the Democratic moderates. So how did he even get on the ticket? How did he manage to get that signed off?

I have some experience with this trope, having volunteered for the Daniel Biss campaign in Illinois. We had a similar loss to another super-tycoon named JB Pritzker. The Illinois Democratic Party supported Pritzker in no small part because he would not rely on any party funds in his campaign. The DNC is dead-ass broke, and seems to have made it’ peace with wealthy candidates who have no experience in government—even ones who are several times wealthier than the Republican incumbent against whom they’re running (Bruce Rauner’s ~$500 million vs. $3.4 Billion?! Big bank take lil’ bank...in Juicy J voice).

Illinois’s primary had a 3rd Democratic candidate as well--RFK’s son, Chris Kennedy, fresh off the plane from Boston (don’t ask me how that works). In this case as well, Kennedy had a platform that did well to distinguish himself from the wealthy frontrunner. But he made confoundingly little effort to also peel off any votes from the other progressive in the race. 

Now here’s how the Illinois primary shook out:

We even edged out Kennedy for 2nd place! An argument can be made that, had Kennedy never entered the race at all, the results would have been much closer, possibly even having Biss winning.

Thinking again of Michigan, Thanedar was able to make himself very visible, due to his spending $10 million of his own money in ads. But when you see that he spent that much to come away with a measly 17 percent of the vote, it really makes you wonder if Thanedar overestimated the ease with which he could buy a Michigander's vote.

Michigan's results also make me feel that the intractably strong neoliberal spirit does not exist in Detroit the way it does in Chicago—which is to say that El-Sayed probably had twice the shot of winning that Biss ever did! 

Acknowledged: Gretchen Whitmer has a respectable progressive voting record in her time in the legislature. But let’s also acknowledge that Michigan’s insurance industry was clamoring for her to win this primary. Blue Cross Blue Shield even went so far as to encourage its employees to donate to her campaign. I wish this shit were made up! I really do.

In acknowledgement of her win, NPR even gave Whitmer a little hooray-for-women-candidates shoutout...even though there are plenty of poor and single mothers out there who will be tangibly harmed by the policies Whitmer and Big Insurance will undoubtedly espouse. Made my fucking stomach turn.

Can you really not see a world in which the Michigan Dems are receptive to a candidate with his own money? And as an added bonus, can split the vote on the insurgent candidate (read: Bernie-Bro du jour)? And the crony capitalists and “consensus-builders” get to spit on the grave of yet another inspired campaign, and say socialism can’t win in the midwest. Socialism can't win in the midwest, but somehow Trump still can? Hmm....

😕

-AT

Where Is Cruz's Birther Movement?

For the longest time, I have thought to myself "How is Ted Cruz running? He's Canadian. How is everyone so much chiller with this than they were with Obama?" Then I get to asking the ever-knowing Internet, and it seems like others are feeling the same way!

There is an article on Buzzfeed that explains the situation quite simply--an it's worse than I thought. Not only was Cruz born in Canada to a Cuban national (read: citizen. I'm only saying "national" to be a sensationalist and start trouble), there are also questions about his mother's citizenship!

My question is, where is the viral fervor behind Ted Cruz's doubted citizenship like there was with Obama? I remember back in the day, then non-presidential-candidate Donald Trump made this into a huge thing with Obama. He was all like:

"Show us your birth certificate!"

Then, after finally getting what he asked for, he was all like:

"Show us your school transcripts!"

Hey. Were you able to read those quotes without Trump's voice in your head? I bet you weren't.

Trump has gone birther on Cruz himself, but it's suspiciously unenthusiastic. You'd think Trump would be even more fire-y because he is actively competing against Cruz for the presidential nomination. This was not the case with Obama. What raises further suspicion is the fact that, unlike the Obama situation, the Cruz controversy is actually based in a minimal level of fact. Now, let's talk personal anecdotes:

My friend works at a major bank, and was making small talk with a coworker about wanting/being able to be president. This coworker says "Well, when you think about it, anybody can be president. I mean, Obama is from who-knows-where and he's president!"

You see?! Obama's birther movement was big enough to permeate popular culture! Whether you harbored doubts about Obama's birth status or not, you were at least aware of the controversy. That includes the somewhat-related controversy about Obama being Muslim, and that 3rd controversy about Obama being socialist. And these claims were literally based on nothing!

So, doing a little extrapolation with memory of that whole thing, one could reasonably presume that the accusations against Cruz, with some aspects of the claim tangibly proven, would be an even bigger thing. But, as you can surely see, it is not. Why? Now I've never been the one to claim racialized double-standard but...


Oh silly me! Would you look at the time!

Vestager > Legarde

There, I said it.

Denmark's Economy Minister, Margrethe Vestager, has my vote for most impactful woman in Europe--not IMF Managing Director Christine Legarde, or this blogs parodic namesake. This is a conclusion I came to upon...well...learning who she is. I think Legarde is dope. But now I have a new favorite.

But I have always felt some typa way about the enthusiasm behind Angela Merkel--partially catalyzed by her being Time's Person of the Year in 2015. I tip my hat to her in terms of the current refugee crisis. But all the positives of what was achieved in during this crisis, and during the Grexit, is way overblown to me. This has all come at the expense of kicking Greece around!

Ukraine--yeah we imposed sanctions, but the only ones tht were going to have any teeth were going to be born of Europe. And look who is Gazporom's biggest customer? Germany? Home to apparent mega-diplomat Angela Merkel. But Vestager took on Gazprom. No one else is doing this stuff. The southern european countries are ripped on too much. Greece has been more-or-less welcoming to the refugees. but then many of the Balkan countries along the overland route are closing their borders.

and just ask Vittorio Grilli about the Euro financial crisis. And maybe ask L. Randal Wray. Italy and Greece went down because the jumped in to help--as is the philosophy/point behind even having a fucking European Union in the first place! At least I thought. And look who stayed tight-wadded? Germany? But apparently she some dynamo now, and we could all learn something from Germany's leadership. But in reality, the southern EU countries are arguably better examples of what you should be doing.

The IMF kept Greece in as a face-saver. It was not in Greece's best long-term financial interests, nor was it in Europe's short-term financial interests. Greeks living there were like yo. We've already been austere as fuck for the longest. Do it 5 more years and we can rebuild? Why the hell not? I'd better get up. My butt hurts, and I realized its Good Friday. I need to get a fucking rental car.

NOTE: It is clearly not Good Friday at the time I published. This I was sitting on the floor of Albequerque airport (while my laptop charged) and was still salty about missing my original flight from LAX the night before. I didn't really get past going in on Merkel, but look up Margarethe Vestager when you get the chance. She's dope.

I Refuse to Vote for Trump Until...

...he makes this his campaign theme song:

Freedom Kids? Puh-lease.

Welp, that is all.

Robert Gates’s Talk on Leadership: Long-Delayed Takeaways

(video courtesy of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs)

When I heard that Robert Gates was in town and was going to give a talk on leadership, I jumped at the opportunity. The most I knew about him, at the time that I signed up for this, is that he was George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense for a spell. What I found out during the talk was that he has worked for a number of different administrations.

The responsible thing to do here is to elaborate on that, but this info is Wikipedia-able. Being that I’m finally getting around to a post about something that happened over a month ago, I am going to forgo this step. Dr. Gates has a 40-year history—current President of the Boy Scouts of America, ex-CIA, a bunch of other stuff. It turns out that the main draw for his latest book (and this talk by extension) was that he had been at the head of a diverse array of organizations. Therefore he is quite qualified to convey some wisdom on leardership that an be used universally.

But an aside on the ex-CIA tip:

When asked about the general state of affairs abroad, Gates cracked this joke about how people in the intelligence community are naturally pessimistic. “If [an intelligence officer] stops to smell the roses, he’s looking around for the coffin.” I thought that was really funny! I probably laughed the loudest out of the hundreds and hundreds of people in that Fairmont Hotel banquet hall. Good thing I sat in the back. And that’s when it dawned on me that I pretty much have the same sense of humor as a super old-school Texan man.

My Initial Impressions

Clearly, I had all the wrong ones. I knew he was going to talk about leadership, but I didn’t really look into it much. Sure I maybe found out through osmosis that he was on a book tour, about his book on leadership. But I, being familiar only with his work with the most recent Republican administration, assumed it was going to be more of Gates on some anti-Obama platform—about how we are not leading-as-a-country anymore (you know, the usual conservative gripes) and he was going to outline that fact in equally cliché ways. But once they started with his intro, I was like “oh, they literally meant how to be a leader on the flier”…like a keynote speech you may give as a university president (possibly to your campus’s RA’s). Then I think to myself “well shit…are we going to talk policy at all?” I thought I was cozying up to Secretary Gates pontificating on what’s wrong with our foreign policy/defense plan. Once that bubble burst for me, I was even more glad I didn’t cave and put up the nine dollars (in cash only) for a beer ticket. That would have meant I was making myself comfy for something entirely other than what I signed up for. That being said, he did take time to admonish the general gridlock in Washington. That indicated to me that it’s officially the hot thing to do on both sides of the aisle. That occurred about five minutes into his speech. It is at that time that it really sunk in for me, thinking to myself  “so A Passion for Leadership: Lessons on Change and Reform from Fifty Years of Public Service is basically meant as a glorified organizational psychology book?” As the kids might say, I got got.

So the one benefit of procrastinating on this for so long is that I earned some perspective. Instead of just regurgitating on what happened (there’s the video on the internet for that), I’m going to give you my inferred takeaways on what Robert Gates thinks about current things.

Like many adults of his age and background, he’s disenchanted with the millennial generation.

In response to someone’s question about the decline in the number of public servants under age 35, Gates got applause for his suggestion for there to be mandatory national service program for people to join once a person turns 18 (sounds kind of big government-ish to me, but that’s also just me being a troll). But  how is there such disappointment in this age group’s lack of commitment to public service? We’re crushed by debt, man! Here’s all I have to say:

He’s really into thinking that “young people” should consider serving their fellow Americans. Maybe if we weren’t all so broke, we could consider it. Take Donald Trump, for instance. Trump is a baffling individual—and not even for the obvious reasons. He’s a billionaire. Why does he want to take on the stress of leading the world’s most powerful country to the tune of a measly $400k a year? Adults these days…I tell ya.

Robert is not really fuckin’ with that Iranian deal.

I infer this, at least in part, by a little quip he made about the weather out in D.C. Mind you, this event took place right after that huge snowstorm on the east coast. Gates joked “everything in Washington is frozen except Iranian assets!” And I thought it was funny. As. Fuck. I laughed pretty loud, while everyone else just sort of tee-heed (strike two for my old-timey sense of humor). But that aside, I think the removal of US sanctions is really sticking out in Dr. Gates’s mind at the moment—to say the least. What compounds this is that at the wrap-up of Q&A, someone asked about what counties should be major players in the (so-called) US-led coalition against ISIS. To this question,  Gates responded:

·              “A Shia-led, Iranian backed government in Baghdad, welcoming the forces of sunni countries to help sunnis is not gonna happen.”

·             So in light of that type of response, I feel the Iranian deal really irks him. But it is at this point that I differ with the former Secretary.

A Tehran-backed Shiite militia seems farfetched at the moment, but we’re getting warmer and warmer with Tehran every day—so much so, one could say, that these warming relations between Washington and Tehran have pushed Saudi anxieties to the tipping point (see the diplomatic fallout after the execution of Sheik Nimr-al-Nimr).

One could (and people do) make the argument that the al Nimr situation is not borne of sectarian animosity, so much as rock-bottom oil prices and the waning of Saudi Arabia’s economic utility (as far as the US is concerned). That being said, it is not hard to fathom a Tehran, delighted with new Western outlets for consumerism, become willing to take the on-the-ground role of keeping Iraq calm. Ain’t no tellin’.  Aint noooo telling.

NO TELLING!

So that’s my spiel for now. My hope is that these become more polished, and put out more promptly and often. From my laptop, this has been amateur reporter on this event, Angela Twerkel.

A November to Remember (for the Wrong Reasons)

This is a concert review: Everything I presumed about Rick Ross is a lie. To you I-told-you-soers hollering in the back about how he's a former CO and not the real Rick Ross, you provide me no new revelations. Please now be seated.

Let me preface this by saying I don't get out much. I also, as it turns out, don’t get in much either…as in sit still to write this post, or many posts for that matter. Looking at my shoddy history, it appears that every 18 months or so, I get so mad about Hillary Clinton that I have to yell into the desolate and vacuous internet, and oddly enough, acknowledgement of that does little to reduce my level of satisfaction.

Woah. And in looking for that image, guess what else I found and I went nuts for it on the spot:

Incredible. We did win Wisconsin tonight, by the way. See that? She almost hijacked this post too!

Also preface this by saying that I know I have a big taste for raps macro brews. I’ll take that willingly. But on this night, it sank in just how fat Ross is. Long story short, he’s just soo fat! I’m not calling him “fat” in the sense of physique—I’m the last person who should be a body-shamer. I’m saying he gave a lazy performance, thus making him fat in spirit. Really, really fat.

He was 2 hours late. I don’t mean to be a so-and-so about it, but he was slated to start at 8. He didn’t come on stage until 10:30 or so. The Power 92 DJ spun some of all the top rap hits while we waited. So effectively, we spent 2+ hours listening to 92.3 (Live!)…While I'm sitting there drinking 2 gin and tonics at a time like an idiot.

Ross’s being late further eroded his mystique for me. Bosses are punctual. What boss do you know became a boss by being late to stuff?! But I should be one to talk, because you know what bosses also don’t do? They don’t comply sheepishly to the 2-drink-minimum rules by double-fisting gin and tonics. I, friends, am not a boss either. But that should come as no surprise, due to my lack of a record deal...or records.

When the DJ is spinning “I’m A Boss” around 10:30, Ross finally shows up on stage during the first chorus—after Meek Mill’s verse…you know, “I’m a boss (ugh)!/ I’m a boss (ugh)!” That part. He comes in, drops his luggage, and ughs along with the recording. Crowd goes ape shit—including the author of this post, who by this point is 3 rounds deep in complying with the house drink rules. I stopped caring about how late he was, and didn’t get angry about it again until days later. I feel this was his plan all along.

As far as the performance itself, whose start point is debatable (my friends say it was when he first came on stage. I started my clock towards the fade-out portion of “I’m A Boss” when Ross and his hype man were passing out posters to the first couple rows), it was nevertheless lazy. He did his slower-paced songs. In other words, he leaned more toward your Stay Schemin’s and 9 Pieces, as opposed to your MC Hammers and Drug Dealer’s Dreams.

An aside on “Drug Dealer’s Dream”: “Drug Dealer’s Dream” is my theme song. It, for whatever reason, has a lot of significance for me. And I just don’t know. I can always lift more weight or walk into the office with more swag if it’s playing. You can get it to apply to any aspect of your life if you want it to. “Drug Dealer’s Dream” is incredible. However, “Drug Dealer’s Dream” was not performed.

And now…

An aside on “9 Piece”: He played it twice. At least twice. The same goes for “B.M.F.” Great songs, yes. But like I said, he was leaning on his slower songs. So fat (read: lazy).

By now, it should be apparent to you that I’m really into Rick Ross. Like really, really into Rick Ross. So to throw a positive into this experience, he  did play a ton of stuff he played from Rich Forever—a work virtually unknown to casual Ross fans (aka everybody). So that I appreciated. But with that being said, I was still greatly disenchanted by the performance. If you were to ask Ross himself how the show went, he’d probably say “I came. I saw. I conquered.” But if you asked me, I’d say “He came (late). He ughed. He passed out posters.” Oh, and I should mention that his hype man did most of the rapping. For 2/3 of the show, you could barely hear Ross himself.

Furthermore, there were no t-shirts to buy afterwards. I’m all about copping the shirt. But sadly, the only thing there was to get was a promotional poster for Black Dollar, which I still haven’t listened to. That’s another thing that speaks to how macro he is, he’s releasing these albums too fast! Honestly, I haven’t picked anything up after Mastermind. Because in my opinion he false-started on Rich Forever, and never made up for it. And now with these latest outings (Black Dollar, Black Billionaire, Black Something Other Thing), I just plain can’t keep up. I have to make sure I’m all caught up for his next release. Not sure what the title is yet, but history suggests that it will be the word “black,” followed by some economic/monetary term. I waited too long to write this. Let’s just pass the time making this title thing into a game.

Black Inflation

Black Gold

Black Gold Standard

Black Interest Rates

Black Monetary Policy

Black Tax Haven (I waited so long to post this that it’s now topical!)

Black Tax Incentive

Black Tax Break

BMF 2 (Black Monetary Fund)

Black Market Index (or BMI…which could double as a fat joke. Of course we do not condone body-shaming here)

Black Fiat Currency

Black Account of Note

Black Refinancing

Black Audit

Black Market…wait. That’s one of the titles, isn’t it? I work too much, it’s hard to keep up.

Black Industrial Average

Black Credit Swap

Mortgage-Blacked Securities

Black Market Bubble

Black Arbitrage

Black Exchange Rate

Black British Royal Pound

Black Weakened Euro

Black Private-Sector Job Growth

Black Quarterly Earnings

Black Christine Legarde

Black Quantitative Easing

“You Ain’t A Liberal…Just A Wannabe That Looks Like One!"

For those of you keeping score at home, the title of this post is indeed a Space Jam reference. Hopefully the title will make more sense as you read on. This post is about Hillary Clinton--someone who certainly looks like a familiar liberal face, but whose actual liberal powers have been stolen by the Monstars (the Monstars, in this case, being the change in her party's trajectory over the past 20 years).

This post is also about Bernie Sanders--someone who better embodies the Democratic Party's current ideology, but seemingly gets no credit for it. Now cue the tactless blogger who saw something on TV/read something on the internet that made them mad.

Consider the following aside from Ted Koppel, during a segment he did on Chicago Tonight with Phil Ponce. 

“I have enjoyed watching the good senator from Vermont have a more spirited campaign than many expected, but I do not believe he will be the candidate.”

Naturally, Koppel says that coming only from a place of profound experience and wisdom about the political cycle. Not only the political cycle, but all the other intangibles about this country’s institutions and the way things work.

The same can be said of New Years Eve’s article by David Rothkopf, “The Year The United States Elects Its First Woman President,” though I found the piece to be little more than a tasteful reposition of obvious questions.  In it, Rothkopf makes the following statement:

"The arithmetic is pretty straightforward. She will be the Democratic nominee. The Republican Party is in disarray and still has to rid itself of the existential threat that the candidacy of Donald Trump poses before settling on another candidate who, judging from the current field, will likely be weak and flawed." 

Sure, such an existential crisis is glaringly obvious on the Republican side. But what about the Democrats? What about Bernie Sanders, the real Democrat?

I feel like the whole world is writing Bernie Sanders off already. When it comes down to it, all Bernie really wants to do is put us on par with every other 1^st-world country out there. Please don’t be fooled by the cumbersome way he has thus far described “socialism” or “social democracy.” I’ll help you out. Next time you hear these terms used by the media (or Bernie himself) to describe his platform, think Canada, think Sweden, think the UK. When it comes to western governance, the US is the odd man out, and Bernie merely seeks to help us get with the times!

He’s in favor of things like expanded education, single-payer healthcare, not voting during the work week, and gun control.

While we’re on the subject of gun control, I haven’t been happy with how Bernie has handled this in debates, but next time you hear Hillary Clinton try to come at him about gun control, remember he’s from Vermont—a largely rural state where gun violence is not the insidious crisis that it is in so many other places. And he shouldn’t be downed for being a faithful senator and voting his state!

But lately, I have been reading a lot of articles that seem to subtly throw in the towel on Bernie’s behalf. Perhaps for good and wise reasoning (first and last concession), many are writing articles that come from an angle or assumption that Hillary will handily secure the nomination. Just recently, I read “6 moments that could haunt Hillary Clinton.” It spells out the things that could hamper her in the general election! Like she’s already won! I could not possibly be S-ing my H any harder.

I have a friend. He’s a liberal, but that comes second. His first billing would be anti-conservative. Speaking with him, I always take the stance of saying that I don’t feel that Hillary Clinton really embodies the modern or contemporary values of one who is left-of-center. And he always responds with “yeah, but she’s our best chance for the Democrats to win!” And he’ll go on to say something like “Her husband is Bill Clinton for crying out loud! Bill. Clinton.” And it’s at this point that I take on the contrarian view, and lay out some examples of Bill Clinton’s philosophy not jiving with that of today’s garden-variety liberal (and I may or may not do so in a voice intended as a bad Lionel Hutz impression):

Oh, Bill Clinton, eh?

The same Bill Clinton responsible for NAFTA?

(Sidenote/Long-Winded Aside: there’s writing out there that confirms my suspicion that Hillary has not been gung-ho about TPP. Short-game reason: So her support of it won’t alienate the base/be a feather in Bernie’s cap. Long-game reason: So TPP can be on her presidential resume, and not Obama’s. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/miscalculation-mrs-clinton-why-trans-pacific-partnership-may-be-trans

Yes. I am familiar with the Cato Institute and what some writing of theirs sets out to accomplish. But on this blog, real-recognize-real. Simple as that. Anyway, you were saying, Mr. Hutz?)

The same Bill Clinton who signed DOMA?

The same Bill Clinton who instituted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

Now I’m no big-city lawyer (crowd gasps), but that doesn’t sound like a Democrat to me…at least not a 21^st Century Democrat! Don’t get me wrong. I love Bill as much as anyone else out there who can fog a mirror.

My point here is this: Perhaps 1993’s centrist democrat is a little closer ideologically to today’s establishment republican.  Yesterday’s Bill Clinton might be closer to today’s Mitch McConnell…or today’s John McCain…or today’s Hillary Clinton! With that type of ideological company, I don’t think that it’s fair to either party for Hillary Clinton to basically be grandfathered into the Democratic nomination.

Also let’s talk voting record. She’s to the right of most of her democratic peers on a swath of issues…including women’s rights, student-debt reform, and wall-street reform. Let’s not forget that she’s to the right of Obama, and that’s a big part of why he got the nomination over her in ’08.

In the spirit of our young friend above, you mean to tell me that she served as a senator from New York in the early to mid 2000s, has a base of operations in Manhattan, and if elected she somehow won’t be beholden to Wall Street? I cannot fathom that.

And if you didn’t know that this post was about Hillary Clinton, you’d have presumed this to be the description of some rank-and-file GOP congressman.

Basically my main bone to pick is that I feel Bernie is the only Democrat really in the race…and I think that should be his platform! When do the gloves come off for the Bernie camp? I was hoping to see a bit of a new offensive in the New Year, but things remain frustratingly quiet.

Sorry guys, when I look at Secretary Clinton, I see a candidate who enjoys an entirely de facto political platform.  I see someone with a rather hawkish senatorial record. I see a former corporate lawyer who takes to a boardroom like a fish to water. I see someone who was Secretary of State for an administration whose foreign policy only got good after she left! See: Cuba and Iran. Both are post-Clinton.

Hey remember that time she bit poor Terry Gross’s head off on Fresh Air when asked about her position on marriage equality? She wants you to forget. The establishment and DNC puppeteers want you to forget. But we have not, have we?

We’ll stop here because this post has become (more) tangential. There’ll surely be future opportunities to go in on Hillary Clinton’s false-flaggery. Let’s just suffice it to say that this Hillary thing doesn’t have to be inevitable if we don’t want it to be.

I invite you now to check out the unfiltered version of Hillary’s voting record. I really wasn’t kidding about it:

 http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Until Next Time