Blue Clown Fashion Show Intro
Oh, it should be a great show the next couple of nights, folks! All the circus lights have dimmed, and for two straight evening all the spotlights will illuminate the left ring of P.R. Burn-em’s Two-Party Circus. The Blue Clowns will preen and prance for us, showing off the issues that make up their outfits and the shining baubles and accessories that highlight and enhance their electable beauty. They want to prove to us that they are the most appealing to us, and that they’re the model who will look best on the runway when the final episode comes, and they have to stand next to the Orange Beauty Queen, in all his regal (if illegal) regalia.
It’s a lot like a reality TV show, and when the Fashion Show Season is done, Democratic voters will cast their votes and believe they have chosen their favorite of the Fashion Models to face off against the reigning winner. What they won’t know is that the DNC and the Dinosaur establishment has already chosen that candidate for them. Sorry, folks. Here’s the View from the Side. The Fashion show, like all reality TV, is already scripted, and the ending has already been written into that script, though the show’s producers over at DNCtv headquarters haven’t completely given up the secret. (Biden/Buttegieg. Sorry. I don’t believe in those kinds of secrets.) Yes, the game is rigged, the dice are loaded, and the moderators will be loaded, too. Will there be any surprises? Only if the Models and the audience rebel against the script, and improvise an honest contest instead of this poorly written farce. That would be fun, but I’m not expecting it.
This from far-right Breitbart.
So, check out these rules. I’m going to name this in advance “The Twitter Debate”. Since each candidate will have only 60 seconds to answer a question, they will have to answer it with a sound-bite, rather than solid explanation. Why not just give them a character limit of 280, allow one image, and handle this debate the same way all political debate is now conducted in America. P.R’s World is a Twitter world. Why not a Twitter debate?
Here’s my suggested first question for this debate.
“Is it humanly possible to answer any serious question about political policy in a thoughtful way in 60 seconds?”
I’m a newly independent voter, so watching this massive primary field my main interest is seeing if any Democratic candidate addresses the issues that most concern me. And as I’ve said so often in this blog, I’m a Climate Voter for 2020, so I’ll be mostly watching to see which of the Dems seems most capable of making progress on this most important issue of impending environmental disaster. Which candidate has the best plan for the climate crisis? Which candidate understands the complexities of the reality best? And, conversely, which candidates seem unfocused on the issue, or uninformed, or don’t seem to understand the issue well?
And as an independent climate voter, much of the rest of the debate will not be of interest to me. If discussion of climate gets cut off, even once, by the moderators, I’ll tune out immediately, and won’t be available for the advertisements that will punctuate the entertainment. They’ll be losing my market share, baby.
And since Oregon holds closed primaries, my independent status will prevent me from voting for these clowns, anyway. So my interest in the debate, then, is not quite partisan, and I’ll certainly be watching from a different viewpoint than Blue-dyed-in-the-wool Dems. (Why would my mind leap to a cliched wool metaphor to describe Democratic voters, do you think? Normally, I would eschew such a cliche. Dinosaurs don’t have wool. Hmm?)
The Dinosaur National Committee’s refusal to hold a climate-focused debate will come back at them the way the rising seas will come at Miami, by the time this long, long campaign is over. Why does the Democratic Leadership insist continuing down the Path they are On? ‘Cause they’re fookin’ dinosaurs, is why. And Dinosaurs sure don’t want to talk about the changing climate. Dinosaurs aren’t real good at change, right? Repeat after me, “Dinosaur thinkin’ leads to extinction!”
Why have a climate debate? What can the government really do about climate change, you might ask? When our government spends ten times as much on Fossil Fuel subsidies as it does on education– despite evidence that fossil fuel companies have committed intentional worldwide ecocide– you can see why we might need a climate change candidate to become president. Ouchie, this information sorta stings.
Buckle’s analysis of the inefficiency of fossil fuel subsidies is illustrated best by the United States’ own expenditure: the $649 billion the US spent on these subsidies in 2015 is more than the country’s defense budget and 10 times the federal spending for education . When read in conjunction with a recent study showing that up to 80% of the United States could in principle be powered by renewables, the amount spent on fossil fuel subsidies seems even more indefensible.
But, despite the focus on the Fashion Show, there is still some no-action action going on in the Center Ring, where the Blue Clowns have surrounded the Trump Bunker (built with walls of orange balloons, filled with hot air) though they aren’t really attacking but mostly sitting around on their thumbs. A few smoke bombs and confetti cannons are still going off, weakly. I can only say, there’s no action like no action. But even without any action, the show must go on. And Robert Mueller has agreed, after subpoena, to and come to talk to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees… next month. Don’t you just love how subpoenas from Congress are optional, nowadays? I wonder if he’ll pull a Hope and just refuse to answer any question that makes him a little uncomfortable. ‘Cause if the subpoena is optional then questions must be, too.
The oddest comment in this article is from Red Clown Collins, who performs the role of a particularly abrasive Court Jester at Jerry Nadler’s left side, jabbing him constantly in the ribs with a sharp little Jester’s wand every time Nadler starts to get an idea. Collins thinks it’s a fine idea to have a chat with Mueller, bring him right on in. Which makes me think there’s a big trap being set here, especially since Mueller pretty egregiously left out of his report the fact that Constantin Kilimnick was an agent for the State Department when he was passing info from Trump’s Campaign to the Russian government. I’m sure not surprised that Mueller is a bit reluctant to come in. I’m not so sure this hearing is going to go the way the Dems hope.
And, since Nancy Pelosi-saurus will never allow impeachment, I’ve got to ask, what is the actual end that Nadler and Schiff are moving toward with this questioning? What do they hope to gain by talking to him. Maybe it just seems easier than actually reading the Mueller report? That tome was a little dry, I’ll admit, though it had some great details. But everyone’s a critic, right?
So, I haven’t been writing about the “Case of the New Census Question”, but it does deserve some mention. In fact, the details lend themselves to a kind of Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys treatment, which I’ll have to work on. This case will be just a prelude to the travesty that will come when the Supremes are asked to decide on Congress’s investigations into Trump. When that day comes, they’ll do a little dance on the shards of the constitution and reject all the House subpoenas and investigative requests. Oh, no! I just got a picture in my mind of Brett Kavanaugh trying to dance, and it’s not a pretty sight. Good article here from Slate.
The story of Ross’s actual motivation turns out to be much worse. Recently released documents coming from the hard drive of the late Republican redistricting operative Thomas Hofeller indicate that the intention behind the inclusion of the question was to give Republican state legislatures a chance to draw districts that—by excluding a large number of non-citizens from the Census count used to determine the number and location of districts in each state—would help Republicans gain more seats and minimize the power of Hispanic voters. One such Hofeller memo explicitly said the question would offer “a disadvantage to the Democrats” and be “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.” Uncontradicted evidence from census department researchers, meanwhile, revealed that the question is likely to suppress the response rate of households containing non-citizens, which would lead to an undercount in places containing more Democrats. To Ross and his compatriots Kobach and Bannon, this would surely be a feature and not a bug.
Indeed, in another case of similar political import, a Supreme Court majority declared the following: “The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.” That case was Bush v. Gore, the case ending the disputed 2000 presidential election and handing the election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. There, the justices of the Supreme Court let politics get in the way of a fair decision. It looks like history may be about to repeat itself.
I’m glad Slate brings up the Bush v. Gore case, but I’m not sure the parallel is quite clear. What will be similar, though, is the Supreme’s violation of law and precedent and the US Constitution in favor of the Red Clown costumes they wear under those black robes. (Except that Clarence T doesn’t wear anything under his. But you really want to think about that, or about why he never talks during sessions, either.)
And, one last side note, before I step outside, into the real world again. This is an interesting article about the value, even the necessity, of diverse thinking. It mentions my old friend, Steve, so it’s gotta be a good one, right? It is, I think. Differently.