Tag: Kamala Harris

I Want Democrats or Republicans to Earn My Vote

W.J. Astore

That’s What I Want

My friends alternately ask me whether I want Democrats to lose the 2024 election or Republicans because I criticize both parties at this site. In tribal America, you must pick a side. You must vote blue no matter who, or you must embrace MAGA and Trump.

Here’s what I wrote recently to a friend who, based on my articles here, told me I obviously wanted Democrats to lose:

I don’t want Democrats to lose.  I want Democrats to earn the win by pursuing more progressive and more moral policies.  I want Democrats to stop aiding Israel in its genocide, I want Democrats to be more aggressive in helping the working classes, I want Democrats to cut the Pentagon budget in a major way, I want Democrats to be against fracking, I want Democrats to pursue immigration policies that don’t involve more money for walls, etc.

I used to be a registered Democrat, so perhaps I write more critical articles about Democrats because I expect more from them (and because Democrats are currently in power). I have a good idea what I’m getting with Donald Trump and the MAGA crowd (remember Trump’s first term?), and it’s not something I want. I expect Democrats to offer something more than “We’re not quite as bad as Trump,” and so far I’ve been disappointed. Certainly, the positions taken by the Harris/Walz campaign have been contrary to many of my priorities.

What I said of the Democrats to my friend I’d say to any Republican as well. I want Republicans to earn the win by pursuing more enlightened and more moral policies. I want Republicans to stop aiding Israel in its genocide, I want Republicans to be more aggressive in helping the working classes, I want Republicans to cut the Pentagon budget in a major way, I want Republicans to be against fracking, I want Republicans to pursue immigration policies that don’t involve more money for walls, etc.

And I’m not seeing much of that from Trump, MAGA, and Project 2025.

That said, I’d also like to see inspired, visionary, leadership. I’d like to hear the unscripted voices of Harris and Trump to gauge their intellect, their ability to think on their feet, their empathy, their ability to answer the most difficult questions frankly and cogently while also displaying sensitivity to nuance. I’ve heard Trump unscripted enough to know that he’s often an undisciplined, divisive, even insulting speaker. Harris is largely being kept from unscripted events, but the recent CNN interview she gave didn’t inspire confidence and trust.

Of course, one can be a skilled public speaker (Barack Obama) and a major disappointment as president. But motivational and communication skills remain something that I look for in a leader. Can she or he inspire people? Motivate them? Bring them together for the greater good? For the highest political office in the land, Harris and Trump, to my mind, are less than adequate as inspiring and visionary leaders.

Jill Stein this year (Wiki)

People then ask me: Well, who are you going to vote for, if not Harris or Trump? Because I know I’m offending both tribes by not backing their preferred candidate. And I give an honest answer: I’m not sure yet. I may vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. At least she’s against genocide in Gaza, as well as supporting a range of progressive positions that I generally sympathize with. And then I’m told a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump (interestingly, I haven’t been told a vote for Stein is a vote for Harris, which is logically the same) . Or I’m told I’m wasting my vote since she can’t win.

If you’re looking to change my mind because I won’t vote for your tribal team leader, it’s not a persuasive strategy to tell me I’m stupid and wasting my vote or that by voting for Stein I’m really voting for MAGA. You’re just insulting me for refusing to vote for your gal or guy.

I urge all my readers to vote for the candidate who best represents your positions and priorities. And which leader you’d trust the most in a crisis to make wise decisions. I pass no judgment on which candidate you choose. I think this is a sound practice for all of us to follow.

An example: I was talking to a neighbor and she said she’s still voting for RFK Jr. even though he’s pulled out of the race and endorsed Trump. I didn’t vote-shame her by telling her she’s wasting her vote or that she’s voting for Trump (or Harris) by not voting blue (or red). I just nodded my head and moved on. She was an early supporter of RFK Jr., and she still wants to show her support this November, and I respect her choice.

Democracy (along with comity) isn’t advanced by hating on each other for the votes we intend to cast. Am I wrong about this?

Cheerleaders of the Military-Industrial Complex

W.J. Astore

Harris and Trump Have Something in Common

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have something in common.  They both embrace colossal Pentagon budgets and both celebrate the “lethality” of the U.S. military, which, they agree, must be the strongest, bestest, in the world.  They also agree on giving a blank check to Israel and its leaders to do whatever they want in Gaza to the Palestinians and will continue to provide whatever weapons Israel desires to kill massive numbers of Palestinians while flattening and destroying the Gaza Strip.

With respect to Iran, Harris appears to be even more hawkish than Trump, and indeed criticized him for not being aggressive enough with Iran’s leaders.  Harris is also a strong supporter of Ukraine, seeing war as its best option to defeat Russia, whereas Trump is more skeptical of war and more open to diplomacy with Putin and Russia.

This isn’t surprising.  Mainstream Democrats in DC are basically warmongering neo-conservatives on foreign policy, so a vote for Harris/Walz is a vote, as the “liberal” New York Times reported, for “muscular patriotism” (or, to paraphrase my wife, febrile and unapologetic nationalism).  This is Washington Beltway conformity at its finest, as organs such as the National Interest write unironic articles about cheerleading the wonders of the military-industrial complex (MIC).

Ike got it all wrong. Embrace the MIC! Cheer for it!

See, President Dwight D. Eisenhower got it all wrong.  We shouldn’t be wary of the MIC; we shouldn’t worry that its unchecked power threatens democracy and our very freedoms.  No, we should embrace the MIC, celebrate it, enrich it with even more of our taxpayer dollars.

At Responsible Statecraft, Bill Hartung wrote a thoughtful response to the recent National interest piece.  To me, it all depends on what vision of America you want to advance.  If you want to advance America as the world’s hegemon, the empire of global reach, power, and dominance, the empire of constant warfare, then, heck, three cheers for the MIC.

But, if you want to advance America as a republic that leads “by the power of its example,” one that focuses on national defense and defense alone, then “three cheers for the MIC” guarantees the death of that republic and the corruption of its moral authority as an exemplar of democracy.

Of course, whether you choose to support Harris or Trump, we are witnessing exactly that latter fate.  When you embrace the MIC, war, and empire, you set in motion the death of Democracy.

Whether America’s politicians put an “R” after their names or a “D,” it doesn’t alter the fundamental reality that the power of America’s example is very much driven and determined by examples of its military power.  That is not about to change whether Harris or Trump prevails.

Kamala Harris and the Democrats

W.J. Astore

The Last Best Hope of America?

It’s convention week for the Democrats, which brings me to concerns expressed by a couple of loyal readers. They tell me I’m being too hard on Kamala Harris and the Democrats. They say I’m missing a much bigger picture when I criticize them. That bigger picture is the threat of another Donald Trump victory, which very well could end elections in America, or at the very least produce a much more conservative and reactionary judiciary than the one we already have. They point to Project 2025 and challenge me to write about it and denounce it.

Together with this is one reader’s optimism for a Harris presidency. She may not be the best choice, this reader admits, but she’s shown some progressive chops. And strong support for her within the party has grown organically as she’s raised over $200 million from mostly smaller donors, money that could help her to move away from corporate agendas and in progressive directions.

And that’s all OK with me. I’m willing to hear criticism of my positions and priorities. Indeed, that’s a big reason why I started Bracing Views, not only to air my thoughts but to hear responses from others.

As I thought about this feedback, I saw this headline and story at the New York Timesthis morning:

Harris’s Muscular Patriotism: At her first rally with Tim Walz, Kamala Harris delivered a riff about their quintessentially American backgrounds. She grew up in Oakland, Calif., raised by a working mother, while he grew up on the Nebraska plains, she explained. They were “two middle-class kids,” she said, now trying to make it to the White House together.

“Only in America,” Harris said, as the Philadelphia crowd burst into a chant of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

This sort of unabashed patriotism doesn’t always come naturally to today’s Democratic Party. But it has been central to Harris’s presidential campaign. In her ads and speeches, she portrays herself as a tough, populist, progressive patriot.

Chart shows how Americans describe the country, by partisan and educational groupings.

Source: New York Times/Siena College poll, Sept. 2022 | By The New York Times

Given all this, it’s not surprising that most voters consider the Republican Party to be the more patriotic one:

Chart shows how Americans see parties in terms of patriotism. 25% see the Republican Party as “very patriotic” while 18% see the Democratic Party as such.

Source: YouGov April 2024 poll | By The New York Times

The far left plays a role here. Parts of it — think of Noam Chomsky— can be disdainful of the U.S., describing it as a fundamentally oppressive country. Liberals, not conservatives, tend to argue that immigrants are forced to move here because of the consequences of American imperialism. Liberals are more likely to have qualms about national institutions like Thanksgiving, the military or the flag.

The most prominent left-wing movement of the past year — the Gaza protests — is a case study. The movement has not merely called attention to the high civilian death toll in Gaza; it sometimes portrays the war as an extension of U.S. immorality. Protesters have pulled down American flags and defaced a statue of George Washington with the word “genocidal.”

The America-skeptical left isn’t the Democratic Party, of course. But the left does exacerbate many swing voters’ concerns about the party — namely, that it isn’t cleareyed about a dangerous world. These same swing voters generally don’t like Trump, but they do appreciate his apparent toughness on trade, immigration, crime and more.

Harris combines patriotism with muscular promises to defend the interests of ordinary Americans. “Being president is about who you fight for, and she’s fighting for people like you,” the narrator in a campaign ad says. Her ads explain that as a prosecutor, she took on murderers, child abusers, drug cartels, big banks and big drug companies.

Harris’s flip-flop on immigration embodies both the toughness and patriotism themes. As a presidential candidate in 2019 — when the left was more influential in the Democratic Party — she favored decriminalizing border crossings. Today, she promises to protect Americans from gangs and fentanyl flowing across the border, and she criticizes Trump for blocking a border-security bill.

The image that accompanied this story showed a person wearing a Kamala Harris t-shirt in which she’s depicted as Captain America.

Given this article and many others like it, I don’t think my two readers have to worry about Kamala Harris being treated unfairly by the corporate-owned news (the CON)!

According to the New York Times, Harris is going to outmuscle Trump for who can be tougher on crime, drugs, and illegal immigrants. As Captain America, she’s going to be even more muscularly patriotic (or blindly nationalistic, my wife quipped) than Trump. The only concern is killjoys on the “far left,” who think mass destruction and genocide in Gaza is wrong. They don’t think America is the greatest, goodest, bestest country in the world. But Kamala does!

Sadly, Bracing Views doesn’t have quite the same market penetration as the New York Times, so my critique of Harris and the Democrats will hardly make a dent in all the partying and enthusiasm for Kamala this week. It does seem to me, however, that the tactics being used here are yet another case of the Democrats faking left and running right.

Anyhow, here’s a reply I sent to a loyal reader and friend about my approach to Kamala and the Democrats:

I’m not anti-Harris per se.  She has such a thin record that who knows how she’d make decisions.

I am against how Harris is being shoved down our throats as an almost savior-like figure.  I am against the Democratic party, which is why I left it and am now an independent.

I am also against Trump and the MAGA crowd.  I wrote article after article denouncing them from 2016 to 2021.  Do I have to repeat all that again so that I can be “fair and balanced”?

I get that you see Trump and MAGA as major threats, much more so than the Democrats.  I see a different threat, I suppose, a uniparty that embraces empire, militarism, colossal spending on wars and weapons, and a foreign policy agenda that may yet produce World War III, whether the figurehead at the top is Trump or Harris.

I was hoping the Democrats would offer a REAL alternative to Trump with respect to the issues I cited above, but Harris is a lightweight in foreign policy whose description of the Russia-Ukraine War should really scare you for its ignorance and vapidness.  She, like Trump, will spend $2 trillion on new nukes.  She, like Trump, will brag that the U.S. military is the finest in the world, thus the Pentagon budget will continue to soar toward $1 trillion as the Pentagon continues to flunk audit after audit. She, like Trump, will keep the weapons flowing to Israel so that Gaza can be made Palestinian-free, giving more living space to Israel and Bibi.

Will Harris be more populist at home?  I guess.  Will she be friendlier to LGBTQ+ and pro-choice movements?  Definitely.  Is that enough to vote for her?  That’s up to the voters to decide.

Harris is basically trying to play from the Obama book, “Yes, we Kam,” supported by big-money donors who expect a big return on their “investments.”  Again, maybe she won’t be as bad as Trump domestically, but, as they say, the lesser of two evils is still evil.  How long must we wait for a non-evil candidate?

If we don’t push the Democratic party to offer something other than corporate tools, we’ll keep getting corporate tools like I believe Harris to be.

I stand by that response. For many Americans, the Kamala/Walz ticket is attractive, but I will continue to criticize it, as I will Trump and the MAGA crowd. For I think neither party, and certainly neither candidate, is the last best hope of America.

Readers, what do you think? Should we be enthused by the Harris/Walz ticket? Is it time to embrace the politics of joy? Should we not criticize the Democrats because the MAGA Republicans are worse? Should I write more articles that are critical of Trump, because there are not enough of those already in the CON? Fire away!

Kamala Harris Is New Coke

W.J. Astore

And the DNC is Bill Cosby

I’m old enough to remember when New Coke was introduced in 1985. Coke had been losing market share to Pepsi (you might remember all the “taste tests” back then that Coke was allegedly losing to Pepsi). So the execs made New Coke, a sweeter, blander, version of “old” Coke, and hired Bill Cosby (yes, that Bill Cosby, before we knew he was a sexual predator) to sell it to the world as the new and very much improved version.

It flopped.

I remember trying it soon after it came out. No matter what Bill Cosby said, few people liked it. They wanted the “old” Coke back, so Coca Cola had to save face by reintroducing it, rebranding it as “Classic Coke.”

I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but the New Kamala I’m being sold by the DNC (and many, many, others) reminds me of the New Coke sold to me by Bill Cosby back in 1985. A lot of hype, many millions thrown at advertising, but in the end I’m left with a bad taste in my mouth.

Coincidentally, I just saw this in my New York Times news feed this morning:

Today’s Videos

How Kamala Harris Found Her Footing in the Spotlight

The vice president long had a reputation as an uneven political messenger prone to missteps. That has steadily been changing.

*****

See what I mean? In the past, she’s been “uneven” and “prone to missteps” but now there’s a New Kamala who’s “found her footing.” How so?

To my knowledge, Kamala has yet to hold an unscripted press conference and has yet to sit for an extended interview. Yet she’s “found her footing” because she can attend political rallies and read from a teleprompter. Oh, and she’s brat!

She’s also good at telling genocide protesters to shut up, warning them that Trump will win if they continue to protest mass murder and atrocity in Gaza.

Kamala is being sold like a new and improved commodity by cynical sales people who’d make Bill Cosby look slightly less menacing and predatory.

Standard Disclaimer: This is in no way a promotion for another overhyped, oversold, and dangerous product, one commonly known as Trump.

“I don’t even know what that is, but I like it”

W.J. Astore

Kamala Harris Secures the Democratic Nomination

Kamala Harris is officially the Democratic nominee for the presidency. As Lee Fang has noted, it’s not wise to underestimate her, as she’s savvy at “messaging” and positioning herself among party elites. In this interview between Fang and Glenn Greenwald, it’s almost conclusively shown that Kamala doesn’t have a progressive bone in her body. What she is most of all, perhaps, is an opportunist.

It’s interesting to see how my local paper, The Boston Globe, announced her nomination:

Vice President Kamala Harris, a daughter of immigrants who rose through the California political and law enforcement ranks to become the first female vice president in US history, formally secured the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday — becoming the first woman of color to lead a major party ticket.

A lot of boxes are being checked there. She’s “a daughter of immigrants.” She rose through the ranks, with an emphasis on law enforcement. She’s the first female VP and now the first “woman of color to lead a major party ticket.”

Her positions on most of the leading policies and topics of the day, however, are largely unknown. Meanwhile, rank-and-file Democrats didn’t have a chance to vote for her or against her in the primaries. She’s been selected by party insiders, not elected by party voters.

All this brings to mind a snippet of conversation I overheard at a coffee shop this weekend. Three young women were ahead of me in line, talking about some offerings at the shop, and one said: “I don’t even know what that is, but I like it.”

You could say something similar of Kamala: “I don’t even know who she is or what she believes, but I like her.” It’s the ultimate triumph of image over substance.

So, for example, you might ask Kamala why the Biden/Harris administration is complicit in genocide in Gaza, and the answer might be: “She’s a daughter of immigrants!”

Or you might ask her to support single-payer health care and a higher federal minimum wage, and the answer might be: “She’s BIPOC!”

Kamala isn’t going to cut off the flow of weapons and money to Israel no matter how atrociously the Israeli government acts. She isn’t going to fight for affordable single-payer health care or for a higher federal minimum wage. She’s savvy, i.e. a cynical instrument of power, and she knows what to do and what to say to raise money and secure the support of the powerful.

Kamala wouldn’t have been selected (again, she wasn’t elected) by powerful corporate interests if she wasn’t sympathetic and obedient to them. In fact, the DNC has shown how it treats true progressives like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. Kamala is on top because she’s willing to afflict the powerless for the powerful, and that’s not a formula that promises any change in a progressive direction.

Whether you believe the corporate-owned Democratic Party is less bad than the Trump-dominated Republican Party is a separate question, but let’s not kid ourselves about what Kamala represents.

Update: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is Kamala’s VP choice! I thought Walter Kirn’s description of Walz was telling. Kirn, talking to Matt Taibbi, described Walz as a “county fair huckster,” a sort of “white hick” who balances the urban BIPOC Harris. Kirn and Taibbi speculated that Democrats are trying to outflank the Republicans and their choice of J.D. Vance, i.e. Walz is even more of a flannel-wearing Midwesterner, and he has more military experience to boot.

VP choices often don’t matter that much, until they do. Just look at Kamala. She basically didn’t matter until she did.

As Walter Kirn also noted, Democrats are now spectators in their own party. You don’t get to choose your president or VP candidates; you have no say; yet you’re expected to cheer those candidates selected for you by the DNC and big donors.

Hooray, Harris/Walz! We didn’t get to vote for you, we had no say in your nomination, but we love you anyway!

Lies

W.J. Astore

They’re Everywhere in America

Soon after Joe Biden took office as president in 2021, I remember hearing that his VP, Kamala Harris, was put in charge of immigration, informally known as the “border czar.” Yesterday, the House passed a resolution condemning Harris for her handling of the border crisis. Yet I’ve also been hearing from Democrats and the media that Harris never was the border czar, even as there’s plenty of video evidence of networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC referring to her using that term.

Denying that Harris was the border czar is a fairly small lie immersed in much larger sea of lies, and of course it’s a bipartisan effort. Donald Trump exaggerates and lies just to stay in shape. Democrats love to attack Trump for lying even as they lie themselves. Truly, it’s hard to run a government and a country when lies confuse every issue.

Another lie being told about Kamala Harris is that her candidacy is the result of democracy in action. She’s the people’s choice! Except almost nobody voted for her as a presidential candidate. She’s been elevated and selected by the DNC and the donor class. She is a packaged product of the so-called elites within the party, the very opposite of a candidate chosen by the people. And yet I’m told this packaged product is going to “save democracy” from Trump, who was actually selected as a candidate in a more democratic process.

Of course, there are far bigger and more serious lies than whether Harris was the border czar or whether she’s the people’s choice as the savior of democracy. U.S. troops’ deadliest enemies, I’d argue, are most often the lies told by the U.S. government, abetted and amplified by senior officers in the military. Think here of Iraq and Afghanistan, or go back further to Vietnam.

Daniel Ellsberg, truth-teller about the Vietnam War and so many other things

Knowing (or sensing/feeling) you killed for lies, or knowing your friends died for lies, is surely a contributing cause to a rash of suicides in the U.S. military today. The sacrifices and horrors of war may be eased by a “just” war, like World War II, but they are aggravated by unjust wars.  And they are further aggravated when you try to get help through the VA only to be turned away or stonewalled.

All this is prologue to a note I received from a regular reader of Bracing Views about lies in America. I’ve decided to retain the profanity because it’s more than appropriate:

I don’t know about you, but I find it quite amazing that, despite decades of bold-faced lying about US wars, all of it proven and even reported in the NYT and other mainstream media, the narrative of the each subsequent war is always accepted as true, until it too is exposed as being nothing but lies.

Let’s look at the recent record:

1) Vietnam–exposed as nothing but lies by the Pentagon Papers.

2) Iraq–exposed as lies when the infamous WMD were never found and there was nothing found to back up the claim of links to Al Qaeda.

3) Afghanistan–exposed as pure fiction as revealed by the Washington Post “Afghanistan Papers” which said that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”

Add to the above list the fact that the Mueller report investigating the Russiagate hoax came up with nothing, ZERO.

Currently, there are a couple of new false narratives duly reported by the mainstream media and, for the most part, swallowed by most people. First is the false narrative about the US war in Ukraine, that NATO expansion has nothing to do with it but rather was caused by naked Russian aggression and Putin’s plans to re-create the Soviet Union and take over the rest of Eastern Europe. Second, the false narrative that Israel is just defending itself against Palestinian terrorism rather than committing grotesque war crimes, completely ignoring the fact that the Israelis have been keeping the Palestinians under illegal occupation for over 50 years, since June 1967. 

Lie after lie after lie after lie. And yet none of it matters. It is all sent down the memory hole as if it never happened. And then it is on to the next war, when the official narrative spewed out by the DC blob will once again be swallowed hook, line and sinker. It appears to be never ending. No matter how much lying is exposed, it simply does not matter.

I think it is pretty fucking amazing. What will it take to get people to come out of their coma and realize what the fuck is going on?

And keep in mind…..it has nothing to do with party affiliation. The lying is endemic, it’s in the DNA of the National Security State. Presidents come and go, but the lying for war-making never stops. And no one is ever held accountable either. 

It’s pretty fucking impressive, when you think about it.

Keep this is in mind……one would think that, after this abhorrent track record, the appropriate response would be to assume that the narrative justifying the new war of the moment was not true and nothing but more of the same lying. But that NEVER happens. NEVER.

How is that possible? Is it just a serious form of denial? Is it due to mental illness? Is it just some perverted form of patriotism? In what other realm is it possible to lie non-stop and never be held accountable? Even worse, to continue to have credibility despite a track record of pathological lying? 

A friend of mine pointed out that, in the old USSR, people knew that the official news on their TV every night was nothing but lies. 

So, this begs the question: Which system is more pernicious and has more effectively brainwashed its people? The one where people are controlled but they are aware that they are being fed nothing but lies, or the one that is constantly lied to but the people still believe they are being told the truth?

To those keen insights, I made this reply:

Our [American] system of lying is better! We have state/corporate media too, it’s just more subtle and advertised as “free.” We have our own “Pravda” except it rarely tells the truth, unless that “truth” is in the interests of the powerful.

To which our BV keen reader replied:

Exactly. But to suggest that we have our own version of “Pravda,” only worse because it has the cover of supposedly being “free,” is tantamount to treason, you realize.

This is the reason why Julian Assange/Wikileaks was such a threat…for actually challenging the right of the National Security State to lie non-stop about its war making and never be exposed for its lying or held accountable.

Of course, that is exactly why Assange was locked away in prison for so long and tortured, not because he was spreading lies but because he was revealing truths.

And we can’t have that in America!

*My hearty thanks to this Bracing Views keen reader for allowing me to cite this. I always say I learn so much from my readers, and I mean it.

Did Biden Drop Out or Was He Dropkicked Out?

W.J. Astore

A Palace Coup in DC

Amazingly, it remains unclear whether Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race on his own initiative, or whether he was dropkicked out by various DNC and DC swamp creatures.

When LBJ said he wouldn’t run for the presidency again in 1968, he gave a speech to that effect to the American people. Biden (apparently) tweeted a letter that wasn’t on White House stationery. Even the signature on the letter looks a bit dodgy.

As late as Sunday morning, members of the Biden team were insisting he was staying in the race. Biden campaign events were being planned for this week. Then, apparently, a sudden change of heart by Biden, captured in the aforementioned letter. Meanwhile, Biden remains in seclusion (or isolation), recovering, it is said, from COVID.

Fading into the background

I happen to think Biden reached the right decision, but that’s assuming it was really his decision. I can see where he may have dug in his heels, refusing to drop out, hence a palace coup. I’m guessing (and I stress here that this is a guess) that if you put Biden before a camera right now, he might say he’s still running in 2024.

Replying to a comment I made on Chris Hedges’s site, one reader put it well:

He was absolutely kicked out, delusional right up to the very last minute on Sunday morning. The last straw was the donors refusing him more money.

Another savvy reader replied that:

[This is] A message to anyone still foolish enough to think the D party can be reformed or do anything contrary to the wishes of its donors and the DNC ruling elite. Bad enough what was done to Bernie, but he was an outsider to them. This is explicitly about who rules; even conformist figureheads aren’t exempt. The Democratic party ceased to be democratic decades ago.

Remember how Democrats kept repeating “democracy is on the ballot” this fall? The hasty coronation of Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate for POTUS, after the rigged primary anointment of Joe Biden as that candidate, is decidedly undemocratic.

I wonder what the DNC will force Joe Biden to read from the teleprompter when he finally returns from Delaware. Perhaps a deal was struck for Biden to remain president for the rest of his term, which would allow him to pardon his son, Hunter. Somewhere, Jill Biden is unleashing primal screams.

Say what you will of the Republicans and Trump, but they managed to hold a contested primary where Trump beat a serious challenger, Nikki Haley, followed by a national convention that was “normal” for what passes as our democratic political process.

Interestingly, some commentators have suggested Kamala Harris won’t be the Democratic candidate, that someone else will emerge from whatever sham convention the DNC manages to throw together. But I think Harris has a hammerlock on the campaign funds, plus she’s pliable and therefore easily manipulable by the powerbrokers who surround her.

If Democrats are fated to lose this fall, why not with Kamala, who will be sold, of course, as the first Black and South Asian woman to run as president. Her loss can always be blamed on voter racism and misogyny, and, if that proves unconvincing, there’s always Putin.

Joe Biden Drops Out, Endorses Kamala Harris

W.J. Astore

I just saw that President Joe Biden has dropped out of the presidential campaign for 2024. He has endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris.

Biden made the only sensible decision.

In dropping out, Biden has done the right thing. Given the clear signs of his physical and mental decline, there was no way he could serve in office as POTUS from 2025 to early 2029. I’m not entirely certain he should be POTUS for what remains of his current term.

What I’m left with is lies. All the lies told by the corporate media and the yes men and yes women surrounding Biden that he was perfectly OK, indeed never better. That he was absolutely fit as a fiddle and both ready and able to serve until his 86th birthday.

Attention will now turn to Kamala Harris. Like most VPs (Dick Cheney being a notable exception), Harris has largely been sidelined. Now she’s front and center, with a chance to shine—or to fade into the background.

I haven’t been impressed by Harris’s political instincts. Her record is undistinguished. Her speaking ability is average at best. But perhaps she will show a capacity for growth. It’s not encouraging, however, that’s she’s basically a Hillary Clinton protégé.

Kamala Harris is an establishment figure at a time when Americans are unhappy with the establishment. She has a tough road ahead of her with many treacherous obstacles. They will severely test her mettle.

Readers, what say you about this news?

Don’t Embarrass Joe Biden

W.J. Astore

And the Upcoming Visit by Bibi Netanyahu

A couple of snippets from Reuters captures the weirdness of this American moment. The first involves President Joe Biden and his status as a candidate for 2024:

Some officials think it’s only a matter of time before Joe Biden takes himself out of the race, though nobody can say how the party’s presidential-nomination process will unfold if he drops out. Reports say he’s taking seriously calls within the party to quit because of concerns about his cognitive ability, his age and his health. Fundraisers are on hold and July donations plummeted, sources say.

That last part is likely to be fatal. It’s money that talks in American politics, and if Biden can’t raise any, and he’s hurting the bottom line at the DNC, they’ll find a way to get rid of him.

Remarkably, I keep reading articles about how Democrats shouldn’t do anything to embarrass Biden. As if personal embarrassment is the leading issue here. The leading issue is whether Biden is physically and mentally fit to be president this very moment. Is anyone confident that Biden could handle a crisis akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962? Does he have the physical stamina and mental acumen to make critical decisions under extreme pressure? It doesn’t appear so. Isn’t this issue a lot more important than Biden’s feelings?

The second snippet involves Israel’s destruction of Gaza, a topic which has become far less salient lately in U.S. corporate media. Here’s the update from Reuters:

Israel’s aerial and tank shelling of central Gaza intensified while fighting raged in Rafah. Israel’s military is set to issue call-up notices to 1,000 members of the ultra-Orthodox community after the Supreme Court ended their longstanding exemption for Jewish seminary students from service. Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress next week and might meet President Biden.

I’d set the over/under on Congressional ovations for Bibi Netanyahu at 50; standing ovations at 25.

There are few things more appalling than inviting Netanyahu to address Congress while Israel prosecutes a genocide in Gaza with American-made weaponry. It tells you everything you need to know about the “rules-based order” promoted by U.S. leaders.

Harris has been deployed to calm “jittery” donors. Good luck with that.

With Biden in free-fall and Kamala Harris still not ready for primetime, perhaps the Democrats can draft Bibi Netanyahu to run against Donald Trump.* No man seems to unite Congress in rapturous applause like Bibi. Bibi would certainly revive DNC fundraising as well. Stranger things have happened …

*Yes, I know Bibi can’t run to be POTUS. Why should he bother, when he’s already dictating U.S. policy in the Middle East?

“Not based on the virtues of charity”

W.J. Astore

Kamala Harris at Munich tells you what America is and isn’t about

Yesterday, in her remarks before the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Kamala Harris made some remarkable claims while speaking a bold truth about what U.S. foreign policy is all about.

First, let’s turn to the bold truth:

And please do understand, [Vice President Harris said,] our approach is not based on the virtues of charity.  We pursue our approach because it is in our strategic interest. 

I strongly believe America’s role of global leadership is to the direct benefit of the American people.  Our leadership keeps our homeland safe, supports American jobs, secures supply chains, and opens new markets for American goods.

I bolded the key phrase: America’s approach to the rest of the world isn’t charitable in any way. It’s about jobs, supply chains, and new markets. It’s about dominance and profits and “the homeland.” End of story.

It put me to mind of a passage in the Bible (Corinthians) about the inestimable value of charity:

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (KJV; 1 Corinthians 13:2)

The U.S. can certainly move (or remove) mountains with its nuclear weapons; it certainly thinks it has a gift of prophecy with all its surveillance and spy agencies; but unless it has charity toward those less fortunate, it is nothing. It’s good to hear the Vice President avow so clearly that the U.S. approach to the world isn’t in any way charitable or even well-meaning.

Charity? Nope. “Our approach is not based on the virtues of charity”

The remarkable claims came as Harris attacked the Republicans and Trump but without specifically naming them. Here’s what she said about them:

However, there are some in the United States who disagree.  They suggest it is in the best interest of the American people to isolate ourselves from the world, to flout common understandings among nations, to embrace dictators and adopt their repressive tactics, and abandon commitments to our allies in favor of unilateral action.

Let me be clear: That worldview is dangerous, destabilizing, and indeed short-sighted.  That view would weaken America and would undermine global stability and undermine global prosperity.

President Biden and I, therefore, reject that view.

Are Trump and his followers arguing that America should isolate itself from the world? That America should embrace dictators? That America should betray its allies? That America should be a repressive autocracy? This is a misleading and disturbing caricature of Republicans as it accuses them of treason to the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps some believe that Trump and MAGA truly are this malevolent. But should these accusations be made before foreign leaders at a summit in Munich, Germany?

Something is seriously wrong with America’s leadership. Without charity, they are nothing.