One Way A Thing Could Be…

I hear a lot of talk, these days, about impeachment.  From the left, the conversation is “What are they waiting for?”  On the right, the conversations is, “Move along.  Nothing to see, here”.  (Okay, actually on the right the conversation is, “What about Hillary?”  Tell you what, we’ll investigate her Presidential crimes just as soon as she’s the President committing crimes…)  In truth, the Democrats may not be “waiting” at all.  These things take time.  One of a lawyer’s prime jobs is to delay.  One never knows how a thing may play out over time so the more time one can stuff into the process, the better.  But the natural process of legal proceedings could well work to the advantage of the Democrats (and, of course, the country as a whole…) for two reasons.  One, the order of succession and two, the rules regarding terms of office.

Do you know the order of succession?  If the President can’t serve, in comes the Vice-President.  If both the President and Vice-President are unable to serve, here comes the Speaker of the House.  Trump, Pence, Ryan – in short, there’s no escape…at least for now.  Besides, with conservative control of Congress, there’s not going to be an impeachment, anyway.  Period.  Sure, it’s a flagrant disregard of the Rule of Law but Trump said, flatly, he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn’t affect his base.  He’s right, too.

One possible assessment (presumption? guess? hope? dream?) is that the Democrats intend to take advantage of the glacial movement of legal proceedings, hoping to benefit from the 2018 “elections.”  IF they can recapture Congress – or even one chamber – the madness stops – or, at least, slows.  IF they can recapture Congress, impeachment might proceed.  And, just for fun, IF the Democrats can recapture the House, impeachment proceedings might be possible against both Trump and Pence…and the new Speaker would be a Democrat!  That last possibility, there, is mostly wishful thinking.  It’s true, Mueller and I aren’t talking but I haven’t seen anything against Pence so far.  (That doesn’t mean much, either.  I’d never even heard of Popadopoulos until his plea deal was announced…)

Here’s the other piece: if the President is ousted for any reason, the amount of time remaining on his current term defines whether the incoming replacement can run for one more term or two.  If the replacement serves more than half of the ousted President’s term, the replacement is considered to have served one term.  If the replacement serves less than half, they can run twice.  That means one President could serve as many as 10 years…

So, to recap: the order of operations for Democrats is; win back the House, seat a new Speaker, THEN impeach the national embarrassment.  It’s that first one, though, “win back the House”, that’s going to be the hardest.  You see, whether Gerrymandering, voter suppression, or outright manipulation – conservatives cheat.  They cheat bigly.  If an “election” is close, conservatives “win” (search “Goo Goo Syndrome”) because conservatives have a finger on the scale.  These days, it’s more like they’re actually standing on the scale…

They have to, really.  You see, those who dwell inside the conservative bubble think they “win” because their positions are the most popular but as it happens there are far more thinking people than conservatives.  The thing is, lefties don’t enjoy the group-think and obedience of the right.  “Herding cats” is the phrase people commonly use.  Lefties commonly don’t turn out, particularly for mid-terms.  But the fact is, when liberals DO turn out, we win.  We CAN overwhelm the right with sheer numbers but we HAVE to overwhelm the right with sheer numbers.

I’ll tell you this: we’d better.  This whole thing is going to come down to 2018.  Conservatives just think it’s about “their team.”  Everyone else – by now – knows it’s about saving what’s left of this once-great nation…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apparently, I haven’t settle on “a day” when I’ll be posting, yet.  It would be BEST if you’d just come over to http://www.MyBaconPress.com and follow the blog.  (There’s a little button in the bottom right corner.  You’ll be asked for an email address, then the next awesome – or awful, depending – piece will be delivered right to your inbox.  How convenient is that?)

Franken vs Moore…

Look, I get it.  I do.  I’m supposed to believe the women no matter what and, mostly, I do.  But as it happens, my faith is not universal.  I have in the back of my mind a single fact which must not be ignored: conservatives will say anything – anything – to “win” an argument.  They’re not hampered by facts, honesty, nor reality.  Their positions change as quickly and easily as the wind shifts.

When the first woman said Al Franken touched her butt at a fair, he didn’t want to disrespect her.  He didn’t flatly deny it.  He simply said he didn’t remember the event the way she did.  He didn’t call her a liar – he COULDN’T in this current environment.  But it opened a door and when it became clear that “he touched my butt while taking a photo at the fair” was recognized as a “legitimate” line of attack, I knew Franken was in trouble.  Not necessarily because he touched any butts at any fairs but because Senator Franken (D) is a major nemesis to conservatives and – as I’ve already indicated – conservatives will say anything to “win.”

All they needed was a few women to “come forward” and complain.  Franken was kind of “low hanging fruit” as the saying goes.  He’s a guy whose been to countless fairs and taken countless photos with countless fans.  There’s no way he could dispute every single accusation some loyal conservative might be willing to sling – yet never have to prove…

Franken, of course, is the “offset” for GOP-supported pedophile Roy Moore (R, of course).  As a sidebar, I have a question.  Moore insists he had “permission” from the mothers of the children he…”dated.”  Moore was the District Attorney.  What, I wonder, what the legal status of the mothers in question?  Were they facing charges that could be reduced if Moore could be allowed to spend a little private time with a daughter?  I don’t know.  I have no information suggesting any quid pro quo but the question has crossed my mind…

The worst part about the entire Franken issue is that it could undermine other claims made by other women.  Of course, for the GOP, that’s an actual benefit.  It might even be the goal.  If Franken’s accusers are lying, couldn’t Moore’s accusers be lying, too?  (They could be…)

For the record, I’m going to continue to believe the vast majority of these claims.  My feeling is that most of the assaults that have been revealed are more about power plays than anything else.  Yes, the exercise of said “power” was in whipping out one’s junk or touching something that shouldn’t be touched (or both!)  But Franken wasn’t exercising any power when he was taking a photo with a fan and, frankly, a hand-full of butt for a couple of seconds just isn’t enough of a thrill to risk everything on.  But it IS an easy story to tell…

…and conservatives will say anything to “win”…

 

Free Advice To The DNC…

Look, mostly, I just want the Dem Wars to end.  I’m saying that because this piece might come across as facetious and I don’t mean it that way.  I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the DNC might have handled things differently – in a way intended to prevent the problems the left experienced during the primaries.  I figured it out, too.  As it happens, the solution is simple, though I can see how it might have seemed less simple at the time.  Here it is:  Dear DNC, the next time you pre-sale the nomination, say so clearly and publicly…and cancel the primaries.

I know that last bit is likely to evoke howls of protest from party members insisting stubbornly – and often rudely – that there has never been a more fair process in the history of fair processes.  I get it.  Frankly, I’m going to put less stock in the scripts of the Democratic talking heads like Maddow and Hayes or the speculations of the rank and file and MORE stock into the statements of the acting head of the DNC, Donna Brazile so…save it.  I’m going with the notion that Brazile knows more about the inner workings of the DNC than you (or I) know…

The first question that comes to mind when I suggest making an announcement and canceling the primaries is, “Do you know how mad people would be if they just announced the candidate?”  I got stuck on that one for awhile.  But it turns out, the answer is, “Did you notice how angry people were – and still are – after the way it actually played out?”

Look, I can see how it happens.  They sell the nomination.  (Apparently, all legal, I’m told.)  They let the old man with the crazy hair run for appearances.  As soon as people hear about his crazy ideas, the pre-sold candidate seems the obvious choice.  The DNC gets the cash infusion it needs and the preferred candidate ends up on the dais and the rank-and-file are none the wiser.  On paper, it seems simple enough.  But this falls under the category of “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive…”

See, the DNC severely misread the mood of the people.  Most people on both sides of the political divide are unhappy about the direction this country is taking and the “more of the same”, “incremental baby steps” candidate was NOT bringing the message most Americans wanted to hear.  The real problem was that the crazy socialist caught on.  NOW things had to be…adjusted.  The rest, as they say, is history…

So, what if the DNC HAD just announced the candidate?  Obviously, they wouldn’t say the part about the pre-sale.  ‘Poor optics’, it’s called.  (That means it doesn’t look good…)  They’d say, instead, the candidate was swept into the role on a tide of public opinion.  Sure, people would have been angry.  But they would have been angry an entire year earlier.  They would have had an entire year to “get over” the insult of having their “choice” taken away.  The DNC wouldn’t have had to make the “adjustments” that cost them so dearly in their reputation.  They would have avoided the potential legal troubles of fraudulently collecting money for a candidate they had no intention of running.

Most importantly, there would not have been a more appealing candidate for the disenfranchised voters to rally around.  I think it likely that even people who were angry the “choice” had been made for them would have, eventually, come around to the pre-paid nominee.  So, you see?  It actually makes more sense.

The truth is, I don’t even know if they WILL pre-sale any more nominations but knowing corporations the way I do, I’d bet they will, if I had to bet.  So, I hope they’ll at least consider my proposal should another pre-sale occur.  Make an announcement, cancel the primaries.  In the long run, honesty might have made all the difference…

Thanks, Dems…

Well, that’s that, then.  I’ve been listening to Democratic loyalists deride supporters of Bernie Sanders for…quite awhile, now.  The 2016 Democratic primary, they insist, was the purist, most perfectly fair electoral process that has ever occurred in the history of electoral processes and so-called “Bernie Bros” were just sore losers.  I’ve felt all along that the narrative is false but the argument has been limited to the speculations of loyalists versus the speculations of Progressives.

But then, Donna Brazile put out her book, ‘Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,’ and confirms that the DNC was, in fact, working FOR Hillary and against Bernie.  Berners, of course, seized on the revelation and claimed vindication.  As it happens, Progressives were right.  The loyalists were wrong.

Of course, the Democratic Party issued a bit of push-back against the charges, sending out their talking heads to opine that the deal that gave Clinton control of the DNC only applied to the general “election.”  The push-back only lasted about a day, though, as it was revealed that the agreement was signed in August, 2015 – nearly a full year before she became the nominee.

…and then, in Willie Brown’s Chronicle column dated November 4, 2017, he wrote this:

Former Democratic Party Chair Donna Brazile told the truth about how Hillary Clinton’s operation took over the Democratic National Committee and used it to help her beat Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primaries.

And guess what? There was nothing wrong with that.  Nothing corrupt or dishonest.

Like it or not, political parties are private businesses.  The DNC was broke, and Clinton bailed it out.  And like any investor in a business being saved from bankruptcy, Clinton had the right to do what she wanted to do with the operation. After all, she was paying the bills.

She not only took over the operation, she turned it into an extension of her campaign-fundraising machine, through which millions of dollars could be collected over and above the usual limits on presidential candidates.  That was smart – and legal.

She did what Barack Obama should have done a long time ago – try to put the Democratic Party in a position to be of assistance to the top candidate.

Yes, Bernie Sanders was the loser in the play, so now his followers are screaming. But Bernie is only nominally a Democrat. He’s always held himself apart from the party operation, and the party owed him nothing.

The real loser in the Clinton party takeover was then-Vice President Joe Biden, who realized too late that the game was tilted and decided not to get into the race.

It’s too bad for Joe, but he was asleep at the switch.

The fact that the Democratic Party was almost bankrupt was common knowledge in the Obama camp.  the fact that they didn’t do anything about it was also common knowledge.

Clinton offered to do something about it – and as a result, she got something out of it.

That’s politics.

True, that.  But why let someone run in the Democratic primaries if you’re not really going to simply facilitate a fair process?  I imagine the Democrats thought Bernie would come and go – flash in the pan kind of thing.  Then it turned out HE was the more popular candidate – SO popular the DNC had to resort to…machinations to get Hillary the nomination for which she had already paid.

Party loyalty.  SO loyal, in fact, that by the time Hillary fainted with Pneumonia in September of 2016, Brazile feared the Clinton campaign had taken on “the odor of failure.”  Brazile considered trying to replace Clinton as the nominee.  She writes that she considered Joe Biden.  Party first, you see.  She set her sights on a party guy – not even a candidate – not the actual candidate she’d had to cheat to beat.

I like Biden but he hadn’t participated in the primary process.  I’m glad they didn’t do that.  Leapfrogging Biden over Sanders would have caused the Berners to actually throw the actual chairs the loyalists pretended had been thrown.  Anyway, we know now that Brazile couldn’t have made the switch.  Clinton had already bought the nomination…

The irony, here, is that Trump wasn’t elected because Progressives refused to align themselves with the group that had just so thoroughly screwed them (right along with the rest of the country) as the loyalists charge.  The ACTUAL problem was that the Democrats refused to align themselves with an independent who had always worked with the Dems but wasn’t a “party man.”
So…thanks to the Democrats – the official arm of the party along with the willfully blinded, lock-step loyalists, Trump is President.  None of these revelations will change that.  But I’ll tell you this: I’m glad I don’t have to listen to them pretend it was Bernie’s fault anymore…

Disrespecting the Dotard…

Like most people in the civilized world today, I’m laughing at Donald Trump.  He held one of his “Inflame the Deplorables” rallies a few days ago during which he suggested that the next NFL player to take a knee during the National Anthem should be fired.  He referred to them as sons of bitches and received HUGE applause from his…”basket.”  Cut to the following Sunday, many (most?) players either take a knee or lock arms in solidarity with the players who take a knee.  A few teams simply didn’t come out for the National Anthem.

Trump lives inside the conservative bubble.  Like everyone who dwells inside the conservative bubble, he has twisted understanding of the world around him.  The protest is simple and straightforward.  Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the National Anthem to protest bad cops getting away with shooting unarmed people.  The victims of such shootings tend to be people of color.  But inside the conservative bubble the action has been represented as an insult to the American flag and Trump lives inside the conservative bubble.  So, he’s more “offended” by the peaceful protests than by the shootings.  I think you’ve missed the point, there, Don…

Conservatives have been talking up a “boycott” of the NFL over the whole take-a-knee thing.  Interesting timing.  The NFL has done itself some serious damage.  They’ve supersaturated their markets.  They’ve been arrogant in their dealings with local cities and fan bases.  They’ve taken to charging usury amounts on their tickets and – before you can overpay for your seats – you have to buy a “seat license”.  That is, you have to pay for the opportunity to get screwed by the NFL.  On TV, the games have WAY too much “dead time”, mostly too many commercials.  I suspect, on some level, as people are becoming more and more aware that the players are out their performing spectacular feats of athleticism – oh, and giving themselves serious, permanent brain damage – the game is just getting more…difficult to watch.
“That was a GREAT catch, Dan!”
“It sure was, Bob.  Uh-oh, it looks as though he’s going into the ‘Concussion Protocol’…”
“Shortened his life a bit, did he?”
“Sure did, Bob – by a few years…but it was a spectacular catch…”

The conservative bubble has it all down to “politicizing the game.”  Newsflash: playing the National Anthem before each game – complete with a flyover of fighter jets in formation spewing red, white, and blue smoke – has pretty much been “politicizing the game” since…well, since the practice started…

Apparently, some people – conservatives, presumably – started yelling slurs and taunts at the kneeling players.  I’m not sure why shouting epithets at the top of one’s lungs during the National Anthem is NOT disrespecting the flag.  I guess you’d have to live inside the conservative bubble to understand…

It’s funny, in calling for the boycott, Trump has done something the NFL, itself, couldn’t do: bring back viewers, at least for the pregame.  I tuned in specifically to see how the players would react.  I confess, I was NOT disappointed.  I’ll tune in again next Sunday, as well.  I’m interested to see how long the complete repudiation of the Dotard in Chief lasts…

Defeating Antifa…

Look, I know I could be wrong but I’ve been having a VERY hard time accepting the idea that these black-clad thugs who show up to start violence at various conservative events are progressives.  The reason is simple: I can’t think of a single way – not one – in which the masked little cowards benefit or advance progressive positions.  In like fashion, I can’t think of a single way – not one – in which the masked little cowards do NOT benefit or advance conservative positions.  It’s the age-old question: who benefits?

For clarity, it’s important to point out that I’m referring to the fringe group known as the “black bloc” and not necessarily to every person out there who claims to be Antifa.  Truthfully, I have no issue with people who stand against Fascism.  MY issue is with those who turn to violence as a first choice…and they just don’t pass the “smell test” for me.  Since the first time I heard of them (through conservatives, by the way) they just haven’t…fit.

So, I admit, I start out a little biased on this one.  Maybe it only LOOKS like they accidentally tipped their hands in a San Francisco rally in August.  Events moved so quickly at the time, it took me awhile to realize but with a little reflection, I noticed something…

After the violence in Charlottesville, the bay area was to be treated to a new rally event called ‘Patriot Prayer’ in which conservatives could get together – ostensibly to talk about conservative things in a non-violent way.  They applied for, and received, a permit from the National Parks Service to hold their rally at Crissy Field.  Fearing a repeat of the Charlottesville scene, San Francisco prepared.  They limited traffic access.  They built a tall, chain-link fence around the area.  They created a single entrance through the fencing and declared that people wouldn’t be allowed to bring in anything that might be used as a weapon, anything that could be used as “armor”, and NO MASKS!  They deployed every cop in the city.

In short, San Francisco created as much of a “safe space” as it might be possible to create, making it difficult to impossible for the “Black Blech” to attack.  In response, the conservatives who organized the event…cancelled it – citing “safety concerns.”  Wait, what?  The City created a very safe space for conservatives to have their little rally, chant their slogans, and all go home safe and sound and the conservatives cancelled their event due to safety concerns?  What, too much safety?

It was a mistake.  I would guess it won’t happen that way again because it provided an accidental glimpse into the workings of these “events.”  See, it looks very much like conservatives realized there was no way for “Antifa” to attack…so they cancelled their own event!  No way for the riot to start, so no need for the rally, right?  That suggests the ROLE of the “Black Blech” is to create sympathy for conservative groups by making them look like victims.

In the meantime, San Francisco has now provided a model to defeat the “Antifa” activists: control access to the event leaving NO open area from which to attack.  Don’t use low, little barricades, use full fencing with only one access point.  Station cops at the gate.  No weapons, no armor, NO MASKS!  You’ll get no “Antifa” and no violence!

I’ll tell you this: I feel more strongly than ever that time is going to show that one or two of the leaders of these obnoxious, black-clad thugs are on some conservative payroll somewhere…

Who Is That Masked Man?

I was reading through a thread in social media the other day.  One of the writers questioned the tactic of using masks when showing up to political events.  Why, she wondered, are the masks necessary?  It was a question I’ve asked several times…it’s why the thread caught my eye.

A little background.  There’s a group known as “Antifa.”  Apparently, that’s shorthand for anti-fascists.  (Really?  A special group to oppose fascism?  Sign me up!)  Word is, they support violence as a primary technique of disrupting “the opposition.”  (Crap, violence?  I’m out…)

I’ve always been bothered by the masks.  It seems they promise ill-intent.  But in response to the question “why the masks”, another writer suggested the masks were to protect the wearer’s identity to prevent “doxxing.”  That one got me.  At first blush, it makes sense.

“Doxxing” is the practice of searching out and publishing on the web identifying information about some person.  Names, phone numbers, addresses, employers, that kind of thing.  It’s often done with malicious intent – the idea is to open up a given individual to ongoing harassment.  It allows “your” group to intimidate and punish a member of “the other” group for not believing the way you think they should believe…

It wasn’t always about punishment.  There was a time, for example, when Paul Ryan got into some scrape with Americans about some thing and people wanted to deliver a petition of protest to him.  So, he bravely locked all his office doors so people couldn’t get in and unplugged his phones so people couldn’t complain and hid under his desk – you know, to show his connection with the people.  Since Ryan had taken such a bold stance at his office, some clever sod out there encouraged people to send postcards to Ryan, instead – and published Ryan’s home address in the hope that the postcards would be sent there.

I have to confess: I kind of liked that early bit of doxxing.  At the time, I thought that if Paul Ryan wouldn’t do his job at his job, he could do his job at home.  In truth, I hadn’t given enough thought to the reality that people surely sent more than postcards on the subject and, of course, made Ryan and his family subject to some of our more…unhinged elements.  (What can I say?  Sometimes it takes awhile to fully get one’s arms around new developments…)

So, when I read the suggestion that these Antifa individuals were simply trying to avoid doxxing, I thought that kind of made sense.  I thought that, perhaps, it had put a hitch in my giddy-up about the masks.  Maybe there WAS a legitimate reason to protect one’s identity.  As I said, on first blush, it made some sense…but not for long.

The idea that a person showing up at a political rally wearing masks to protect their identity in order to avoid doxxing is what I call a philosophical argument.  If you don’t think about it too much, it seems to make sense – but there is no practical application.

See, they aren’t JUST wearing masks.  They’re also wearing body protection of various kinds.  As often as not, they’re packing SOME kind of weapon.  To my mind, the most salient part of the question of showing up armored for – and, often armed for – battle is the “battle” part.  People don’t come to rallies like that ready to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas.  They’ve come for the violence.  They’ve come to initiate the violence.

You can tell the difference by the people on BOTH sides of any issue who are NOT covered head to toe in protective gear and still managing to wave placards and banners and shout their various beliefs and who intend, after the event, to go home quietly and make jokes about how foolish the opposition is…and so are not worried about doxxing.  Why would they be?  Oh, I got caught out standing up against hatred?  Well, I’m standing tall…

But it turns out, if violence is your first response, I WANT you doxxed.  If violence is your first response, you clearly do not know how to live in a society and the society in which you dwell has a right, perhaps an obligation, to protect itself.  The society needs to know who you are so we can, as a group, try to correct your behavior.

As a bonus, we could all find out who you really are.  ARE you a far left nut ball trying to advance the cause of peace through violence?  Are you a far RIGHT nut ball pretending to be a far left nut ball?  Perhaps you’re just some apolitical individual on somebody’s payroll.  I’ll tell you this: whichever it is, I condemn your violent tactics and I WANT you unmasked…