Showbiz For Ugly People: Unscrambling California's Recall Fever

 

<www.sarahepperson.com>


Cheap and tacky bullshit land
Told when to sit don't know where you stand
Too busy recreating the past
To live in the future.

Poor relations to Uncle Sam - 

bears no relation to the country man
Too busy being someone else to be who you really are.

<The Style Council, "Confessions 1-2-3">

<i.>

California's endless recall election is finally winding down today, after weeks of high stakes campaigning. If current polls are accurate, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom seems on track with survive by a double-digit margin, with roughly 60 percent of voters willing to back him, versus the 38 percent voicing interest in a totally different flavor, Republican Larry Elder.

Those numbers aren't surprising in a state when Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin. Another reminder comes from the return rate for mail-in ballots that went out weeks ago to California's 22 million registered voters. About 35 percent of them are in, with way more coming from Democrats (4.1 million) than Republicans (1.9 million).

Newsom himself won his first election with a landslide margin of 62 percent, and enjoys approval ratings of 57 percent, give or take -- yet barely a month ago, pundits seemed poised to write his political obituary, as Elder's amped up rhetoric made him the frontrunner among 46 candidates seeking the state's top job. 

Just how did we get here after five failed recall attempts? And what does the anticipated outcome say about Elder's and Newsome's leadership styles, or lack thereof, depending on your perspective? For the answers, let's do a deeper dive, and see where it takes us.

<Gavin Newsom:

Wikimedia Commons>

                                                     

"No time to spare - 'spare me a dime'?

The Great Depression is organised crime

Their confessions are written in your blood.

"Kiss your ass an' dreams goodbye
Come back when you've learnt to cry
To busy tryin' to be strong to see how weak you are."

<The Style Council,

"Confessions 1-2-3">

<ii.>

As every political junkie knows, two words sum up Newsom's current predicament: "French Laundry." That's the name of the opulent restaurant in Yountville, CA, where Newsom and his wife were caught dining with officials of the California Medical Association -- in close quarters, indoors, without masks, as they'd constantly been reminding fellow Californians, even while COVID-19 rates were spiking upward for the holidays.

The resulting "Dinnergate" fiasco inspired plenty of howls from the usual mainstream media suspects (cue the New York Times: "Gavin Newsom, What Were You Thinking?"). But the setting proved as much a liability for him, as the timing. With prices starting at $350 a pop, "you need to be rich or have rich friends who are willing to pay the bill," as the Financial Samurai notes, in its overview of the French Laundry (see link below).

If you've got money to burn, there's plenty of options to set it alight, whether you plump for the historic dining room ($850 per person), New Year's Eve dinner ($800 per person), or a night of white truffles and caviar ($1,200 per person). That's before we get to the Governor's bar tab for the night, variously reported at $12,000 to $15,000.

It's not hard to see how such Marie Antoinette-style antics upset people in a state known for its astronomical costs of living, one that accounts for 20 percent of the nation's homeless (151,278 people), who report varying reasons for their plight. Not surprisingly, high rent is number one (68 percent), followed by lack of income (50 percent), poor housing availability (38 percent), and criminal records that cut off access to housing (20 percent).

Yet Newsom saw nothing wrong with his behavior, until the tidal wave of outrage forced him to do what corporate Democrats have done since time immemorial: backpedal, and scramble to play catchup Even so, Newsome seemed flat-footed and flummoxed, especially when pundits suggested that geeked-up Republicans might actually pull this off. 

And then came Larry Elder.

<Larry Elder, Camp Pendleton, 2013:

Public Domain>


 "Somebody smiled on Gavin Newsom and presented California voters with the opportunity to listen to Larry Elder."
<Danny Sragow, Publisher,
The California Target Book>

<iii.>

If Gavin Newsom is the Hapless Warrior, we might dub Larry Elder the Angry Viking. On paper, the leading contender to replace Newsom hardly seems like a fit for the job he craves so openly. He has no government experience, having spent two decades in the talk radio trenches, doing what people like him do best: fanning the grievances of a (mostly) aging white fanbase longing for a simpler time. It's a well-paying gig, and one you can keep forever, so Elder's platform shouldn't surprise anyone.

Abortion? Get rid of it. Texas's newly-enacted Orwellian law suits him fine. How to fix public schools? Give Mom and Dad vouchers. Mask mandates? We don't need them. Medicaid? Abolish it. Protections for pre-existing conditions, and public welfare programs? Scrap them. Let the SOBs stand on their own two feet. Racism? A figment of your imagination. Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. State-funded healthcare? We don't need it. Let the market handle it.

It's an agenda that feels elastic and simplistic at the same time, since Elder hasn't exactly specified how he'd ever pull it off in a State Assembly, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 60-19, or the State Senate, where they hold an equally lopsided 30-9 edge. My sense is, he'd spend much of his time scheming how to punish his presumed enemies, like some aging mobster trying to hold his turf at any cost.

What's even more troubling, though, is the brittle defensiveness that Elder often shows, whether in trying to fend off some previous color quote coming back to haunt him ("Women know less about men than political issues, economics, and current events": 2000 column), or brushing off when minority voters question why the self-styled "Sage of South Central" hangs out with white nationalists like Stephen Miller, the infamous architect of Trump's brutal immigration policies.

Guess where Miller got his start? On Elder's radio show, of course, a fact that caused him to sputter to Cal Matters: "Why would you bring up Stephen Miller? I'm just wondering what the agenda here is. What's the point? Am I somehow -- what? A Nazi? A fascist?"

How Cal Matters responded, we don't know, because their article (see below) doesn't say. But it reminds me of the saying that politics is "showbiz for ugly people." By that standard, Larry Elder may be the among ugliest to emerge yet from the proverbial swamp.

<iv.>

So what should we make of all this noisy chaos, if Newsom survives? For Californians, the situation should prompt some serious tweaking of a recall law that's barely changed since they adopted it in 1911. The potential for freakish results looms large in a process that needs just 12 percent of registered voters to launch, allows an unlimited number of replacement candidates to run, and requires only a simple majority to win.

For Gavin Newsom, the recall should serve as a wakeup call. As many voters have made clear, from the stories I've seen, they're sticking with him because they don't view Elder's bomb throwing style as a good fit for the world's fifth largest economy. Nor do they see any point in recalling a governor who's entering the final year of his first term in office.

The pandemic politics that landed Newsom in so much hot water now hold the key to his political survival, an irony that needs no further elaboration. Still, Newsom's Dinnergate gaffe should also remind him that perception paces reality. When the overall vibe comes across as, "Do as I say, not as I do," it's not hard to see why  buyer's remorse sets in. Good leaders ignore this reality at their peril, as Newsom did, when his flagship business, PlumpJackGroup, continued to operate its dozen-odd hotels, restaurants and wineries, while Main Street had to shut down.

For Larry Elder and his cultish fanbase, it's hard to imagine a failed recall inspiring any real introspection. Yet if he wants to continue his political career, Elder will have to take California's electoral math into account. Pitching your message to those who already agree with it doesn't seem like a winning formula in a state where Democrats hold such commanding advantages.

Good leaders "read the room," and make adjustments when whatever they're doing -- or saying -- isn't going over. Elder's apparent inability (or unwillingness) to do so raises serious questions about his skill set. It's a drawback that violates "Healey's first rule of politics," as the late British politico defined it: "When you're in a hole, stop digging."

But such foibles carry their share of ironies, as Elder inadvertently acknowledged to the LA Times last week, in responding to criticisms of his "Sage of South Central" tagline as a misguided attempt to buy himself some "street cred":

"I didn't think very much about it. I probably came up with it within a few seconds of being on the air and it stuck. People call me that, but I can't say there's anything deep behind it." 

In a campaign silly season largely defined by his hectoring, high-decibel persona, that simple observation may well have been the most truthful -- and revealing -- thing that Larry Elder has ever said. --The Reckoner

Links To Go:
California Globe
Gavin Newsom's Dinnergate Apology:
https://californiaglobe.com/articles/gov-gavin-newsoms-dinnergate-apology-grows-from-little-white-lie-to-whopper/

Cal Matters: Who Is Larry Elder,

And What He Would Do As Governor?:
https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/08/newsom-recall-candidates-larry-elder-interview/

CNN: "Women Exaggerate The Problem Of Sexism":
Top California Recall Candidate Larry Elder
Has A Long History Of Making 

Disparaging Remarks About Women:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/politics/kfile-ca-recall-larry-elder-on-women/index.html

Downtown Streets Team
The Truth About Homelessness:
https://streetsteam.org/causesMythsMisconceptions?gclid=Cj0KCQjwkIGKBhCxARIsAINMioILBoWzfdw55Gt5jilGkCgHEtGXjhSMU1IdWfLOFVXUAQKdxQCyxWAaAk8sEALw_wcB

Financial Samurai
How Rich Do You Have To Be 
To Dine At French Laundry Like Gavin Newsom?
https://www.financialsamurai.com/how-rich-to-dine-at-french-laundry/

Los Angeles Times
Larry Elder And The Danger

Of The "Model Minority" Candidate:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-13/larry-elder-model-minority

My Corona Diary (Take XXIX): K-Shaped Recovery? Looks More Like A K-Shaped Bender

 

<"You're All Invited..."

Take I/The Reckoner>

There's a lot of yearning for normality in the air, apparently, judging by how the national conversation's going lately. Cue the cliche: "If had a nickel for every time I heard the phrases, "Back to normal," "New normal," or "Return to normal," I'd be living in two mansions by now, right? To put it rather mildly. 

Maybe's that what the punditocracy feels, but I don't see it that way, nor does the Squawker, nor anybody with an IQ above room temperature. Hence, you get headlines like Saturday's word from the Associated Press: "Democrats Move Two Bills Showing Strength and Limits of Power," referring to the U.S. Senate's overwhelming approval of new legislation to punish Asian-American hate crimes, and the House of Representatives' vote to make Washington, DC, the fifty-first state. 

The latter bill seems likely headed for the filibuster graveyard that Republicans have ginned up with such success, to the ire of progressives like Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, whose comment sums it up well: "Everything we love is at stake. Not just everything we love, but everything we need."

I'll circle back to that subject soon. What's worth mentioning, though, is how a different reality shows up on the ground, as Market Watch reminded us last month, in discussing how the economy is shaping up after a year-plus of pandemic fever. Outwardly, our economic situation looks like a success. On one hand, the national jobless rate has fallen from 14.7% to 6.2%, or 23 million to 10.1 million. Federal figures show 379,000 new jobs added to the national payroll, the biggest such gain in four months, Market Watch reports. 

Yet a Pew Research Center poll of 10,000 adults paints a starkly different picture. Fifty-one percent said COVID-19 will make it harder to reach their financial goals, while 17 percent expected to "put off" retirement, and seven percent say they'll have to postpone it. I'm not sure what the difference between "put off" and "postpone" means, since the two terms are interchangeable to me, but suffice to say, look for plenty more older men and women to toil as gas station cashiers or Walmart greeters for the foreseeable future.

More than half who rated themselves worse off financially don't expect to recover until 2023. About 26 percent think they'll need three to five years, while six percent guess it'll take 10 years. Twelve percent doubt their finances will ever return to pre-COVID levels. 

As grim as these stats sound, they've given birth to another term that's getting thrown around a lot lately: K-shaped recovery, or an economic rebound that affects different segments of the population differently, and unequally. Hence, the unsurprising finding that lower-income participants are more likely to borrow from friends and family members, burn through rainy day savings, rack up debt, and try to reduce spending. 

What does this mean? "There's a very clear divide based on income in terms of how people are experiencing this," frets Juliana Horowitz, Pew's associate director of social trends research. Our friends at Pew are masters of understatement, aren't they?

Still, all jokes apart, it's not to contrast the feelings of the starving and struggling millions with the newly-minted Democratic majority's constant fretting of, well, however much they'd love to pass voting rights protections, student loan debt forgiveness, prescription drug pricing reform, and radical newfangled stuff like that.... Well, heck, we just can't, no matter who supports it (see the relevant Down With Tyranny link below).

Gol dern it, that sneaky McConnell feller won't let us do it. You can't expect us to drop the filibuster, or find a workaround for it! You might rile all them Republican polecats up! We can't risk that! Push Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to fess up, and change their minds about the filibuster? Aw, shucks, we don't have the gumption. You don't want to get 'em all mad at us, do you?

OK, Centrist Sally, I hear your griping and sniping. Yes, Moderate Mickey, we're swimming against all kinds of structural difficulties, not least, the Manchin-Sinema dynamic duo's dogged insistence on leaving the filibuster alone -- though I suspect it's already been pointed out to them, it's hardly in their own best interest, if they're serious about governing, or getting their pet projects across the finish line. That's a big if, in my mind. We'll see.

At times, though, I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever shake off the sclerotic aroma that's choking it. This is an entity that treats its rock stars like dirt, as Congresswoman Katie Porter found out when she was summarily removed from the House Financial Services Committee, supposedly because you can only serve on two committees deemed "exclusive"; in reality, because she ran afoul of entrenched interests. 

So no more whiteboards, and no more pointed questions to make those banksters squirm, undoubtedly fueled by demands that somebody "do something" about this nuisance and this pest. I suspect they found a receptive ear in Committee Chair "Kerosene Maxine" Waters, who willingly takes corporate PAC money ($210,329 in the first quarter of 2019 alone, as Politico reports).

All this grubby back room deal making brings to mind a classic quote about how power is perceived. I remember coming across it as a preteen, in John Kobler's classic biography, Capone (1972). The quote comes one from the federal gumshoes, as they begin trying to build their tax evasion case against the Chicago ganglord. 

The investigator describes his impressions of Al Capone indulging one of his favorite pastimes (gambling poorly) at a Florida race track, with "a jewelled moll on either side and greeting a parade of fawning worshippers who came to shake his hand like the Shah of Persia," he laments. "I said, 'Good god, when a country constable wants a man, he just walks up and says, you're pinched! Here I am with the whole US government behind me, but I'm as powerless as a canary."

As you can see, these issues are hardly new, though I can think of one big difference between the world of today, and Capone's peak years (effectively, 1925-29). At least the feds finally convicted Capone in October 1931. Neither they, nor their state counterparts, have mussed the few hairs left on former President Trump's head. Time will tell there, too, I guess.

So has the canary sung yet for Senate Democrats? I don't think we're there yet, but it's high time that we start listening to those nameless millions, who've suffered and lost so much, since the pandemic turned our world upside down, and left so many high and dry, without any kind of cavalry, real or imagined, to rescue them. Because, as Ms. Bush so eloquently says, everything we love is at stake. And everything we need. Remember that, the next time you see those hands wring. --The Reckoner

<"You're All Invited..."

Take II/The Reckoner>

Links To Go (It's 11:00 O'Clock,

Do You Know Where Your Majority Is?):

Down With Tyranny

Progressive Policy Is Popular -- So Why

Can't Unified Democratic Government Pass Any Of It?:

https://www.downwithtyranny.com/post/progressive-policy-is-popular-so-why-can-t-unified-democratic-government-pass-any-of-it

Politico: Wall Street Critic Waters

Rakes In Corporate Campaign Money:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/maxine-waters-wall-street-1357237

What Accepting The Lesser Of Two Evils Got Me

<"To The Bernie Or Bust people,
you're being ridiculous!">

https://www.follownews.com/p/10hy4

"He who would trade his freedom
 for his security
deserves to lose both."
<George Washington>

<i.>

“It’s a mistake to think the lesser of two evils will fix things. A lot of people are in the target hairs of a neoliberalist nightmare. Wars are bankrupting us morally and financially. At least when Republicans are elected, people fight – when Democrats are elected, people are lulled into complacency and fall asleep.”

(Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party presidential nominee)

"If this is Really is the land of the free, then we should be free to cast our ballots for whoever we feel actually represents us."

(Official Bernie Or Bust Facebook Page)

It's not hard to imagine the excitement when Hillary Clinton took the podium last week to accept the Democratic Party's nomination for President. No, I don't mean the voters, as the New York Times acknowledged, with its usual man-bites-dog understatement: "Poll after poll after shows that a startlingly wide cross-section of voters simply do not her trust her" (67 percent, to be exact).

It's not hard to imagine the exultation that sweeps through Clinton: finally, after eight years, she's getting the shot that should have been hers all along, as she and her surrogates see it (y'know, before What'is'name'then from Illinois popped up, and sucked the oxygen out of that scenario). The fat cats behind her campaign's curtain are undoubtedly the giddiest of all, as they begin ticking off the chits they expect to cash in from a Clinton return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Spirited as it was, Bernie Sanders' challenge simply couldn't overcome the terminally binary nature of American politics (chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Coke or Pepsi? Democratic or Republican?), which still poses a major obstacle to upending the "same old, same old" carousel of flat wages, lack of health insurance, and rocketing cost of living expenses that leave most Americans feeling entrapped and embittered. Not that our nation's political class loses any sleep about such matters, as House Speaker Paul Ryan recently observed: "You don't get a third choice."

I originally planned on posting this piece in time for Clinton's nomination. But my near-empty refrigerator suggested that I needed to make other plans, which is why I spent two hours of it at my Friendly Neighborhood Pantry, in temperatures that sweltered into the upper 80s. About 150 of us lined up at 2 p.m., waiting to get a number that we'd need to present when the food truck rolled up two hours later.

For obvious reasons, I avoid this scenario, if I can -- but the phone company also wanted its pound of flesh ($78), which I had to cough up by Friday (7/29). Otherwise, I could have bought my own groceries, instead of leaning against a tree, asking myself: how did I get here? How did life get this way? One phrase springs to mind: "The lesser of two evils." But a little background is in order first.

>Bye, Bye, Debbie, Bye, Bye....<

<ii.>

In 1999, my wife and I looked around our crappy North Side apartment, checked out our household balance sheet, and came to a decision, the same one that the Animals celebrated in their classic song, "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place." In our case, "this place" was Chicago, where the mice had overrun our crackerbox palace, because the slumlord was too chintzy to put a metal plate under the front door....a simple device that would have stopped the rodent army in its tracks. 

We looked at the wannabe hipsters obediently cramming themselves into crumbling apartments and houses, paying way too much for the privilege of living there, growing older and poorer amid stacks and stacks of esoteric books -- the sole item they ever owned in abundance, usually -- and figured, get the hell out, or you'll end up replacing them. 

Thanks to some fast hustling and footwork, I managed to find a small town newspaper gig in mid-Michigan. It paid little better than my suburban Chicago shit job -- a whopping quarter more, to be exact -- but I felt too weary to sweat those particular details. At least, we were getting out of Chicago, so things would get better, right? We chose the lesser of two evils.

<iii.>

Within six months, my initial enthusiasm had collided with the stench of corporate politics and staff turnover. When the head sales rep was suddenly elevated to publisher, the managing editor quit. She didn't like (and/or trust him), and vice versa. Two writers quickly followed. Both ditched the industry for higher-paying teaching jobs outside of it. Hmm, I caught myself thinking, doesn't look like we'll enjoy a long lease on life around here. 

Still, I figured it was better to gut it out, until something better came along. My wife and I loved the community. I kept doing freelance writing at night, which subsidized day trips to places like Ann Arbor, or Lansing....the chance to eat out a few times a month...and small pleasures like used books, comics, magazines and records. We weren't living it up, but we paying our bills, and we didn't feel overly stressed or besieged.

But those snakes kept poking their heads into our Garden of Eden. Five years after our arrival, the town's economy -- one largely built around mostly auto-related manufacturing -- flatlined, taking 1,000 jobs with it, which was only the beginning. (Our mini-economic tsunami arrived four years before the so-called "Great Recession" of 2008, giving us a glimpse of the collective pain that everybody else would feel.)

Inevitably, that exodus out the door included me. I, too, lost my job amid all these economic convulsions, but -- as lucky would have it -- managed to hook up with our major out-of-county rival, 25 miles away, as a night editor. The pay was essentially the same, and while we had health insurance, the co-pays would notable bites out of what little I'd bring home. Nor did the vacation calendar inspire me to break out the confetti (wow, dude, we get a whole week off with pay -- just like the other place!). But what else could we do? Decent jobs were nonexistent, so if I wanted one, we'd have to move. Neither of us had the will (nor the energy), so I crossed my fingers, and signed on. I chose the lesser of two evils.

<iv.>

My new job didn't pay well, but the atmosphere felt a lot more positive. Unlike the place I'd left, everyone got along better, and even socialized outside of work -- a phenomenon that I'd never encountered before. Besides finishing up the last pages every night, my responsibilities included editing and writing for a weekly entertainment section, which allowed me to keep my pulse on the local music scene (and even participate in it). Life felt good, for awhile.

But  those snakes soon gatecrashed my new Garden of Eden, too. About a year or so later, the publisher called  a meeting, and ran down some figures on a dry erase board. We were losing money, he said, and unless that trend turned around soon, budget cuts would follow -- meaning, staff cuts. I don't recall feeling too shocked or shook up, as I'd seen those rumblings before. (At my last paper, for instance, I remember interviewing a court clerk who said, rather breezily: "I don't know anyone under 35 who reads under a newspaper. Oh, shit, I thought, we're in big trouble.)

Six months later, the string pulled taut again: I got laid off. In one sense, I felt relieved, because gas had shot up to $4 per gallon for the first time. This development proved distinctly unsettling to my coworkers, many of whom drove long distances (like I did). I remember people crying and yelling, "What happened to the national interest?" My wife and I figured I was losing about $10 a day, or $300 a month, before I even got to work. Not exactly a morale booster.

On the other hand, I also felt a distinct lurch in the pit of my stomach. Now what? I welcomed the chance to do things that my second/third shift schedule hadn't previously allowed....like playing music, getting involved with our local peace and justice group, and helping behind the scenes at a local coffeehouse. My wife enjoyed seeing more of me again, but sooner or later, I figured, all this fun has to stop some time, right? I'd have to hold my nose, swallow hard, and....you know....accept the lesser of two evils.

<v.>

And that's what I did, once again, in 2006, after riding out my original unemployment benefits (plus two extensions). In an odd twist of fate, a copywriting job had opened up in my old hometown, just as those days of collecting unemployment were drawing to an end. I wasn't sure about making the move, because advertising seemed worlds apart from my chosen field, but I didn't have any other offers. I faced yet another binary choice: sign up now, or see your prospects evaporate under the threat of starvation. What else could we do? We buckled, and swallowed hard....once again....and chose the lesser of two evils.

This time, however, the greater evil pushed back: I wound up being fired after several months, allegedly because I made too many proofreading errors on the rough ad layouts. But I suspect baser motives, since my wife and myself had only just gotten our health insurance. Since then, I've counted at least 17 similar classifieds this company has run, which leads me to believe that turnover is just part of their overall M.O. (Think how much money these outfits save on salaries and benefits, once they send their latest bright-eyed, bushy-tailed newbie away with a giant screw through their back. But I digress.)

Or maybe I should have raised more questions when my supervisors insisted on giving me a three-month evaluation. Or maybe I should have walked out after the second interview, when I was presented a "pay secrecy" policy to sign -- in which you promise not to discuss what you're making, and is typically aimed at union organizing. Or maybe I should have just packed up, and taken the wife back to our previous hometown, once I realized that too many loose lips were lying about too many things for my comfort. Whatever: it's too late to protest these things now. But I really wish I had. And that's why I don't accept the "lesser evil" argument anymore.

<vi.>

Want to have some sick fun online?Try searches like "I'm not with her," "Never Hillary," or, "Won't back Hillary." You'll undoubtedly get variations like, "John McCain with a uterus," "Thatcher in a pantsuit," and jokes like this one: "Hillary has put her foot in her mouth so many times her dentist is also her podiatrist. She has to open her mouth just to get a pedicure." As I've been telling people lately, you'll have to go back to the 1920s, maybe even the 1880s or 1890s, to find a nominee or chief executive-in-waiting who's so widely loathed.

Then again, Clinton often provides ample ammunition. Her acceptance speech was larded with all the bromides you've come to expect from her, whether it's her usual vague promises to stop selling out so blatantly ("I will carry all of your voices and stories with me to the White House"), rally the troops to cure the nation's ills ("We will fix it together"), or somehow, muster excitement about a future that most people no longer see coming ("When there are no ceilings, the sky's the limit"). Say what you will about Clinton, she didn't busk it before, so don't look for her to do that now.

All the past week's yodeling about "party unity" misses a crucial point -- that the Clinton and Sanders camps don't have a great deal in common binding them together (if they ever did). It's also worth remembering that Clinton, in 2008, only had to give up the idea she'd make a better president. In 2016, Sanders supporters are being asked to trust someone whose record, quite frankly, suggests a slippery sense of follow-through (at best). 

Take the $15 minimum wage proposal that made the Democratic Party platform. Clinton's mega-donors include the likes of McDonalds and Walmart, two companies with a long, well-documented hostility to such ideas. Does anyone honestly believe that Clinton, if she wins, will really tell them, "Greed should have limits"? If you really think so, I've got a lot of great Florida swampland and foreign lottery tickets that I can't wait to unload.

So, no, from a purely rational standpoint, the "Bernie Or Bust" movement isn't being anymore ridiculous than previous insurgents who prefer to tread cautiously, especially when the wolf tells them: "But we can coexist, man...". Let's state the dilemma in simpler terms. Years ago, I remember a small town mayor who dished out this piece of advice: "A good compromise is one where both sides come out hurting a little bit." Does the recent dog and pony interplay between the Clnton-Sanders camps last week in Philadelphia offer that impression? How much swampland will you buy? How many Nigerian lottery tickets do you need?

What's truly maddening is that the Democratic National Committee leadership doesn't want to acknowledge any of these things -- faced with an avalanche of youthful energy, and long-pent-up frustration, the DNC leadership's response comes to, "So what? Take a hike. We got you this time. Where else are you gonna go?" A party that practically swoons at people's lack of real choices -- is what those Washington, Jefferson and all those other Guys In Stockings And Wigs fought the revolution for?

I think not. But I can safely say this: all the dogged tone deafness that's been displayed by the DNC and its Republican counterparts won't make our problems magically disappear. I am, like millions of other Americans, patching together various jobs and projects to get from today to tomorrow, from this week to next week, from this month to next month, from this year to next year. I have not had health insurance in a decade. I do not expect more from another extended job search than a pile of form letters and resumes that just quietly gather dust. 

I do not expect the donor class to listen, let alone give a shit, about  my troubles. However, like millions of other struggling Americans, I've watched all of our noxious social ills build up steam over than half a lifetime, without letup, without the glimmer of something better coming along the horizon, or without the possibility of a different result, however faint it may seem.

I'm tired of hearing platitudes. I'm tired of being fobbed off with the usual excuses. I'm tired of waiting for something to change, or being told to wait a little longer, because the political realities just don't allow it (as JFK infamously did, when he asked Martin Luther King to put off his March on Washington till 1965, or '66). That's why I don't accept the lesser of two evils anymore, because I know what it got me, and where I ended up. Stand up for a better tomorrow now, and don't let anyone tell you that it can wait. I speak from experience. --The Reckoner

Links To Go (No Third Ice Cream Flavor For You):
Independent Voter Project:
Nearly 8 In 10 Respondents
Do Not Want To Vote For Trump Or Clinton:
http://ivn.us/2016/07/28/ivn-poll-shows-lack-of-support-for-major-party-candidates/

Independent Voter Project:
Why Independent Candidates Are Not "Spoilers":
http://ivn.us/2014/08/19/independent-candidates-spoilers/
[Dated, news-wise, but contains some good points]

Paste: DNC, Day 4:
The Rise Of The Berniecrats:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/dnc-2016-day-4-the-rise-of-the-berniecrats.html

Rolling Stone:
The Return Of Lesser Evilism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ralph-nader-bernie-sanders-lesser-evilism-20160620

Salon: Enough Of The Us V.s Them Binary....
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/17/enough_of_the_us_vs_them_binary_why_im_writing_in_bernie_sanders_on_election_day/

Writing In Bernie This Fall? What You Should Know

<What's that saying? One picture's worth a thousand words....>

Bernie Sanders's endorsement of You-Know-Who last week certainly turned some heads among those supporters who couldn't fathom his strategy (if you're charitable) or motivations (if you're not) . And, while I share some of those feelings, I don't plan to spend too much time twisting myself into a pretzel over it. After all....if you weren't voting for Clinton before, why would Bernie's endorsement sway you now?

Endorsements are just the political version of the shtick that kept Ed McMahon off the street for decades. This isn't to suggest that Bernie is little better than Johnny Carson's late second banana (who, if I recall correctly, endorsed over 30 products before leaving this earth in 2009). I'm just putting things in perspective. As far as I'm concerned, people who cash all in their chips based on a newspaper's endorsement -- or some thumbs up from a fellow politico -- probably aren't doing their own homework, anyway.

All jokes apart, last week's announcement has prompted many Sanders supporters to ask themselves: should I write in his name this November? As you'll see, that notion isn't as cut and dried as it looks, since it'll depend on your home state's laws. Then there's also that little matter of perception, since -- aside from U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond (1954), and Ohio Congressman Charlie Wilson (2006) -- the list of major write-in victories isn't a lengthy one. It's more like a damp squib. There's a reason why the mainstream media treats write-ins like the drunken uncle who dances with a lampshade on his head on New Year's Eve....but I digress.

<Will Hllary Clinton show herself as the second coming of FDR and LBJ, combined, if she wins? Hey, look....I think I saw 

a pig flying past my window....check it out!>

However, the challenges of raising money -- and your political profile -- aren't enough in themselves to deter everybody. As the link below indicates, nearly 100 people are taking the write-in plunge, from Buddy The Elf (who lists his home as North Pole, AK -- haw, haw, haw), to Darth Vader (Spokane, WA -- Mr. Lucas's lawyers should be calling any day now), to Soul Bunny (Williams Bay, WI: now there's a name I can get behind, possibly), and Tom Brady Sketch (where else.....but Foxborough, MA).

However, as our friends at Sourceplanet.net indicate, your options depend on what we Americans refer to as "The Geographic Lottery" (It Ain't About What You Think, It's Where You Live, That Matters), so let's roll the tape, as they say, and run the highlights:

If You Live In: Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or South Dakota....you're SOL, as these states don't permit presidential write-in candidates of any stripe. California, that hotbed of progressive subversion, is the oddity on this list, because it allows write-ins for primaries....but not general elections. Since Bernie came up short there, you can't write him in this fall, either.

If You Live In: Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, or Washington.....under these states' "Sore Loser Laws," candidates who don't secure their party's nomination can't mount write-in campaigns for the office that they "lost" during the primary. Thus, since Bernie won Indiana, Oregon and Washington, you're free to write his name in there, but not the other states on this list....which went to Clinton.

If You Live In: Alabama, Iowa, New Hamphsire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Wisconsin....these states will accept Bernie as a write-in, even if he didn't run as one. Presumably, you're free to put his name on your ballot.

But now comes the kicker, the other shoe about to drop, the proverbial fly in the ointment, the spanner in the works, because....

If You Live Anywhere Else...you're still SOL, because.your write-in vote won't count if Bernie didn't declare himself along those lines by each state's deadline. (For example, Michigan requires write-ins to file declaration of intent forms by the second Friday before the election. The Democratic primary took place on March 8, so he'd have had to file that form by February 26.)

So, in those 25 states (see link below for the complete list), you're free to write Bernie in, but unless he declared himself by the deadline....your local clerk doesn't have to count the vote. 

So where do we go from here, exactly? There's plenty of time to debate that question, but if nothing else....you can see why major candidates don't mount write-in bids (such as the loss of 44 electoral votes from the states that don't allow them). With scenarios like these, there's a reason why you'll often hear that old saying, "It's complicated"....because, in our nation's geographic lottery, it ain't about what you think....it's where you live, that matters. --The Reckoner

Links To Go (Put Down Ozzy Osbourne,
You Couldn't Do Any Worse, Right?):
MyTimeToVote.com: Write-In Candidates (2016): 

http://presidentials.mytimetovote.com/Write-In-Candidates-running-for-president.html

SourcePlanet.Net: Bernie Sanders Write-In States:
http://sourceplanet.net/politics/bernie-sanders-write-in-states-what-you-need-to-know/

The Huffington Post:

How To Be A Write-In Candidate For POTUS:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/how-to-be-a-writein-candi_b_9841786.html

A Cure For Political Codependency (The Hillary-Bernie Endgame)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-exchanged-cia-officers-names-private-server/

<Deer in the headlights, or waiting
for her ship to come in? You decide...>

<i.>

Why is Hillary Clinton struggling so much lately on the campaign trail? The coronation cakewalk that once seemed ripe for the taking now seems more like a sidewalk surfer trying to balance on a banana peel. With five months of this spectacle left to go, it's not a pretty picture.

Well, I'm reminded of a headline from your favorite satirical rag and mine, The Onion: "Hillary Clinton To Nation: Do Not Fuck This Up For Me." The last word in the headline is the key one, isn't it? Though it's no secret that most politicians are self-absorbed to some degree, Clinton seems particularly prone to this malady.

More than most of her counterparts, Clinton relishes talking about her accomplishments, her goals, her ideas -- we even have statistical proof, courtesy of Pacific Standard (see below), whose reporter simply tallied up the percentage of "me" versus "we" statements in her 2016 presidential announcement, versus those of President Obama (2008) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (2016).

Guess what? Clinton's "me" statement score clocks in at 100 percent. By contrast, Paul and Obama scored 45 and 65 percent, respectively, in terms of "we" statements. Though hardly a scientific analysis, it's indicative of something, right? Well, go figure.

"J.R. Ewing said it best: 'Once you give up your 
integrity, the rest is a piece of cake.'"

<ii.>

That said, Clinton's problems run deeper than some journalist's scorekeeping. Some of the most perceptive commentary on the campaign is actually coming from the financial press, whose overlords may have a pretty damn obvious dog in the fight -- as in, "no Hillary, no Bernie, maybe Trump, if he keeps my taxes low to nonexistent" -- but whose writers are scoring some solid bull's eyes.

MarketWatch columnist Darrell Dalmaide doesn't need to count how many times Clinton says "I" versus "we." As Dalmaide suggests, just compare the keynote slogans of Donald Trump ("Make America Great Again") and Bernie Sanders ("A Future To Believe In") with Clinton's ("Fighting For Us")...as in, "her fighting in the trenches against that right-wing conspiracy." In other words, let Hillary handle the heavy lifting; our job, apparently, is to cheer on her efforts from the sidelines.

Conceptually, this makes for a soggy recipe, particularly when compared to the declamatory style that her opponents favor. So what is Sanders getting right on such a regular basis? The answer, as Los Angeles Times commentator David Horsey suggests, lies in the rationale voiced by one of Sanders's college supporters: "Bernie just says what relates to us. He doesn't try to relate to us, he gets us."

Such statements speak volumes about Clinton's struggles to connect with voters beyond superficial levels. Then again, as Fortune's article notes, we're talking about someone known for micromanaging her image, almost comically so, at times....such as asking to read a high school speaker's comments before one of her own appearances, and so on. Go figure, eh?

<iii.>

As many reporters note (in these links below, and elsewhere), Clinton's aides protest mightily that she gets a bad rap. Yes, they acknowledge, she's a Baby Boomer, leaving her open to brickbats from left and right alike -- because she belongs to a generation often derided as the most narcisisstic, self-serving, solipsistic lot seen in recent memory. Behind the scenes, she's warm, thoughtful, and caring. If only she didn't keep such a protective force field around her at all times. And so on, and so forth.

Of course, all these lamentations mean little if that force field doesn't come down. Judging by Clinton's dogged insistence on sticking to her stolidly conventional script -- show us those tax returns now, Herr Trump -- we shouldn't be holding our breath.

So where does this leave Sanders's coalition, then and now? As we had into the final week or so of primaries, I'm not sure it changes a damn thing. Once again, the adults in the room are muttering darkly as they close ranks, and move once more to herd all of us disobedient children back into line. Instead of buzzwords like "Yes, We Can," we get: "Anything's better than Trump!", and, "We can't let that old man blow up the party!"

As the last statements go, the answer to the first one isn't so clear-cut -- recall how many millions rejected Hillary for Obama in 2008, precisely because they felt it was time to shut the book on the Clinton legacy for good. That our system can recycle Bushes, Clintons and other political dynasties like them over and over, without missing a beat, only underscores the need for dynamiting the status quo sky high.

As for the second statement, I'd retort that the Democratic Party has done a pretty good job of blowing itself up without Sanders's help. That trend gathered steam during the 1990s, as Democrats finally cracked the DNA behind the money chase that their Republican rivals had played so much better for so long. However, instead of soliciting support, Democratic elders opted to take hostages in murmuring about "the lesser of two evils." Alas, all the promises of meeting complaints halfway -- or any way at all, for that matter -- typically evaporated with the next election cycle.

This is the logic of political codependency at its most warped and unresponsive. Like an alcoholic's or drug addict's long-suffering partner, we're asked to look the other way and shut our eyes, cross our fingers and hope against hope that tomorrow will miraculously get better, as the dysfunctional behavior that makes us so miserable rolls on. As Sanders suggests, in responding to questions about whether he plans to blow up the Democratic convention:

"So what? Democracy is messy. Everyday my life is messy. But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you know, just things to proceed without vigorous debate … that is not what democracy is about."

If you're stranded without health insurance, or struggling to patch together several part-time jobs, I suspect that statement will resonate pretty strongly. And that sentiment, I suggest, is why Hillary is still struggling to close the deal....and why we shouldn't let up in the struggle for a better tomorrow, minus the alibis that got us in this mess. A future that's free of political codependency? How crazy does that sound? Go figure. --The Reckoner

Links To Go (Hurry Up & Read 'Em

Before Those Endgame Credits Roll):
Fortune: Emails Reveal How Carefully

Clinton is Crafting Her Image:
http://fortune.com/2016/06/02/emails-reveal-how-carefully-hillary-clinton-is-crafting-her-image/

Los Angeles Time: Bernie Sanders'
Sober Social Activism Wins Him Fans In California:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-bernie-activism-20160531-snap-story.html

MarketWatch: Hillary Clinton Needs
To Talk About More About Us,
And Less About Herself:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-needs-to-talk-more-about-us-and-less-about-herself-2016-06-02

Pacific Standard:
Hillary Clinton Talks About Herself A Lot:
https://psmag.com/hillary-clinton-talks-about-herself-a-lot-3c0916945cb0#.j6cfy7ylb

The Onion: Hillary Clinton To Nation:

Do Not Fuck This Up For Me:
http://www.theonion.com/article/hillary-clinton-to-nation-do-not-fuck-this-up-for--38416

USA Today:
Nixonian Palace Guard Now Protects Hillary:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-richard-nixon-aides-fawning-column/85297456/

Talking Heads (Take Note): I'm Not Going Along With "The Program"

Don't touch that dial!

Television screams, your face turning green,

Don't listen to the news,

Don't know what you hear, they never make it clear,

They like to keep your state confused,

Propaganda time, the official line,

You're hungry, you get fed,

Everlasting smile, you must convey their style,

But they're just a Talking Head
--Motorhead, "Talking Head"

If you watched CNN's or MSNBC's coverage of the Clinton-Sanders primary slugfest this past week, you know that it didn't take long for the "talking heads" (see above lyrics) to start crowing: "Ah, Hillary's got this one." Not surprisingly, a host of editorials along those lines have started to appear: grow up and get with the program already! You don't need to show up and vote -- it's all but over, the race is already decided! 

It's aggravating, but that's how the news media covers presidential races -- by reducing them to the zero-sum equation of the "horse race." Who's ahead, who's behind...who's gaining, who's losing....who's up, who's out. Mind you, tactical stories can make for interesting news -- Jeb Bush blew through $150 million in three states before he finally dropped out, who'd have thunk it? -- but there are plenty of other angles worth pursuing.

That's why Bernie Sanders has already made such a major impact this year: by forcing people to discuss the elephant in the room (income inequality), as well as its companion...the growing disconnect between the donor classes and the voters who are expected to fall mindlessly in line. The Democratic Party doesn't ask for votes, it takes hostages: c'mon, get with the program. Hillary's got this. She needs your help this November. And so, and so forth. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The problem, as I've observed before, is that the half-loaf that we're always promised has -- in recent years -- stayed firmly on the shelf. Once our loyalties are bought for another four years, the Democratic machinery promptly shits on its voters, on cue, yet again. Life continues to stagnate or slowly row worse for the majority, but what the hell should we expect? We lacked the common sense and courage to break the latest cycle of political co-dependancy. Hey, kid, what else d'ya need? Hillary's got this. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Whether Sanders gets the big prize or not, he's jump-started the conversation, keeping it going will be the challenge, especially amid the chatter of the talking heads: "Shut up. Hillary's got this. Shut up, already." The energy and conviction that animates Sanders's causes has the look -- and feel --of a mass movement; hopefully, that energy won't slide out the door and fade away without a second thought.

I speak from experience.I live in a Republican county whose partisan dominance is so overweening, it more or less amounts -- except for a couple of small cities -- to a one-party state. The last time that anyone tried to seriously disrupt what many people see as "the natural order of things" came in 2012, when the Obama campaign rented space in one of our fair city's biggest, most visible downtown buildings.

Tongues clucked and wagged (imagine, something like this, right in our fair little piece of GOP paradise) and, who knows, maybe even some panic-stricken beads of sweat started to form....until Obama's re-election, when the campaign duly closed its office, folded its tents, and crept quietly out of town. How many people in my hometown voted for Obama, I've no idea, but I'm sure the powers that be stopped sweating themselves so cold.

As for me, I'm not going along with the program. I can't, not when I meet so many people getting such a raw deal from what those same talking heads often label (without missing a beat) "The best system on earth." A couple weeks ago, I ran into a woman at the local food bank who remarked aloud that she was going through her second go-round with the disability system.

My ears pricked up, and I started digging a little deeper. "Why did they turn you down the first time around?"

The woman responded with one of those why-do-you-ask-such-silly-questions? looks. Then she laughed. "Well, they tell me that I can work, even though it's only for an hour at a time. I never finished high school, so all I had were factory jobs."

"What changed for you?" I asked.

The woman explained that she'd had some tumors removed from her spine, which prompted the first application. Then, her doctors found some additional tumors on her neck, which she was preparing to get removed. Her only income, she explained, was the SSI that she'd receiving since her son became disabled at three. He'd just turned 11.

Of course, that money didn't go nearly far enough, which is why she'd become a regular at the food bank. Other than assistance from friends and relatives, she was on her own.

"Hell, if it wasn't for that (SSI check), we wouldn't have our own place right now," she shrugged.

"Well..." I searched for the right words, but -- not sure what to say -- settled for the usual pat expression. "Good to luck you, then."

I've been hearing too many of these stories lately, which elicit varying degrees of disgust, dismay and disturbance...as well as outrage...in me. And that's why I'm not following the Democratic machinery's marching orders anymore, no matter how the chips fall in November.

I can't look in the eye of someone who's in distress, listen to their story, and say: "Don't worry. I did my part. I went along with the program." --The Reckoner

Television screams, this ought to be a dream,

Remember what I say,

Don't be hypnotised by sugar coated lies,

Don't switch it on today,

It's the way things are, from that pickle jar,

You're hungry you get fed,

But if you play the game, you become the same,

Another Talking Head

Links To Go (Quick, Before They
Sign You Up For The Program)
CNN: Bernie Is Cool, Hillary Is Square:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/opinions/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-young-voters-cupp/

Motorhead: Taking Head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBmGBkBDZY

Salon: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton & The Democrats' Dilemma:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/bernie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_the_democrats_dilemma_does_the_party_even_care_about_big_ideas_anymore/