Observations Along The Road... at Dreamwidth

Just as there are different levels of infinity (ℵ₀, ℵ₁), there are different levels of stupidity, as this year’s Presidential campaign is showing. I’m finding myself increasingly agreeing with conservative commentator P. J. O’Roarke, on Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me: when he endorsed Hillary Clinton:

“I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises,” O’Rourke said. “It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

Wrong within normal parameters. That says a lot about this year’s viable Presidential candidates (although I expect the Green and Libertarian candidates to see a significant increase in support, I don’t believe they will reach a level where they have electoral college impact).

Let’s look at the recent stupidities.

***

Let’s start with Ms. Wrong-Within-Normal-Parameters. Andy Tannenbaum’s Electoral Vote site summarizes the stupidity regarding the email issues well, noting how the FBI director said she was extremely careless and might have put national security at risk, but that he was simply following the law and she didn’t break it. Specifically, they stated:

The law does not make being careless with classified information a crime. To reach the level of an actual felony, three factors have to be present. First, there has to be an intentional mishandling of classified information. Being sloppy is not enough. Second, there has to be a large amount of classified information exposed. About 110 of her more than 30,000 emails were classified at the time she sent or received them, but almost none were marked as such. Many more were classified months or years later, a common government practice. Third, there has to be some indication of disloyalty to the United States or else obstruction of justice. Nothing like that was present in her case. The DoJ prosecutors will next have to decide whether to indict, but Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would indict someone for what she did. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the final say and she already stated that she would follow the FBI’s recommendation. Thus it is virtually certain that Clinton will not be indicted. There will be much partisan yelling and screaming in the coming weeks and months, but in the end, she dodged the bullet.

The LA Times makes a similar argument:

Federal law makes it a crime for a trusted U.S. official to “knowingly and willfully” disclose or transmit secret information to an “unauthorized person.” A second law makes it a crime to “remove” secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through “gross negligence.”

Neither law applies clearly or directly to what FBI Director James B. Comey described Tuesday as Hillary Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of classified emails that were sent through her private system when she was the secretary of State.

“It’s just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Maybe it should be, but that’s something for Congress to decide going forward.”

Comey made clear, Vladeck said, that “however much we might want federal law to make her carelessness a crime, nothing she did falls within the letter of the relevant federal criminal statutes.”

The Time’s concluding thought is particularly noteworthy:

Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey’s statement “pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don’t make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to ‘security or administrative sanctions.’ What he doesn’t say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That’s appalling,” he said.

This shows where our incredible partisanship, and the hatred of the Republicans for the Clintons, has gotten us. My take on this mess is that, although what Clinton did was stupid, it appears to have had no significant national security affect. Further, similar classified data has been found in the emails of other Secretaries of State. More importantly, I don’t think it is a mistake that would be repeated: Clinton has been sensitized to the issue, and the staff supporting her if she becomes President are unlikely to permit the situation to be repeated. Then, of course, there is the fact that the President is the ultimate arbiter of what is classified, as the head of the Executive Branch.

Of course, the Republican side isn’t letting the issue fall, and again Electoral Vote captures it:

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans made clear that they intend to open a new investigation into the e-mail server, with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) promising that Comey would be called before the House of Representatives to answer for himself.

Undoubtedly, the GOP wants to keep the e-mail server in the news for as long as is possible, and Congressional hearings would certainly do that. However, those hearings would also be a supremely bad idea. Whatever damage that emailgate is going to do has already been done—those who are going to hold the server against Clinton, and those who are going to overlook it, have already made their decisions. Short of a game-changer, like an indictment, not much is going to change on that front. However, holding hearings after the FBI has made its recommendation, along with the Benghazi hearings, and the Merrick Garland obstruction, would give the Democrats a powerful argument that the Republican members of Congress are less interested in doing their jobs than they are in abusing their positions of power in service of partisan ends. One can scarcely imagine something that would do more to help the blue team in their efforts to retake the legislature.

***

Now, let’s look at Mr. Wrong-in-So-Many-Ways. Here is someone who keeps making new stupidities — again, not at the criminal level (perhaps), but at the appalling level. Over the last few days, we’ve had Trump posting an antisemitic image in a tweet on Clinton, and the subsequent identification that the image came from a white supremacist website. Electoral Vote summarizes the concern well: “Even if he got the image in a completely non-problematic fashion (say, a retweet from a supporter), it still shows an incredible lack of awareness on the part of the candidate. A lack of awareness that does not line up well with the sensitivity demanded of the leader of the free world.”

Speaking about leadership, today’s revelation has Trump praising the leadership of Saddam Hussain (the equivalent of praising Hitler). Here’s the quote from the LA Times: «“He killed terrorists. He did that so good,” Trump said at a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday night. “They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. It was over.”»

Trump, of course, has his own email issues that have made the news, which (of course) have been overshadowed by his stupid statements. In particular, he was accused in early June of destroying email evidence. As the article noted:

In 2006, when a judge ordered Donald Trump’s casino operation to hand over several years’ worth of emails, the answer surprised him: The Trump Organization routinely erased emails and had no records from 1996 to 2001. The defendants in a case that Trump brought said this amounted to destruction of evidence, a charge never resolved.

At that time, a Trump IT director testified that until 2001, executives in Trump Tower relied on personal email accounts using dial-up Internet services, despite the fact that Trump had launched a high-speed Internet provider in 1998 and announced he would wire his whole building with it. Another said Trump had no routine process for preserving emails before 2005.

Then again, there’s the issue of Trump and (sigh) child rape in the past:

An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing.

In fact, as both the article linked above and another article highlights, this appears to be a pattern of behavior. Of course, then there’s the whole issue of Trump University and the Trump Institute, and how Trump exploited people for personal gain.

Shouldn’t these be subject to the same scrutiny and investigation that the email non-issue of Clinton has had? Where are the Congressional inquires into Trump University, Trump Institute, and the rape charges? Where are the investigations into patterns of hate speech, sexism, and racism? Where are the investigations into the deletion of emails in legal cases?

***

This brings us back to the question of what are normal parameters, and how wrong is wrong? The mistakes we’ve seen from Clinton are mistakes that are likely not to re-occur, given the checks and balances provided through Congress and the heightened sensitivity of White House staff. We certainly have not seen statements that reflect misunderstanding of foreign policy or demonstrate lack of sensitivity at anything close to the racism or sexism demonstrated by Trump. In fact, the general impression is that Clinton enjoys public service and wants to give back to the country through it — that’s where her life has been devoted. Trump, on the other hand, clearly puts his mouth or typing-fingers in gear long before there is any connection to the brain — and that is dangerous in the leader of the Free World. He has also clearly done what is necessary — racist or not — to get personal gain.

Wrong-within-normal-parameters. Clinton may not be the perfect candidate, but of those who have the potential of obtaining sufficient electoral voices, she’s the best shot we’ve got. Or, as WWDTM put it: “Wrong within normal parameters. I’ll take it.”

To put the issue another way: In an ideal world, both of the major parties would have run viable, intelligent, and appropriate candidates who held reasoned views of the issues. None (or precious few) of the candidates in the candidate pool achieved that (yes, that includes Bernie). Further, both parties are stuck with presumptive nominees with significant problems, and do not have the option of going against the will of the majority of the voters to go with a different candidate (and yes, that includes Bernie). This country needed strong candidates from both parties — candidates that would make strong Presidents were they elected. Instead, the Democratic side let the oversize donkey that was Clinton fundraising and history scare off other moderate potential candidates (or they didn’t look ahead sufficiently to groom any, being distracted by the fights with the GOP. The GOP was no better, permitting candidates that appealed to the wacko, evangelical, and ultra-conservative and isolationist fringe to lead, as opposed to finding a moderate Republican who could have broad appeal.  As a result, we don’t have that honest, moderate, slightly to the left Democrat; we don’t have that honest, moderate, slightly to the right Republican.

We have Donald and Hillary.

Wrong-within-normal-parameters. Sometimes, that’s the best that you can do.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

The California Primary is over, we have presumptive nominees from the major parties, and I’ve got a collection of Decision 2016 News Chum just waiting to be posted. In thinking about these articles over lunch, I realized they fit a theme: just like history is more complicated than people realize, politics is more complicated than people realize. Often the simple tropes and sound bites that circulate in the social media world are too abstracted to discuss the real issue, and when you investigate the complicated real issue, you often find much more than you would have thought. Let’s explore some of these:

• False Simplification = The People Elect the President. A lot of people believe the process of electing a President is just like electing a Senator or Congresscritter: we have a primary where we narrow down the field to the top candidate in each party, and then pit those candidates in an election where the one with the largest number of votes wins. But that’s not how the process works. We don’t have a democracy; we have a representative form of government. For President, each parties chooses — using their own processes — how they will pick their nominee at their convention. In the past, this was the literal smoke-filled room, which gave us some of our greatest presidents. Lincoln never had a primary election. Roosevelt never had a primary election. Picking the nominee at a convention is done by the delegates who attend those conventions. Each state defines its own process to pick those delegates, as we have seen. Each state has its own rules. This indirection is even true for the general election. Each state has rules on how it allocates its electors to the electoral college, and it is the electoral college that actually elects the President. Changing this system would require changing the Constitution, as well as the rules within each state. That won’t happen immediately, especially when we only realize these problems every four years.
• False Simplification = Bernie Can Win the Nomination. This is a big one from the Bernie Sanders supporters, who at this point believe Bernie could be the Democratic nominee if only he could get those superdelegates to switch sides. The excellent Electoral-Vote website had some interesting commentary on this, noting that even if Bernie got what he wanted — superdelegates in proportion to his winnings — he still would not get the nomination. The math just isn’t there to support him, unless Bernie is advocating that the superdelegates should completely ignore the wishes of the voters in the Democratic primaries. Basically, Hillary will be the nominee because she got the most votes in the primaries; for all the indirection and games in the process, it actually worked to sync with the voters. By the way, this is also true on the Republican side: Trump got the nomination because a majority of Republicans voted for him. Further, the other candidates did not stay around to provide a viable alternative to Trump, leaving the Republican voter with only one distasteful choice. As to the question of whether Sanders should drop out: I don’t think so — at least not until after the DC Primary. His presence there demonstrates that the Democrats believe in providing the choice.
• False Simplification = Hillary is a War Hawk. Now we start to get to some of the tropes that have been going around about Hillary trying to discredit her. We’ll start with this: that she’s a hawk and wants to bring the US to war. However, a study of her foreign policy shows that she is not a hawk. That record suggests she’d be more hawkish than President Obama — and many of her fellow Democrats. But don’t expect her to go overboard. She knows all too well the political price that can come with military intervention. She knows foreign policy; she’s very concerned with relationships and alliances. One gets the impression that she’ll use military intervention only when it is really needed — and remember, she’ll need congress’ approval to do so (at least for any extended action).
• False Simplification = Hillary is Corrupt. I posted this article a while back, but it is worth reposting. The gist is that if you believe that Hillary is corrupt — and in particular, more corrupt than other politicians — you’ve swallowed the conspiracy theories fed to you by the GOP. Furthermore, unlike Monica, you didn’t spit it out as distasteful. If you look at the history objectively, you’ll discover that most of these “scandals” really have no substance to them, and what is there is truly insignificant in the scheme of how the Presidency works. Moreover, you’ll see that both Hillary and Bill have devoted their life to public service and working for the people. They’ve become wealthy by the fact that they are lawyers (a high income profession), and as politicians in the limelight, get paid well to speak and write about their experiences and observations.
• False Simplification = Hillary is Out of Touch with the Poor. This claim has come to a head this week with the kerfuffle about the $12K dress. Snopes has something to say about that: pointing out that the jacket was really half the price, and was likely donated. I’ll go further and say that the question itself is misogynistic.  When Bernie Sanders talks about income inequality, does anyone ask how much his suit costs? When President Obama talks? If Trump talked about it at all, would anyone ask him? No. But we ask women what they wear as if it is something important, and we will pick on them if they don’t look right, or wear the same clothes over and over. Focus on the substance of what she says, and what she has done when in office — not what she is wearing.
• False Simplification = Hillary is not the Candidate of the People. Say what you will about Bernie and the Donald: they see inequities, and they get angry about it. They get so angry they yell from the campaign trail. What would the reaction be if Hillary did that? Here’s an interesting article that shows how Hillary is a very apt, but very different politician. The thing is: her approach to politics is unlike the typical male candidates — and especially the male candidates that our election process rewards. Hillary works in the background building coalitions and nurturing relationships. This is a very feminine approach, and one that people do not see.
• False Simplification = Hillary is Dishonest. This appears to be a favorite of Donald Trump. But guess what: it isn’t true — in fact, Hillary is fundamentally honest. So, the question continues, if she is honest, why does she refuse to release all the information about her speeches. The answer is noted in the linked article: “Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.” But when it comes to honesty, and objective analysis demonstrates that she is fundamentally honest.

Let’s look at these characteristics as they relate to the other major candidate: Donald Trump. Trump has no demonstrated record of working in public service or in the public interest; in fact, it is clear that the only interest he has been interested in supporting to date is his own. This is why he has valued his businesses differently when talking about them on the trail vs. when they are subject to asset taxation. We don’t know his position on war, but we do know he has been fast to come off the handle and threaten war. We also know he doesn’t care about relationships with allies — America First. Is he corrupt? There is evidence he has made major donations to states attorneys general to get them to drop cases against Trump University. He has also clearly misrepresented his interests, and drove many of his businesses into bankruptcy. I shouldn’t even need to ask the honesty question.

But even with all of that, I’m not going to say “Vote Against Trump” (I’ll believe it, but I won’t say it). Rather, I’ll say that you should vote “for” a candidate. Look at the published positions of the candidates (and by that I mean all the candidates: Dems, Repubs, Libertarians, Greens, etc.) — not what the media says they are, but what they are saying about their positions. Look who is endorsing them. Look at their experience and their demeanor. Consider their knowledge of all the complexities that go into being President: working with the Senate and House, dealing with all the hidden complications of the Federal Budget; dealing with the nuances of foreign policy; thinking about long term impacts of actions; thinking about the ramification and costs of actions both domestically and abroad. Select your candidate based on those characteristics, not the manufactured stories and tropes manufactured by the media to bring eyeballs to their properties.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

My sample ballot has arrived, indicating that California’s Silly Season has arrived. For me, that means it is time to do my Sample Ballot Analysis. For you, it means it is time for you to read my analysis and try to convince me otherwise. Hint: I’m only going to listen to positive argument based on your candidate’s positions, not negative arguments about why my candidate or choice is so bad. This post will cover the Federal level offices; a subsequent post will address the rest. Shall we dig in?

❎ President

I’m a registered Democrat, meaning that Republicans are off the table (and off my ballot, at least for the primary). I’m also simply ignoring the candidates who haven’t made any media inroads: Willie Wilson, Roque De Le Fuente, Henry Hewes, Keith Judd, and Michael Steinberg. They have no chance of winning the nomination, and no chance of influencing the platform.

That narrows the field to two: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. If you’ve read my previous long posts (“Election Decisions”, “Presidential Musings, Take 2 (Updated)”), you should know where this is going. I’m with Hillary.

First, let’s start with the negatives. Hillary has a load of them. However, in the scheme of things, they are minor. For most of them, if you believe them, you have drunk the GOP Kool-Aide (so to speak) — you are rewarding 25 years of GOP attempts to smear the Clinton family over minor issues. Hillary hating has become a hysteria that is not based in reality. Here’s a great quote from that last article: «Every single accusation is trivial. Petty. Penny-ante. Yes, even the business about Clinton’s private email server. And especially the septic tank full of hyped-up, conspiracy-laden nonsense that goes by the name of “Benghazi.” […] In an ideal political world, all administrations would be as clean as Obama’s. But as the events of this election cycle have demonstrated quite vividly, this is most emphatically not an ideal political world — and in the deeply troubling world we do inhabit, the prospect of a president dogged by minor scandals shouldn’t distract us from the far higher stakes involved in the upcoming election.»

The stakes are high. This is not a place for on-the-job training, even if you surround yourself with experts. Trump certainly does not have the experience. Bernie does not have the experience (especially in Foreign Policy). The LA Times said it best: «For all her faults, Hillary Clinton is vastly better prepared than Bernie Sanders for the presidency». In particular, the LA Times noted: «Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass.». That last point is true: Sanders proposals would increase the Federal Debt by 18 Trillion, and not provide improved benefits. Such an increase in the debt would have significant impacts on the nation.

Clinton and Sanders are congruent on most of their positions. As for Hillary’s positions, I tend to agree with them. I even agree that the military budget is required: this is especially true when you realize that most of that budget doesn’t go to bombs and guns, but to people. The engineering behind them and other advanced technology, and to our warfighters. In many ways, the DOD is the best job program — especially for well-paying white collar jobs — in the Nation. It also is one of the few programs that encourages people to go into technology fields, and encourages research into technologies on the edge. Cut that back, and imagine what happens to unemployment.

Now: With respect to Sanders, I think he is a good man with good ideas. As President, he wouldn’t get those ideas through — he doesn’t have the skill to persuade Congress — especially a strong Republican Congress. Should he drop out? That’s his decision, and I understand why he is staying in. After all, Hillary did in 2008. It provides him with the ability to influence the Democratic Platform, and that will have a significant impact for years to come. He will return to the senate with vastly more power, and will be a tireless advocate for his positions there. If you wish to vote for Bernie based on his positions, go for it. If you are voting for Bernie solely based on the fact that he isn’t Hillary, then I suggest you rethink your position. Don’t believe the smears. Examine her positions.

What is most important is after the Primary. Non-partisans and Democrats, as well as Republicans who love this country, must come together to make sure that Donald Trump does not win. We need experience. We need diplomacy. We need someone who understands the complexities of decisions. We need someone who will pick reasonable Supreme Court justices, as there will be multiple openings.

Recommendation: Hillary Clinton

❎ United States Senate

Thanks to California’s open primary rule, there are 34 candidates for State Senate. 30-frigging-4. That is so many that there are worries about ballot confusion, as the candidates are spread across two pages. Let’s see if we can separate the dregs from the fine wine.

According to the LA Times, the top candidates are: Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez on the (D) side, Tom Del Beccaro and George “Duf” Sundheim on the (R) side. I’ll add Ron Unz (R) and  Gail K. Lightfoot (L) (as they both have name recognition).

As for the rest, they are extremely unlikely to make it past the primary. Let’s escort Phil Wyman (R), Jarrell Williamson (R), Greg Conlon (R), Jason Kraus (-), Don Krampe (R), Mark Matthew Herd (L), Von Hougo (R), Jason Hanania (-), Gar Myers (-), Paul Merritt (-), Massie Munroe (D), Eleanor Garcia (-/Socialist Workers), Tim Gildersleeve (-), Clive Grey (-), Don J. Grundmann (-), President Christina Grappo (D), Herbert G. Peters (D), Tom Palzer (R), John Thompson Parker (P&F), Karen Roseberry (R), Emory Rodgers (D), George C. Yang (D), Jerry J. Laws (R), Mike Beitiks (-), Pamela Elizondo (G), Scott A. Vineberg (-), Steve Stokes (D), and Ling Ling Shi (-) off the stage. Some may have reasonable position, and from seeing their pages, many are kooks. All are extremely unlikely to have a change in their status over the next three weeks. I’ve attempted to link to their pages; if you think they are worth considering, let me know.

Let’s look at the remaining candidates, from least to most likely. We’ll start with Gail K. Lightfoot (L). She’s a basic minimal government libertarian, wanted to cut back the government to specific constitutionally enumerated powers. On the surface, this seems good. When you read deeper, problems emerge. Her approach minimizes foreign policy and depends on NGOs — an approach similar to depending on donations and churches to protect the poorest in society. She does not believe in taxation, and would get the government out of social welfare and healthcare.  She doesn’t want experts in government. Although I agree with some of her positions, I think she goes to far for my taste. I tend to believe that only government can balance the greed of business. Much as we believe people will do good when unfettered, that hasn’t been borne out in practice. So, given that a key (L) tenant is that people will do the right thing if the government lets them, I can’t support their position. Just. Doesn’t. Work.

This brings us to the top 3 Republican candidates: Ron Unz, Tom Del Beccaro and George “Duf” Sundheim. Realistically, in California, they don’t stand a chance unless the Democrats split their vote too much.  Let’s start with Unz, and why he’s on the ballot. According to his page: «I entered this race because the worthless Republicans in the California Legislature wholeheartedly supported the repeal of my 1998 Prop. 227 “English for the Children” initiative.» Unz believes in “English Only”, fighting immigration, and fighting affirmative action. Other than that, his positions seem remarkably … liberatarian. They also seem a lot like Sanders: Raise the minimum wage. Get out of Iraq. Dismantle Wall Street. Given California, he might have a chance if he could get a listen, especially from those who like Trump.  I could see myself supporting many of his ideas, if it wasn’t for his anti-immigration, English-only, stance. I’ll note that it is refreshing that his page makes no demands on social issues, and does not attempt to bash Obama or his accomplishments.

Tom Del Beccaro strongly supports a flat tax (which tends to hurt the poor proportionately more), is a strong supporter of private gun ownership, and believes that immigration is our biggest national security threat.  He wants to end divisiveness in the Senate, and work to eliminate tax loopholes by moving to the flat tax. What’s interesting is what isn’t on his website: social issues, church and state, his position on the military. Knowing his party affiliation, I’m very very suspicious — especially as he is currently chair of the California Republican Party.

George “Duf” Sundheim comes right out of the door using the “Second Amendment” codewords. He talks about extreme left politicians, lowering marginal tax rates, eliminating loopholes. He wants a strong military and endorses intelligence efforts.  He believes in offensive cybersecurity, as demonstrated by his statement: «technology must be thought of as a defensive and offensive priority.  As much as we should try to plug every hole in our technology network, we will never be able to do so.  People who try to undermine our network need to understand the price they will pay if they try.» He is strongly against the front-runner, Kamala Harris. There is no mention of his positions on social issues, or Obama’s accomplishments. He opposes the minimum wage increase. The Fresno Bee notes that Sundheim is “not willing to wage culture war over a woman’s right to choose, immigration, higher wages or climate change”, and supports the nomination of Garland

This brings us to the two Democratic front-runners.

Loretta Sanchez is very similar to Kamala Harris in terms of the issues. Very few of the articles I could find highlighted different issues positions. Where they differ is in style. The Sacramento Bee captures the contrast well: «Harris comes off as a 21st-century aristocrat – poised, disciplined, distant. Born and raised in the Bay Area by two academics who also were immigrants, she graduated from Howard University (the “Black Harvard”). In this, she’s representative of the rising Bay Area, an upper-middle-class island of advanced education in a struggling state. Sanchez was born in Lynwood, a poor city in southern Los Angeles County, and graduated from high school in working-class Anaheim. One of seven children born to Mexican immigrants, a machinist and a secretary, she earned her degree from Chapman, an underdog college that more recently gained renown. She represents a Southern California that has become more working-class, with education levels stagnant, median income falling and fewer payroll jobs than two decades ago.» That difference in style leads to a difference in effectiveness, and Sanchez has a reputation in the style of Ted Cruz, whereas Harris is more polished. The lack of polish leads Sanchez into more gaffes and political landmines.  Sanchez has more legislative experience than Harris, which can be significant in the Senate.

Making the recommendation is a hard decision. Unz has some good positions, and would be strong choice for those with Libertarian leanings. If it wasn’t for his immigration and English stances, I could see supporting him. I don’t like Del Beccaro — I think he is too tied to the Republican establishment. Sundheim seems to be a Republican that is acceptable to California — i.e., a moderate. I think he could put up a real battle against a Democratic candidate… but would his positions remain the same under pressure from Republican senate leadership? As for Harris vs. Sanchez. I like Sanchez in many ways: she’s a voice for Southern California (which is needed to offset Feinstein), she’s Latina, representing a growing segment of the state. She has legislative experience. Harris is more careful and measured, and might be the stronger candidate in the general election if running against a Republican. This is especially true against a Republican that might use Sanchez’s style and gaffes against her. Harris is like Clinton, and has quite a few negatives.

Recommendation: Loretta Sanchez, at least at the present time.

❎ United States Representative, 30th District

In our district, we have the current incumbent, Brad Sherman (D), facing off against 7 lesser-known candidates, where only two previous Republican candidates have any sort of name recognition: Mark Reed (R) and Navraj Singh (R). The remaining 5 you’ve probably never heard of are Luke Davis (D), Patrea Patrick (D), A. (Raji) Rab (D), and Christopher David Townsend (R).

As before, let’s look at the Republicans first. Mark Reed (R) hammers — rightfully so — on Sherman being late to the party with respect to the difficulties in Porter Ranch. But Reed also opposes the ACA. Reed is strongly for Israel. He is strongly backed by the Republican Party.  Navraj Singh (R) is running again, after running into ethics violations with his last campaign. He thinks we are in the worst economy in years, and views the ACA as socialistic. Christopher David Townsend (R) opposes the ACA, and wants to eliminate Welfare. Looking at their web pages, the best of the bunch is Reed. He has a professional website (something Townsend lacks), and no issues with ethics violations (a Singh problem). But Reed still has a major issue — that (R) behind his name that would lead him to support issues from the (R) coalition.

Turning to the democratic side: Brad Sherman is entrenched, meaning he has better committee positions than a clueless newbie. The other candidates would need to be significantly stronger to override the power of seniority. Luke Davis is a tech candidate, a founder of PlaceAVote.Com, which allows anyone on the Internet to vote on issues before Congress. He seems to have no positions of his own. Patrea Patrick has a position very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Looking at her page, if I was a Sanders voter, I might go for her (in fact, she endorses Sanders on her page). A. (Raji) Rab has the basic Democratic positions, but doesn’t distinguish himself enough from Sherman to make it worth the change.

As for Sherman, I generally agree with his issues. He also has seniority.

Recommendation: Brad Sherman. If you are a Sanders voter, I could understand a vote for Patrea Patrick. Such a vote could help move Sanders agenda program, which needs to start in the house. I don’t really like any of the (R) candidates, but Reed is perhaps the best of the bunch.

❎ Coming Up

Thus ends the first part. The second half of this will focus on the state legislative races, the county commission, judicial races, and the one ballot proposition.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Instead of hanging in there and potentially creating a contested Republican convention (which would have been really really bad news for the Republican party), Ted Cruz has suspended his campaign in light of Trump’s win in Indiana (which is  really really really bad news for the Republican party).

So, to my Republican friends, a bit of advice. First, it is your turn to suck it up and sing:

You say the last election didn’t turn out like you planned.
You’re feeling blue and clueless, you just don’t understand.
You’re sad, sulky, sullen, moping and morose.
You’re woefully weak and weary, semi-comatose.
You stare at your computer screen devoid of any joy and hope.
You’re so depressed, you can’t get dressed, your noose is up a rope.
Just remind yourself, when you can’t stand it any more:
That we’ve been through some crappy times before

Next, I advise you to read this article from a Bush staffer, wherein he points out that it is much better to elect Hillary than to elect Trump. In it, he says:

To begin with, Mr. Trump has autocratic tendencies, and openly admires tyrants such as Vladimir Putin. In fact, his narcissism and cult of personality leadership style seem better suited to countries like North Korea and Uzbekistan than America. Trump has repeatedly attacked core conservative principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and American leadership on the world stage. He has incited the use of violence against his detractors, called on America to commit war crimes, and suggested the possibility of civil unrest if he is denied the GOP nomination.

Mr. Trump proclaims that he’s going to make America great again, but can’t provide any realistic plans for doing so; instead, he frequently resorts to scapegoating outsiders, foreigners, and minorities. The few policies that Trump has articulated would make America less safe, trample upon our most fundamental rights, and appeal to the basest instincts of the American people.

While I disagree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policies, she is clearly qualified to be president. She possesses judgment and self-restraint. She does not have a track record of irrational, risky, and unsound business decisions and public comments. She has a long record of public service. She can be trusted with controlling our military and nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump cannot.

Any Republican who claims that it’s better to elect Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton either lacks proper judgment, or has become so blinded by partisan ideology that they have lost objectivity.

As he notes, with Bush 43, you might have disagreed with his policies, but you knew he was working in what he perceived to be in the best interest of the country. With Donald Trump, the only thing you can be sure of is that he is working in the best interests of Donald Trump.

Hillary may not be perfect, but I don’t believe any president that we have had has been. But, as noted on Fox, she has a record of public service and working in the interests of the country, and of trying to find the middle ground.

So: In the interests of the nation, even though you may disagree with her, you can’t pull the country-destruct lever and elect Trump. In fact, I’m going to go so far to suggest you vote for Hillary, and your favorite Republican candidates for the Senate and the House. We may have four years of gridlock, but we won’t have Trump.

Now, there are those Replublicans amongst you who just cannot stomach voting for Hillary in any way. I can appreciate that. Then either don’t vote for the office of President, or vote for the Libertarian or another third party candidate. Just do not vote for Trump. [Note: This does not apply to you Democrats. You need to vote for the Democratic nominee: either the likely Clinton or the less likely Sanders].

It is increasingly clear that this year is paralleling 1964, and Goldwater history will repeat itself. We are seeing a year of seminal change in the nature of the parties, just as in 1964. Johnson moved the Democrats to the side of Civil Rights, and realigned the party for decades. Sanders, even without winning the nomination (he doesn’t have a chance), is moving the Democratic party to the left. That will be seen in the post-2020 elections. Goldwater moved the Republicans to the right, and set the stage for Nixon, and eventually, Reagan. Trump is continuing the fracture of the Republican party between the radical Right and the moderates. The Republican realignment will also occur over the next four years, and we are likely to see a vastly different party emerge.  We may even see a three party system emerge — not the predicted growth of the Libertarians, but a split into Social Democrats, Moderates, and Radical Right. Why not in 2018? Simple. 2018 will be the year the new parties will be working to qualify themselves for the 2020 Presidential election.

The critical time is keeping this country safe and in good hands for the next four years. That means ensuring that Donald Trump is not elected. Hold your nose and vote for Hillary. Hold your nose and vote for a third party candidate. Hold your nose, and don’t vote for a Presidential candidate. Just do not vote for Trump.

As for the other races, vote with what your conscience and intellect tell you. We probably disagree, but I will respect your right to your opinion, recognizing that is working to find the common ground in our political diversity that makes this country great. We are doing what we believe is right for America.

Full Disclosure: Yes, I’m a Democrat, and yes, I’m currently supporting Hillary as the pragmatic choice. Here’s why. But I’m making the plea above for the sake of the Nation. There were many good Republicans that could have tried for the nomination. Some of them I might not have voted for, but might have made good leaders and worked in the interests of the country. Alas, for Republicans, that possibility has been hijacked for you by Mr. Trump and his supporters.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

A post yesterday by a friend picking apart Hilary’s logo made me realize that I need to start thinking about the upcoming June primary in California, at least at the Presidential level.

It probably comes as no surprise that I’m on the Democratic side: I cannot stomach either Trump or Cruz. Kasinich is much more moderate, but (a) will not get the nomination without splitting the GOP, and thus dooming the GOP, (b) still has positions — such as his abortion stance and his opposition to the Affordable Care Act — that I cannot stomach.  The Republicans are pretty much screwed at the Presidental level: the moderates hate Trump and view Cruz, at best, as a toilet plunger — something you use to get the turd out of the way.  If Trump is denied the nomination, the party will split; if Trump wins the nomination, the party is doomed.

So it really comes down to Sanders vs. Clinton, and the most important thing is that *either* of them get elected. Each has their faults, but either of them is better than the GOP alternatives. But how to decide? I have some irrational fears that I have to sort through: I’m worried about Sanders being Jewish, and his election creating antisemitism, about Sander’s past involvement with socialism, and about Sander’s age. On the Clinton side, I’m worried that she brings far too much baggage that the GOP hates, making compromise difficult. I worry that her positions are perhaps too politically calculated, and perhaps don’t go far enough for my liberalism. I worry about her ties to the 1%, although (again) it is much better than any Republican. These are not necessarily rational worries. So let’s set them aside for now.

I looked at some comparison sites, and the two have very similar view.

Inside-Gov Comparison. Looking at Inside-Gov’s comparison, I note that Sanders has a definite lack of foreign policy experience, but has significantly more legislative experience. Foreign policy experiences is increasingly important, but foreign policy positions are equally significant. Legislative experience could indicate an ability to work with Congress as opposed to butting head with Congress. Then again, they need to be able to propose ideas that will actually get through Congress. This is where Hilary is stronger: her ideas, being more moderate, are likely to get more cross party support (if that can be done at all these days). That’s harder with some of Bernie’s more radical proposals.

Sanders does not have a legal background, and only has a BS. Clinton is clearly smart and has the legal background, with both a BS and a JD degree.

Most of their scores are similar except in the area of defense. Defense is of interest to me. I think most people think defense spending is just building bombs and funding troops, but it really is a massive jobs program. The funds go to defense contracts, who put people to work with well paying jobs. Much of the middle class comes from these workers. Me included. I support an FFRDC that supports the USAF on the acquisition of space systems and space cybersecurity. I’m personally concerned on how the candidate wants to work in space and expand our cybersecurity protections.  Here, all I can see is that Clinton is more conservative.

Mother Jones. The Mother Jones comparison (written before primaries started) highlights something interesting:

The contrasts between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are largely differences of degree. He’s a self-proclaimed socialist; she fashions herself a “progressive that likes to get things done.” He hopes to bust up the biggest banks and offer free tuition at public colleges and universities; she wants to tamp down on risky Wall Street behavior and require students to work part-time in order to attend college without building up debt.

But these discrepancies would likely disappear if either Democratic candidate wins the presidency and attempts to push these bills through a Republican Congress that considers all of the proposals too far left for its liking.

The real difference between Sanders and Clinton might come down less to the what of their policies than to the how of implementing them. When Sanders unveils a new policy as part of his presidential campaign, he tends to pair it with legislation he introduces in the Senate. Judging from his campaign, a President Sanders would spend much of his time trying to convince Congress to pass massive legislative overhauls.

Clinton, on the other hand, often pairs ideas for legislation with promises of executive action in her policy fact sheets. When she rolls out a new policy proposal, the most details are usually in descriptions of the unilateral actions she would take through the power of the executive branch.

This could directly translate into how effective they end up being if the Democrats don’t regain Congress.

Continued Comparisons. I continued to read the comparison sites, but often they are partisan, cherry picking the issues. Some Sanders supporters have a visceral reaction to Clinton, just not trusting her. But in general, I see their proposals as pretty similar.

Drawing a Conclusion. At this point, I can’t really decide between the two. I think, in terms of governing ability, that Clinton will be stronger. She’ll have more moderate ideas, and be able to work better on getting them through Congress. She’ll have more experience with foreign policy and diplomacy. Sanders may have better ideas than Clinton in a number of areas, but having better ideas doesn’t necessarily get them through Congress and enacted (despite what your followers want). I’m unsure if he would end up being more effective. He has some naive assumptions in the foreign policy area — much as he believes one can talk through any problem, that doesn’t work in all cultures.

I think, alas, this campaign is going to boil down not to the question of who is the best candidate, but who is good enough. I think aiming for the best in terms of policy may have the result of hurting the electibility or the likelihood of getting that policy implemented. Good enough means electing someone with known imperfections, but someone with policy that are more likely to move us incrementally in the right direction, and that can get through Congress.

I truly would like to say Hilary can do that … and she could … if only she wasn’t a Clinton. The hatred on the many sides of that family could doom her ability to govern. That’s why I supported Obama in 2008 — because I felt we needed to break the cycle of Clinton and Bush. Would we be starting that up again with Hilary and the Hilary haters.

And so I keep oscillating between the two, like one of those perpetual clacking ball toys.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

This collection of news chum all has to do with things that we may (or may not) be seeing soon:

• A Googie Sharkey’s. Twain’s Coffee Shop in Studio City has been shuttered for a year, with reports being that Sharkey’s, a wonderful Fresh-Mex chain, was moving in. The Twain’s building was clearly a Denny’s in some former life. Anyway, pictures have surfaced of the Sharkey’s remodel, and they are preserving the old style. This is nice to see.
• A Full November Ballot. California is known for its ballot propositions, and recent efforts have moved all of them to the General Election ballot (instead of the June primaries). Here’s a preview of what we’re likely to see. There will be things like a plastic bag referendum, a proposition on prescription drug prices, a referendum of revenue bonds over $2 million, a modification of the “english-only” initiative, bonds for school construction, a proposal on hospital fees, with 66 more gathering signatures.
• No More Metro Free Parking. A report is surfacing of a trial attempt at imposing paid parking at Metro stations.  Although on the surface I don’t like paying for parking, this one is making sense. It provides really low rates for those actually using Metro, with significantly higher rates for those taking advantage of the free parking to just do things in the neighborhood.
• Tits and Ass at the Hollywood Bowl. The Hollywood Bowl has announced their 2016 season.  Their musical this year will be A Chorus Line; I’m not that interested in seeing it. There’s also a Star Trek concert and A Prairie Home Companion.  For me, the show that I’d like to see is Weird Al on July 22-23.  My wife would like the Copeland and Marsalis concert the following week (July 28).
• Mooning in Coachella. At one time, a moon-themed resort was planned for Las Vegas. Anything goes, right? Well, the moon isn’t landing in Vegas, but in the Coachella Valley. The $4 billion, 4,000 all-suite, five-star lunar-themed Moon World Resorts has a opening date targeted for 2022 after two years of permit and entitlement processes and a 48-month build-out. Three thousand workers will be required during the single-phase construction, and, when completed, 8,000 Coachella Valley careers will be created. The 10 million-square-foot project will include cutting-edge space technology over a 10-acre lunar surface with a realistic lunar colony set in the world’s largest and tallest sphere reaching 750 feet. There also will be a 10,000-seat flexible event center and a 2 million-square-foot convention center, several star-chef celebrity restaurants and wellness spa with holistic health treatments.
• Real Time Earthquake Alerts. Have you installed MyShake on your Android phone?  This is a new application from the UC Berkeley Seismology Lab that uses the phone accelerometer to detect earthquakes in a crowd-sourced fashion. The app’s algorithm is designed to ignore ordinary shaking, like a phone jiggling in a purse, and detect unique vibrations felt during earthquakes. If the phone detects what it thinks is an earthquake — usually something at a magnitude 5 or greater — it sends a message to a central server. If there are at least 300 phones sending warnings in the same 60-mile-by-60-mile zone, simulation tests show that’s good enough to tell the system that the shaking was an earthquake. Notices can then go out to advise those further away that an earthquake is coming.
• A Supreme Court Nominee. As you all know by now, Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away. This opens up a space for President Obama to nominate a replacement. He says he will do it promptly; Republican leaders are vowing to not allow it until after the election (meaning at least two court terms — talk about delaying justice). The rumor mill is indicating that Obama will nominate Sri Srinivasan as the replacement. This is an interesting choice. Srinivasan was just confirmed to his current position by the senate in 2013 (just 3 years ago) with a vote of 97-0. Yes, some of the confirming senators are gone, but that makes it likely that he has strong support, and has already been through the vetting process (plus getting any confirmation through the 2012 senate wasn’t easy). It makes a wonderful statement on immigrant rights and diversity. Could be very interesting.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)