A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Denise Juneau and the U of M

I receive at least 2 emails a day begging, shaming and cajoling me into signing a petition for this that or the other cause against one offense or many.  Support Standing Rock, by pushing buttons on my keyboard.  Tell Trump that White Supremacy is bad, by pushing buttons on my keyboard.  Tell Obama to do this, and Trump to do that, and Tester to do this other thing, while pushing buttons on my keyboard.  Petitions have no effect.  None whatsoever.

The latest one that floods my Inbox is to tell the Board of Regents for the state of Montana to hire Denise Juneau as the President of the University of Montana.  I have a few questions here: 1) Has the job been listed for application?  (No, it hasn't).  2)  Has Juneau applied?  (No, she hasn't).  3)  Does Denise Juneau even want the job?  I have no idea.  Nor does anyone else begging me to sign the petition.  Listen up, folks.  I'm more than passingly familiar with how things work in the process of state hiring.  Your online petition is crap.  The Board of Regents is not elected, so you have no say in what they do.  The Governor proposes membership to this august body.  Your petition is a lie, and obligates another person who may not even want what you keep cluttering my email with.  Your petition means nothing, save this:  you want what you want and seem to think that I want the same without discussion or reason.  Put frankly, I don't see that as any different than what has come from Trump voters.

Don't get me wrong.  I think she'd be awesome, in her first year.  But the challenges that face the U of M are custom made  for failure at the Presidency level.  Students are flocking to the hard science University.  Missoula city and county governments have never been in any way agreeable.  And no one knows the real vagaries of the Board of Regents.  Despite the 700% pay raise, I wouldn't want that damned job.  Okay, maybe I would.  But has anyone asked Denise?  That's the part that bugs me the most about online petitions and voter arrogance in our pseudo-democracy.  No little petition is going to force behavior on the part of another, not the regents, and not Juneau.

Twits

I'm getting very pissed off that I continue to get the mewling demands for money from the Montana Democraptic party while I remain banned from commenting at their media wing website, MTCowgirl.  This, after 12 years of blogging in their favor.  I'm extremely pissed off that the state party hasn't changed one iota and thiniks that I am so afraid of their losing I will front funds for their losing.  Losing seems to be most of what they are charging head-first towards.  The message they offer is tripe, and they have no real plan for countering the stupidity that is sweeping the nation with Republicant control.  But they want my money, my effort and my time, while insulting the very honesty that I have to give them.

No.  I will give not one red cent to Montana democrats.  I feel no shame that can manipulated into giving such.  Screw you, Montana Democratic party.   Show me that you're worth a shit, and I will reconsider.

Why Do Montana Democrats Lose?

That is a terrific question, isn't it?  It's been asked about a billion times, but we never come up with an answer.  Just supposing, but that might be because we are Democrats and thinking about it all wrong.  'We' think that people should favor ideas that favor 'we'.  That's not a bad idea, and actually should be a winner.  So why do Montana Democrats lose?

 

Norma.  People like Norma.  People who think that the 'right' is the same as the popular, and worse, vice versa.  People who think that disagreement is cause for alarm.  Democrats too frightened to tell their 'strong' supporters how full of shit they are when they drive hundreds of others away.  In her first run at state legislator, Norma scored only 3 percentage points behind the President in her very red county, and only 3 points behind the federal Democratic Representative candidate on the ticket.  Her second run, she scored 10 points behind the Democratic Representative candidate, and garnered a whole 18% of the vote in her county.  Yet still, at the Democratic wing website of MT Cowgirl, she is protected, and many others silenced, regardless of how offensive and stupid her comments are.   It seems like it, but I'm not actually blaming Norma.  I'm blaming the Montana Democrats who strangely think that embracing Norma while pushing actual progressives away is a good idea.  No, it's really not.

So you tell me, folks.  Why do Montana Democrats lose?

Who Should Get Schweitzer's Seat?

Don't fret.  You read that correctly.  Max Baucus is retiring from the US Senate, and the seat was Brian Schweitzer's to take.  He declined.  If all of this is a mystery to you, then please don't read this, and get the hell out of that cave you've been living in.

Many have been supposing, theorizing, stategerizing, crowing, lamenting, accusing and wondering who ever might Montana send to the US Senate to replace Max. Cowgirl and her commenters have opinions.  James Conner has opinions.  The good folk at Intelligent Discontent have opinions.  And, of course, Liz and the gang have opinions that generally involve telling everyone else how they are WRONG, and being mean!  Whatever.  These are my opinions.  Despite the strong urge of others, they do not represent a party worship, current polling trends, or anything other than an informed view of Montana, its history and it's politics.

The Republicants:  Racicot will not run.  He will never live down the shroud of destruction draped over his role in the death of Montana Power.  He is still popular in Montana, and polls well.  Yeah, that is until he is confronted with the obvious skeleton in his closet.  I've met the guy a couple of times, and he is most obviously not stupid.  Montana Power would kill him, and I think (hope) he's smart enough to know it.  Like Freddy Thomas, he may hold to the hope that Montanans will have forgotten his betrayal, but in the age of dark money they won't forget for long.  Steve Daines, on the other hand, is a powerful candidate.  Those who liken him to Dennis Rehburg are ignoring that Daines is likable, not a complete idiot, safely pure and doesn't have a porn-'stache.  Daines hasn't voted any way that Rehberg wouldn't have, but unless someone can righteously hammer him on the farm bill, he really hasn't done much to hurt himself.  He currently has the inside track.  I won't say much about Edmunds other that he is a hideous human with a hideous soul.  Stapleton is probably the most acceptable of the Republicants.  But he has to convince the libertarian voters and garner big money donors.  I'm not convinced he can do that.  Bob Brown?  We'll see.

Republicant Women:  don't make me laugh.  This is the party of old white men.

Democratic Women:  Monica Lindeen has already bowed out.  I think that's justified.  She had little to no chance of victory.  Maybe another round for the House when Daines steps up?  Denise Juneau is an unbelievably attractive pick.  She is strong willed, decisive, morally centered as evidenced by her votes against coal mining.  But there is a huge chasm between Secretary of Public Instruction and US  Senator.  I would like to see her become Governor.   I just think the gulf she has to bridge at this time is far too large.  Franke Wilmer?   Oh yes.  She definitely stands a chance, especially if running against Racicot.   Against Daines?  Not so much.  Kim Gillan might stand a shot, but only with lots of 'dark money'.  If, and I mean if, any one can convince Nancy Keenan to run, then that might be our best shot at a female Senator, and for defeating Daines.

Democratic Men:  There isn't very much hope here at all.  Jent, Van Valkenburg, McDonald.  They've all pretty much shot themselves in the ... foot.  However, there is still some hope for up-and-comers, if IF if they are willing to run.  Kendall Van Dyke?  Jim Peterson?  The hope here is slim, even though the future of progressive values in Montana lays with Montana men standing up for women and minorities and unions.  Jon Tester was a dark horse in 2006.  Maybe someone  can rise these next two years as well.

I don't maintain hope that Montana will hold this Senate seat for Democrats.  But a lot can happen in a year.

No Wonder She Supports Max

I honestly think I have encountered the funniest comment ever online.  Norma Duffy, famous for her electoral battle cry of "fuck off and get a life", thinks she has grant of right over online comments.  Her dictate:

"I can’t and won’t give you permission to add your addled Bull shit reasoning to my comments."

I don't remember the last time I've laughed that hard at an online comment.  Seriously.  Permission?  Online?  Really?

Here's to a Leftward Moving 2012

2011 probably wasn't the best year for most folks, though there was considerable improvement for many.  Politically speaking, it's been one of the most polarizing years I can think of.  Here's hoping for a better 2012.

We can make that happen.  Many individuals, smart and otherwise, have argued loud and long that America has a two-party problem.  We have a center right party and a far right party.  I'm not going to argue that; I never would or have.  Here's the thing, though.  Our challenge, which should be clear, remains muddied.  How do we get a left party in control of our governance?

If 2010, an awful year, is any indication, then the path would be to kill off the center right party.  How'd that work out?  Not well, obviously.  Since handing the US House back to the Republicans, the 99%ers have been held hostage at least 5 times.  I'm certainly glad we got rid of those Blue-Dog Dems in favor of truly partisan tea-baggers.  After all, partisanship is the problem and getting rid of partisans for more strongly partisan folks is surely the answer.

Or not.  How about this?  If the country has moved to the right because we have a center-right party and a far-right party, maybe the solution in defending the left isn't to attack the anchor in the middle.  Just saying ...  Maybe, just maybe, if we destroy the far right, utterly obliterate them, then maybe we might have vision left to support the left.  Just maybe.  It's easy to see that destroying the far right would leave us with a center right party in control, and doesn't that suck.  Maybe it does, except ...

You've all taken high school math, right?  If you want a function to move in a desired direction, you don't remove a moderating variable.  You remove the extremes.  It is that simple.  Remove the far right and you have a median that resembles more the country in representation.  The center right party already contains those who are of the left.  Destroy the far right, and you can't help but have a policy forwarded that better favors the middle and lower classes.  More to the point, you have a starting position for moving policy and politics towards the left.  This isn't that goddamned difficult.  Remove people like Skees, Burnett and Rehberg and you are left with people who are more pliant to your needs.  Start from the center right, and you're  one helluva lot closer to where you want to go than giving the game away to the far right, as we liberals did in 2010.

Here's to a happy New Year, one in which liberals finally decide to fight back rather than let the right take our apathy as acquiescence.

Satire Is Not Just Mockery

For one, satire is usually funny.  Mimicking in a completely bullshit way is rather apish, and one of the many reasons that the right is so poor at it.  It saddens me that so many on the left are so poor at it as well.  Satire begins with 'the truth' and then points to its absurdity.  Satire does not begin with a Straw Man, then commence knocking it down with Ad hHominem, contradictory thinking and insult.  That's the right wing method.  If one wants satire I suggest The Borowitz Report, The General J.C. Christian or the Onion.  If one wants self-important bullshit, I suggest this.

 

And for the record, Mark Tokarski actually had the balls to confront Milt Shook.  Milt smacked him like a bug. 

Hey mark,

Thanks for proving the point of the article for me.

Wanna talk about arrogance and hubris? How about your assumption that I don't "support Social Security, Medicare, oppose torture and want the wars to end, the tax structure restored, jobs protected."

No one's marginalizing the far left. The far left is marginalizing itself. Have you noticed? The far right keeps winning elections, even though they represent the smallest portion of the American populace. And it's because of people like you, who think it's "the Democrats" who are marginalizing you. Democrats have NEVER betrayed liberals; that's a fantasy. MOST minorities and poor ARE Democrats. Union members are MOSTLY Democrats. When you say you've been "betrayed" by "the Democrats," what you are actually saying is, blacks, Hispanics, the poor, gays and the elderly are "betraying" you.

That you were deeply insulted by the post demonstrates a galling level of narcissism. And the only one demonstrating "arrogance and hubris" here is you.

Now *THAT* was funny.

Whose Side Are You On?

I originally started writing this post as a comment at 4 & 20 Blackbirds.  But the Askimet commenting software they use tends to see a comment with multiple links as spam.  So, if'n none y'all mind, I'll post it here instead.

John Cole notices what I have written about at length.   Glenn Greenwald, progressive icon, asks the question that was mandatory as a patriot oath for the wargarblers several years ago.  Whose side are you on?  I have a better question.  Do you understand what you're doing?

jhwygirl wrote a post remarkably hopeful that the GOP might be willing to move on revenue increases to solve our economic woes in the face of extreme austerity measures.  She even refers to these efforts as "refreshing honesty", though in fairness her quote of honesty refers to a GOoPer no longer in any power.  I doubted it would be believed among the GOoP faithful, and indeed it wasn't, and my response was very direct and also honest.  "Don't believe a word of it."  The Republicants currently in power don't care about the deficit or deficit reduction.  They care about garnering power, and they are willing to destroy this country to get it.  They sure as hell don't want to actually raise revenue, no matter how much ear-play they give it on the talkies.  In the comments responding to my brother, Lizard posits the same tired trope that I only see such because I am a blind partisan who can't see beyond the label divide.

the problem with how “the established left” responds to the fractured right is that the left needs a monochromatic boogeyman as badly as the right does. just look at your brother, moorcat. don’t believe a word of it, he says. he says that because his ideology appears to render him incapable of thoughtfully considering different strains of conservatism.

And with pompous pontifications such as this, the so called 'reality-based' community jumps the shark.  What Lizard appears clueless about is that this very issue is being played out in the debt ceiling negotiations.  Republicants don't care about the deficit, and they will not accept raising revenue.

The ransom note is delivered.

The president and his party may want a debt limit increase that includes tax hikes, but such a proposal cannot pass the House.

Should one think the Senate more amenable, this is Mitch McConnell:

"So there’s one of two things going on here: Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes. Or someone involved is acting in bad faith," McConnell said. “We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt reduction proposal." he said.

SteveM, from NoMoreMrNiceBlog, notes what should be obvious:

I think the walkouts on budget talks by Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, taken in isolation, make Republicans look intransigent, in a way that generally polls very, very badly. In isolation, it’s a bad political move. Voters, especially swing voters, regularly tell pollsters they want the parties to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups, not act like stubborn children. The problem is, those same voters also think that if Democrats can’t somehow persuade Republicans to negotiate like grown-ups, then they’re equally at fault. So it’s a wash. And Republicans know it’s a wash. So there’s no downside for them in acting like stubborn children. Now, if the mainstream media would even occasionally float the theory that perhaps, just perhaps, the Republican Party is sometimes a tad extreme and irrational, maybe the truth of what’s going on here would have a chance of sinking in with average voters.

I submit that when liberal and/or progressive blogs join that media narrative of how the Democrats should be able to *do* something about the Republicant intransigence, they reinforce the voter idea that 'might makes right'. It's a twist such that Republicants, instead of looking like the saboteurs of the American dream that they are, end up looking like the strong leaders, and Democrats are again punished for not joining in the right-wing pogrom against the common folk. 4 & 20 is certainly not the only website to join in that insane chorus. But insane it is. jhwygirl's post and many comments to it paint the same picture. Republicans said things we like so Democrats should be responsible for "jumping on" this opportunity that is, was and will remain an illusion. And when Republicans do exactly what they've been doing, we can blame the Democrats and the President for not altering the behavior this bunch of tantrum-driven children have exhibited since Ronald Reagan. Lizard says:

both sides of the isle (sic) work behind the smoke screen when it comes to perpetuating this insane downward spiral of austerity, squeezed productivity, stagnant wages, and obscene corporate profit, but Obama groveling before wall street is suppose to be somehow better than the scary looming alternative. what the hell does it matter when the results are the same?

So, if the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans, they lose. Wall Street wants the debt ceiling lifted, so if Democrats attempt to do what needs to be done to get that and fail or win, then they are just serving their plutocratic overlords. There are only three ways to increase revenue and lower the deficit load in any significant fashion. Support terrorism (with an immediate and complete withdrawal of support to Afghanistan, and yes the "support terrorism" part was a sarcastic poke at what will be the public media narrative), raising taxes, and/or passing a stimulus significant enough to fully employ half of those unemployed and underemployed. All of those efforts have enough Republicant opposition that they would fail.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  That is the Republicant agenda.  Many in the progressive community seem to have missed Mitch McConnell saying that very thing a year ago.  They will burn this nation to the ground if it gives them the Senate and the White House back.  The media are helping them do that very thing.  I'm curious as to why so many progressives seem willing to assist that effort.

They don't care about deficit reduction.  They care about keeping voters interested in deficit reduction, where the rhetoric serves them.  They don't care about increasing revenue and will fight that tooth and nail.  They have so many folks twisted in knots that anyone liberal loses either way.  I'm not partisan for pointing that out.  I'm realistic.  I simply wish more progressives were.

Things That Need To Be Stated Clearly

I've alluded to something several times that's been bugging the hell out of me for a while now.  I wanted to state it clearly, but surprisingly enough, didn't want to be accusatory.  I also wanted to wait for the shitstorm to pass first.  I'm also going to point it out here at a website whose legacy doesn't browbeat me into not pointing and laughing at the obvious.

After the shooting of Representative Giffords, many were very quick to point out that violent rhetoric coming from the right is souring our national discourse, and quite frankly making it rather dangerous.  I agree and think that's sound reasoning.  I do not believe in the counter-arguments of moral equivalence between right and left unless they have reasonable relevance.  I deleted a comment from Rusty Shackledurp at LitW today which linked to a post from some Internet Toughguy who talked all kinds of smack about punching people who favor feminist use of language.  The left has taken a very principled stand against the violence of torture perpetrated against enemies.

What do these three disparate things have in common?  I'll tell you.  The writing of this post was inspired by a diary at Daily Kos which came over the left blogwire today.  It posits two kinds of Democrats, those who are weak and those who are strong, like our Good Governor.  But there was a quote in that which puit my hackles up:

that’s pretty much what I expect far too many Democrats to do, unless we can grab ‘em by the lapels

And do what?  Punch them?  Threaten them?  Kick them in the junk?  Tell them "Nice Democracy you got here, it'd be a shame if sumpthin happened to it ..."

Here's the entire quote, just for context which won't change my point:

Since negotiating away Medicare and Social Security is hugely unpopular…that’s pretty much what I expect far too many Democrats to do, unless we can grab ‘em by the lapels and show ‘em that voters want Democratic Democrats—you know, the kind of Democrat who understands how to grow a brand, and how to keep it strong, and how to set fire to bad ideas, loudly and publicly, when that’s the right thing to do. 

Now AH-AH!  Yes, that is the sound I make when my dogs are fixing to misbehave.  Don't tell me that kind of speechifying is just meaningless metaphor.  No it isn't.  It is a direct call of threat to very real people.  So is the ever popular endorsement of medieval torture:  'Holding their feet to the fire'.  That is a very precise endorsement of hurting another to achieve a personal agenda.  So don't no one be telling me that isn't "violent rhetoric".  It quite explicitly is.  It is a statement of 'Do what I want or I will hurt you.'  What saddens me most of all is the number of folks who use such verbiage to coerce others to sign onto such an authoritarian will, with a complete blind-spot about what they are demanding.  That's only slightly more sad than the number of people who actually think they personally have that kind of power.

In truth, I'm very happy that some I've butted heads with over the last weeks have moved to the language of accountability.  Favoring a politician or not, one doesn't need threat to control them.  At heart, that threat actually attempts to control others who might not share the view of the extortionist who uses it.  That was much of the point that many were trying to make after the shootings in Arizona.  Nine people didn't die because Sarah Palin used architectural symbols targeting reticules in her literature.  They died because some twisted asshole thought the threat didn't go far enough.  How will the left deal with upping the threat ante should something happen because they're advocating 'grabbing lapels and burning feet'?

Gosh I Can't WAIT!

So who do the Greens have running for Senate in 2012?  Anybody?  Anyone?  Beuller?