You Got A Lot Of Damn Gall

“Kids, this-piece-of-paper’s-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting-officer’s-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say”, and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there, and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it down there, just like it was, and everything was fine and I put down the pencil, and I turned over the piece of paper, and there, there on the other side, in the middle of the other side, away from everything else on the other side, in parentheses, capital letters, quotated, read theollowing words:

(“KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?”)

I went over to the sargent, said, “Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I’ve rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I’m sittin’ here on the bench, I mean I’m sittin here on the Group W bench ’cause you want to know if I’m moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein’ a litterbug.” He looked at me and said, “Kid, we don’t like your kind, and we’re gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington.”

And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints.

So someplace a little dim bulb is flickering that it’s not really a good look to be paying the wife of a Supreme Court Justice (Ginny Thomas) mega bucks to run a Stalinist Purge of your Administration.

So is the solution to stop doing that, apologize, and promise never to do it again?

C’mon.

Trump slams Sotomayor and Ginsburg, says they should recuse themselves from ‘Trump-related’ cases
By Meagan Flynn and Brittany Shammas , Washington Post
February 25, 2020

President Trump went after Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a pair of tweets and at a news conference in India on Tuesday, days after Sotomayor issued a dissent critical of the Trump administration’s legal strategy and the court’s majority for enabling it.

Tweeting just before appearing at a welcome ceremony at the Indian president’s ceremonial residence in New Delhi, Trump cited a Laura Ingraham segment on Fox News titled, “Sotomayor accuses GOP-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Trump.” He then called on Sotomayor and Ginsburg to recuse themselves in all Trump-related matters.

“Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way?” Trump said of Sotomayor. “She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a ‘faker’. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related matters! While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!”

He doubled down on his criticism during a news conference Tuesday in New Delhi, telling reporters that the basis for his belief that the justices should recuse themselves was “very obvious.”

“I always thought, frankly, that Justice Ginsburg should do it, because she went wild during the campaign when I was running,” he said. “I don’t know who she was for — perhaps she was for Hillary Clinton, if you can believe it —but she said some things that were obviously very inappropriate.

“She later sort of apologized. I wouldn’t say it was an apology, but she sort of apologized. And then Justice Sotomayor said what she said yesterday. You know very well what she said yesterday. It was a big story. And I just don’t know how they can not recuse themselves for anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related.”

Trump’s comments targeting Sotomayor and Ginsburg come as he has faced criticism for targeting sitting judges and injecting politics into the judiciary.

Among Those Pressing Trump to Weed Out Disloyalty: Clarence Thomas’s Wife
By Maggie Haberman, The New York Times
Feb. 24, 2020

For the past 18 months, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, and other conservatives have plied the White House with memos and suggestions about which people to fire — and who should replace them.

President Trump has generally treated Ms. Thomas’s suggestions coolly, passing them off to advisers, according to people familiar with Ms. Thomas’s efforts. But since the end of the Senate impeachment trial, the president has become more distrustful of the people filling the ranks of government and has been giving those recommendations a closer look.

The memos from Ms. Thomas were first reported by Axios.

Among Ms. Thomas’s top targets have been officials at the National Security Council, the former head of the White House personnel office, Sean Doocey, and other top White House aides. Another target was Jessie K. Liu, who recently left her job as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for a job in the Treasury Department that was later withdrawn by the White House.

Ms. Thomas, a politically active conservative who for nearly seven years has led a group called Groundswell, also successfully lobbied for a role for Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the former attorney general of Virginia who is now the acting deputy secretary of homeland security.

Another conservative, Becky Norton Dunlop, an official at the Heritage Foundation, has also repeatedly passed names of possible appointments to personnel officials, administration officials said. A Heritage official did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump recently shook up the personnel office, replacing Mr. Doocey with John McEntee, who was fired from his previous job at the White House, with a mandate to look for “bad” people, according to multiple administration officials.

Some administration aides have long been suspicious that people like Ms. Thomas and Ms. Dunlop are less interested in pro-Trump purity than in appointments for their own networks of friends. White House officials have privately questioned Ms. Thomas’s lobbying on personnel, and have said Mr. Trump — who is facing several decisions before the Supreme Court personally and in terms of administration policy — has made clear he is conscious of whom she is married to.

Recuse? You so funny.

Cartnoon

So, ready for some more Debate? Basically everyone is going to be live tonight with reactions but here’s what was said about the events of the weekend.

Trevor

Stephen

Seth

Your Vote Matters!

The Breakfast Club (Limitless)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

This Day in History

Ferdinand Marcos flees the Philippines; Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev denounces Josef Stalin; Samuel Colt patents the revolver; Muhammad Ali becomes world boxing champ; Musician George Harrison born.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

Katherine Johnson August 26, 1918 – February 24, 2020

Girls are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing. Sometimes they have more imagination than men.

Katherine Johnson

Continue reading

Popularity Contest

I’m sorry, but for the last 12 hours (and 12 hours before that) I have been hearing nothing but wailing and moaning and rending of garments by New ConservaDem, 3rd Way, Blue Dog, DLC, Coffee Party United, Bowles-Simpson Catfood Salesman Radical Moderate Centrists and their Villager Mouthpiece Puppets.

Like it or not Bernie Sanders is really popular, and not just with Democrats. Were I to channel Hillary ’16 I might say, shut up, get with the program, give me all your monies and your donors and here’s the first week of your 127 city bus tour telling people how Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being you’ve ever known in your life.

However it’s only 3 States. There are 54 more contests.

Putin’ on my Pundit Hat (I want you all to know I’m handsomely remunerated by the IRA, no, not the Irish ones) I honestly wonder why the Never Trump Institutional Democrats are sticking with Jeb who is hemorrhaging his solid Black 45 – 65 support even in Firewall South Carolina to Bloomberg and (shudder) Sanders when you have a just as Conservative, much, much younger Marco Rubio standing around actually, like, you know, in Second Place?

Could it be because he’s Gay and the country is just not ready for the picture of two guys kissing?

And what the heck is wrong with Warren? Third Place (take that Jeb) and probably the only candidate who could actually have crossover appeal.

Could it be because she’s a woman?

But what about Bernie? Well, what about him? Beats the Unindicted Co-conspirator Bottomless Pinocchio by the largest margin head to head Nationally and in the Battleground States. Running margin of error behind Klobuchar in Minnesota of all places and nobody else reaches viability.

Regular Democrats Just Aren’t Worried About Bernie
by Peter Beinart, The Atlantic
February 18, 2020

Among ordinary Democrats, Sanders is strikingly popular, even with voters who favor his rivals. He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors. On paper, he appears well positioned to unify the party should he win its presidential nomination.

So why all the talk of civil war? Because Sanders is far more divisive among Democratic elites—who prize institutional loyalty and ideological moderation—than Democratic voters. The danger is that by projecting their own anxieties onto rank-and-file Democrats, party insiders are exaggerating the risk of a schism if Sanders wins the nomination, and overlooking the greater risk that the party could fracture if they engineer his defeat.

Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential field, at least according to surveys of ordinary Democrats. A Monmouth University poll last week found not only that Sanders’s favorability rating among Democrats nationally—71 percent—was higher than his five top rivals’, but also that his unfavorability rating—19 percent—was tied for second lowest. Sanders’s net favorability rating was six points higher than Elizabeth Warren’s, 16 points higher than Joe Biden’s, 18 points higher than Pete Buttigieg’s, 23 points higher than Amy Klobuchar’s, and a whopping 40 points higher than that of Michael Bloomberg, whom more than a third of Democratic voters viewed unfavorably. (By contrast, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn—whom Sanders’s critics often cite as a cautionary tale—enjoyed the support of only 56 percent of his own party members in the months leading up to December’s British election.)

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this month found similarly favorable results for Sanders. Among Democrats nationally, only Warren enjoyed higher net favorability ratings; on that measure, Sanders outpaced Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. (The pollsters didn’t ask about Klobuchar.) And according to a recent USA Today/IPSOS survey, Sanders is the candidate who Democrats say best shares their values.

Although political handicappers sometimes presume that centrist Democrats are hostile to Sanders, the Quinnipiac poll suggests that Sanders enjoys widespread affection even outside his ideological lane. Among self-described moderate or conservative Democrats, Sanders boasts a net favorability rating of 43 points—far higher than Biden or Bloomberg fares among the “very liberal” Democrats who compose Sanders’s ideological base. Ninety-eight percent of Warren supporters, 97 percent of Buttigieg supporters and 92 percent of Biden supporters say they would back Sanders against Donald Trump. Only among Bloomberg supporters does that number dip to 83 percent. Overall, Sanders voters are significantly more likely to say that they won’t back one of his rivals in the general election than the other way around. Sanders’s critics within the party may resent his supporters for threatening to stay home in November. But most Democratic voters, including most centrist ones, have little problem with Sanders himself.

None of this means Sanders would necessarily beat Trump. His ultra-progressive policies and socialist self-identification could energize Trump’s base and alienate the independents and Republican moderates who backed Democratic candidates in 2018. But the evidence does suggest that, if Democratic elites let him, he’s capable of unifying his party’s rank and file behind his campaign. He’s far better positioned than Trump was at this point in 2016, when his net favorability rating among Republicans was almost 20 points lower than Sanders’s is among Democrats today.

Pondering the Pundits

Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news media and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Paul Krugman: Bernie Sanders Isn’t the Left’s Trump

And this is no time for ego or self-indulgence.

Look, I know the primaries aren’t over, and it’s still possible that Democratic centrists will get their act together. But Bernie Sanders is now the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination. There are many things to say about that, but the most important is that he is NOT a left-leaning version of Trump. Even if you disagree with his ideas, he’s not a wannabe authoritarian ruler.

America under a Sanders presidency would still be America, both because Sanders is an infinitely better human being than Trump and because the Democratic Party wouldn’t enable abuse of power the way Republicans have. [..]

I’m more concerned about (a) the electability of someone who says he’s a socialist even though he isn’t and (b) if he does win, whether he’ll squander political capital on unwinnable fights like abolishing private health insurance. But if he’s the nominee, it’s the job of Dems to make him electable if at all possible.

To be honest, a Sanders administration would probably leave center-left policy wonks like me out in the cold, at least initially. And if a President Sanders or his advisers say things I think are foolish, I won’t pretend otherwise in an attempt to ingratiate myself. (Sorry, I’m still not a convert to Modern Monetary Theory.) But this is no time for self-indulgence and ego trips. Freedom is on the line.

Charles M. Blow: Don’t Doubt Bernie

Sanders has hurdles to overcome, but clearly, he could defeat Trump.

Stop saying that Bernie Sanders can’t win.

Stop saying that he can’t defeat President Trump. That is by now a given. In fact, in head-to-head national polls, Sanders consistently outperforms Trump.

Sanders is, for the moment, the clear front-runner to win the Democratic nomination. And he has a national infrastructure and a committed band of supporters and donors that make it clear that he could go the distance.

Furthermore, Sanders’s impressive win in Nevada proves that he can attract a broad range of support, at least in one part of the country. This in particular is an significant feat. When Sanders ran four years ago, the breadth of his appeal was indeed an issue, which was an issue similar to the one Pete Buttigieg faces during this election. Since then, Sanders has recognized that shortcoming, and has worked hard to address it.

If Sanders can sustain this momentum, he will be the nominee. And then it will be on to a matchup with Trump. Now, trying to predict what voters will do in November is dicey business, but I am by no means counting Sanders out.

Yes, I know all the issues with a Sanders candidacy.

Jamelle Bouie: Where Might Trumpism Take Us?

For analogies that show us where the nation might be headed, look close to home.

When critics reach for analogies to describe Donald Trump — or look for examples of democratic deterioration — they tend to look abroad. They point to Russia under Vladimir Putin, Hungary under Viktor Orban, or Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Trump, in this view, is a type — an authoritarian strongman. But it’s a foreign type, and his corrupt administration is seen as alien to the American experience.

This is a little too generous to the United States. It’s not just that we have had moments of authoritarian government — as well as presidents, like John Adams or Woodrow Wilson, with autocratic impulses — but that an entire region of the country was once governed by an actual authoritarian regime. That regime was Jim Crow, a system defined by a one-party rule and violent repression of racial minorities.

Max Boot: Why the Russians still prefer Trump

Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, was ousted by President Trump after one of his aides told members of Congress that Russia is intervening in the U.S. elections again in an effort to reelect the president. This finding was met with skepticism from Republican House members who are credulous enough to believe Trump’s boasts that he has been “FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President.”

Trump’s claims of being tough on Russia are belied by the fact that he has a fit whenever any U.S. officials confirm that Russia attacked the 2016 election or tryto safeguard future elections. It’s no coincidence that the previous director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, left office in August 2019, shortly after appointing a senior intelligence officer, Shelby Pierson, to take charge of election security. Now Coats’s successor has been fired because Pierson was doing her job. Maguire’s replacement by Trump propagandist Richard Grenell sends a loud and clear signal that Trump does not want to do anything to impede Russian attacks on the U.S. political system — which he sees as beneficial to his own campaign. In case there was any doubt, Trump on Friday dismissed the findings of the U.S. intelligence community about Russia’s desire to aid his reelection campaign as a “hoax” and “misinformation campaign.”

Greg Sargent: Awful new details about Trump’s purge should alarm us all

President Trump’s ongoing purge of his administration is rapidly getting worse, so it’s urgent that we accurately frame what’s really driving it, to avoid letting it get shrouded in a story line about Trump’s unchecked emotions and pathologies.

So let’s be clear: Trump is not merely purging officials to sate his anger at those who crossed him — that is, as backward-looking retribution against disloyalty.

Rather, the real driver here is that Trump is removing officials who committed the sin of trying to defend the rule of law from his efforts to corrupt it. This is forward-looking: It clears the way for more such corruption of the rule of law and sends a message to others about what awaits them if they stand in the way of this as it continues to devolve.

Two new reports about Trump’s ongoing purge underscore this with great clarity. [..]

The purges are not just revenge. They are designed to remove people who defend the rule of law against Trump’s very deliberate corruption and degradation of it.

Straight From An Elephant’s Anus

Oh, not John. Modi.

World’s Largest Democracy!

Cartnoon

Lewis Black? Did Somebody Say Lewis Black?

“The Rant Is Due” Live from Wilmington Delaware last night.

The Breakfast Club (Informed Opinion)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

This Day in History

President Andrew Johnson impeached; The Nazi Party holds its first major meeting; Manila liberated during World War II; Britain’s Prince Charles, Lady Diana Spencer engaged; Lauryn Hill’s Grammy feat.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

Citizenship is a tough occupation which obliges the citizen to make his own informed opinion and stand by it.

Martha Gellhorn

Continue reading

Rant of the Week: Rachel Maddow – The Dark Days Are Here

Since the Republican held Senate refused to remove Trump from office, Republican senators, like Maine’s Susan Collins, insisted he had learned a lesson. Yes, the narcissistic psychotic “learned his lesson” alright just not the one that Republicans thought he would. Trump has no gone a rampage of pardoning and firings. On Friday, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pointed out that it is no longer accurate to frame Donald Trump’s corruption as imminent or potential as he is openly abusing his power to make it clear that the power of the U.S. government will be used to punish people who oppose him and help people who demonstrate fealty.Trump unleashed purges of anyone deemed less than 100% loyal: “The dark days are not coming, the dark days are here.”

From Steve Benen at Maddow Blog: WH personnel chief reportedly on the lookout for Trump critics

If you thought Team Trump was purging perceived enemies from government posts before, it’s apparently poised to get considerably worse.

In Donald Trump’s first year as president his personal assistant was a young man named John McEntee. At the White House, it’s a job known as “body man.” (If you watched The West Wing television show, McEntee was, in effect, Charlie. Or, for Veep fans, he was Gary.)

The young man’s career was cut short in 2018, however, when then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly reportedly fired McEntee — by some accounts because he was facing a federal investigation over unspecified “serious financial crimes.” The Wall Street Journal reported soon after on McEntee’s alleged gambling issues, complicated by the apparent fact that he couldn’t pass a background check.

He was hired by Trump’s re-election campaign less than a day later.

Two years later, those events are behind McEntee, who has now returned to the White House — as the new director of the Office of Presidential Personnel. It’s a rather important position for the 29-year-old Republican, who’ll be responsible for hiring and vetting those seeking jobs in the White House.

Axios reports today that McEntee is already hard at work, though his priorities in his new gig may not be altogether appropriate.

Johnny McEntee called in White House liaisons from cabinet agencies for an introductory meeting Thursday, in which he askedthem to identify political appointees across the U.S. government who are believed to be anti-Trump, three sources familiar with the meeting tell Axios.

So the controversial former body man is now the White House personnel chief on the hunt for Never-Trumpers? And he’s seeking assistance from cabinet agency officials, who’ll apparently be expected to play a role in a McCarthyite scheme?

and this: As Russia targets US elections (again), Trump does everything wrong

Told that a foreign adversary was once again targeting U.S. elections, Trump was furious – not with Russia, but with the truth getting out.
Donald Trump announced on Wednesday night that Ambassador Richard Grenell would, at least temporarily, oversee the U.S. intelligence community. It was among the most ridiculous of the president’s personnel decisions: Grenell, best known for his work as an internet troll, has never served a day in the intelligence community in any capacity. The idea of him serving as the acting director of national intelligence is bizarre

Yesterday, however, brought the controversy into sharper focus. While it matters that Trump elevated an unqualified loyalist to an important post, what matters far more are the events that precipitated the decision. The New York Times reported overnight:

Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

The timeline of events is astonishing. On Feb. 12 — Wednesday of last week — U.S. intelligence professionals alerted lawmakers to the fact that Russia is targeting the 2020 elections, once again hoping to keep Trump in power. A day later, the president lashed out at Joseph Maguire, who was serving as the acting director of national intelligence, complaining about Congress being briefed on information that’s politically inconvenient to his re-election campaign.

Told that a foreign adversary was once again targeting U.S. elections, Trump was furious — not with Russia, but with the truth getting out. His instinct to put his interests above ours is unshakable.

Or put another way, the American president wasn’t not bothered with Russian efforts to keep him in power; Trump’s bothered that officials might learn the facts about Russian efforts to keep him in power.

I feel much better now. I really do.

Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

I don’t feel too threatened by Artificial Intelligence because it’s not. For the most part it’s the same Garbage Out that you put In with the additional possibility of errors and unintended consequences. Computers are good at repetitive tasks (of which there are far more than you would think) but as for training- babies are quicker, easier, and tastier.

I would never, ever design one without a hardware off switch though I might not make it obvious to discourage casual use (using the Janet Kill Button just to get slapped in the face by Andie MacDowell again has to be bad for your Karma dude).

The problem as Atrios would put it, is not so much that they’re imperfect, but that people think they are perfect. To me the big deal is not that they break, it’s that they work at all. It’s a miracle, like a singing dog. Who cares that the only tune he knows is “Never Gonna Give You Up”?

Nevada Caucus Results

C’mon, it’s only 3 States. If they can put up those kind of numbers so can we. Huddle up and put on your rally caps.

The 92nd Street Y

The Breakfast Club (Status Quo Establishment Toast)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

AP’s Today in History for February 23rd

Iconic photo captured in Iwo Jima; Persian Gulf War begins in Kuwait; Scottish scientists clone first mammal; Stan Laurel dies; Carlos Santana wins 8 Grammy awards.

Breakfast Tune Europa

Something to think about, Breakfast News & Blogs below

 

“That’s Called Electability”: Diverse Coalition Propels Bernie Sanders to Big Win in Nevada
Jake Johnson, Common Dreams

“We have just put together a multi-generational, multi-racial coalition which is gonna not only win Nevada, it’s gonna to sweep this country,” Sanders said at a rally in San Antonio, Texas following his caucus victory.

Sanders wiped out the rest of the Democratic field among Latinos and young voters, according to entrance polling, and also won among middle-aged voters, voters with and without college degrees, men and women, voters from union and non-union households, and self-identified liberals and moderates.

The diversity of Nevada, said MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki, proved “to be Sanders’ strength.”

“What do you call it when you’re strong in every demographic group including age, race, and class? I think that’s called electability,” tweeted Sanders national press secretary Briahna Joy Gray.

 

 

Something to think about over coffee prozac

 
After Bernie Sanders’ landslide Nevada win, it’s time for Democrats to unite behind him
Nathan Robinson, The Guardian
 

Some members of the media establishment had no idea what to make of Sanders’ Nevada victory. On MSNBC, James Carville said that “Putin” had won Nevada, and Chris Matthews declared the primary “over” (ill-advisedly comparing Sanders’ victory to the Nazi invasion of France). Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post admitted that Sanders had been stronger with nonwhite voters than she expected, and it might now be “too late” to do anything about him.

The other candidates and their supporters did their best to spin a humiliating defeat. Amy Klobuchar said her sixth-place finish “exceeded expectations”—if sixth place is better than you expected, you’re probably not a viable candidate. Biden vowed, implausibly (and for the third time) that he would bounce back. Pete Buttigieg took to the stage to denounce Sanders, who he said “believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans.” A Warren supporter rather charmingly said that while Sanders had won, Warren had the “momentum,” and the Warren campaign itself said the Nevada “debate” mattered more than the Nevada “result.”

Democrats shouldn’t worry, though: Bernie has a strong organization and a lot of money, and can mobilize millions of people to support him in November. He’s exactly the kind of candidate you should want your party to have. And for all the fear of his “radicalism,” he’s really a moderate: his signature policies are a national health insurance program, a living wage, free public higher education, and a serious green energy investment plan. It’s shocking that there is such opposition to such sensible plans. On what planet are these things so politically toxic that Democrats are afraid to run on them? Voters like these ideas, and so long as Democrats unify behind Bernie rather than continuing to try to tear him down, they will have a very good shot at defeating a radical and unhinged president like Donald Trump. The polling looks good for Bernie in November, so now we just need to get this primary over with and focus on the real fight. The other candidates had their shot: they lost. They need to accept it.

Load more