MEDICARE FOR ALL IS JUST THE FIRST STEP

 JAZZMAN CHRONICLES

 

  

FALSE FRONT:  FRAMING THE MEDICARE DEBATE

MEDICARE FOR ALL IS THE FIRST STEP

A heated debate has broken out among the Democratic presidential contenders pitting Medicare for All advocates against the moderates who generally want to supplant the Affordable Care Act with a public option.  If we have learned anything from the Obamacare experience it is that compromise measures rarely fulfill their promise.  Obamacare did not achieve anywhere near full coverage and the cost of care continues to rise. 

Why would anyone choose to pay for medical insurance when medical services are free?  It turns out there are people who opt for private insurance even when public insurance is provided free of cost.  We see throughout Europe where governments provide universal healthcare but a certain percentage of the population nevertheless purchases private insurance.  There is nothing inherently wrong with skipping to the front of the line with Cadillac coverage.  But if someone is willing to pay thousands of dollars a year so that they don’t have to sit in a waiting room with ordinary people, let them pay a price.  If millionaires and billionaires want to pay for privileged care let them help improve the system for everyone else.  Let them pay a privileged care fee equal to ten, fifteen or twenty percent of the cost of coverage to supplement the medical system. 

There is a shortage of doctors in this country.  We need competent and well-trained doctors not only in the cities where doctors command top salaries but especially in the rural communities across the nation.  The privileged care fee should be substantial enough to provide educational opportunities for medical students who are willing to relocate to high need areas.  The fees could also be used to assist hospitals that are struggling to survive under the dictates of a profit-motivated system. 

Eventually we need to take the profit completely out of health and medical care.  Until then we will continue to see the spectacle of medical personnel demanding credit cards in the emergency centers of private hospitals.  This would not happen to anyone anywhere else in the civilized world where health and medical are considered fundamental rights. 

To those who say we can’t pay for it, I reply:  We are already paying for it and much, much more.  According to Questex – a media company serving the corporate elite – the top eight insurance companies generated profits in excess of seven billion dollars on income in excess of $132 billion during the third quarter of 2018.  Extrapolating that amount to one year that’s an annual profit topping twenty-eight billion on revenues of more than $500 billion for only eight companies. 

How many lives did they save for that extraordinary amount of money?  Absolutely none.  In fact, it is more appropriate to inquire:  How many lives were lost because the insurance companies did their job well?  Their job is to bolster profits by cutting costs and increasing revenues.  They accomplish that by cutting medical services to people and jacking up the premiums and co-pays of their policies.  We don’t know how many lives were lost due to insurance companies denying coverage but we do know that many of our fellow citizens have been forced to give up or cut back on their medicines because they could not afford them.  We all know someone who was forced to delay or forego a needed operation or medical procedure because the cost was prohibitive. 

Insurance companies are rewarded for denying services and those who are responsible for carrying out the decree are given bonuses and promotions. 

It is easy to see that if we eliminated the insurance industry we would gain billions and billions of dollars to fortify and rebuild the healthcare system.  The employees in the insurance industry are extremely competent and highly educated people.  We could put many of them to work exposing waste and finding savings in the healthcare system.  We could hire them to uncover money-laundering operations in the real estate business.  We could find any number of useful endeavors for those who are unable to find employment in the private sector. 

To continue arguing that we cannot afford healthcare is an affront to common sense.  We cannot afford to continue a system that serves money interests to the detriment of health and medical care. 

Medicare for All is only a first step but it is a vital step.  We should then take aim at the private for-profit hospitals.  The American Hospital Association estimates that 18% of hospitals in the United States are for-profit institutions.  They concentrate on the most profitable areas of specialty – like rehabilitation – and cater to the privileged.  They often take the best medical personnel and deprive communities of needed resources. 

Anyone who has visited a hospital in recent years knows they are counting costs when you walk in the door.  The patient in an emergency room is facing a personal crisis but that does not prevent hospital personnel from hounding the patient for proof of insurance or a credit card. 

There has to be a better way. 

Reforming the medical service delivery system will be every bit as complicated as health insurance reform but it must be addressed.  Government must play a role in establishing and supporting services in underserved communities and no one should be hounded for payment in a hospital emergency room. 

“Big Eight health insurers rake in more than $7 billion in Q3, setting up strong finish to 2018,” by Rose Meltzer.  Fierce Healthcare.  November 19, 2018. 

RECLAIMING AMERICA: IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!

THE LONG WAY HOME:  RECLAIMING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

THE FIRST STEP:  IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT

By Jack Random

There can be no way around it.  In the year 2019 the only way forward and the only chance we have of reclaiming democracy in the land of the free is the impeachment of the president.  The election of Donald J. Trump is a symptom of systemic failure and one of such catastrophic dimensions that it must be corrected before anything of substance can be accomplished. 

If we allow this president to continue without confronting the restraint and distraction that impeachment proceedings provide we will invite disaster on multiple fronts.  We have already glimpsed a sampling of what the Trump administration intends:  Closing the border to all asylum seekers in violation of international law, punitive measures like family separation and child abuse, evisceration of civil rights and voting rights, systemic disenfranchisement of minority voters, alienation and extortion of democratic allies, annihilation of labor rights, elevation of dictatorships, nuclear proliferation, normalization of racism and prejudice, reversal of policies protecting the air and water, a rollback in health and medical services, corruption on a scale unrivaled since the Teapot Dome scandal and elimination of assistance to the poor. 

We have witnessed all this from a restrained Trump administration.  He has until now operated under a pervasive cloud of investigation for high crimes and misdemeanors.  The president hopes and perhaps believes that the cloud lifted in the wake of the gutless and ineffectual Mueller Report.  Because the special prosecutor was less than animated and compelling in his testimony before congress and the American people, we are expected drop all doubt and suspicions regarding his relentless attempts to coordinate his campaign with the Russian propaganda apparatus in defrauding an American presidential election.  We are expected to ignore his repeated and often successful attempts to cover up his actions and those of his family and staff in conspiring with the Russians.  We are expected to turn away from compelling evidence that our president and his family aint nothing more than money launderers for corrupt foreign governments. 

If we fail to hold this president accountable we are not only legitimizing and sanctioning the most corrupt and illegitimate president in history, we are also opening the door to a second term.  If we allow that to happen we will be compelled to bear witness to the high crimes and misdemeanors that an unrestrained President Trump will commit.  If we allow this incompetent crook another term he will undoubtedly appoint at least one more Supreme Court justice and the impact of his presidency will outlive us all. 

If we fail to impeach the president before the coming election he may well be tempted to start a war in Venezuela or Iran in a desperate attempt to win reelection.  Frankly, he may be tempted to do so anyway.  But if we know anything about this president it is that he is obsessed with the news of the day.  Among the advantages of a constant barrage of impeachment hearings – highlighting new information regarding Trump Tower Moscow, 666 Fifth Avenue NYC, Deutsche Bank and money laundering operations connecting the oligarchs of Putin’s Russia, the ruthless despots of Saudi Arabia and Trump real estate operations – is that they will serve as a distraction and Trump will be unable to wrap his mind around anything else. 

If Trump does move us to war you can be sure it will not go against the interests of the Saudis or the Russians.  If he does give the order for political reasons there is a very real possibility that his commanders will refuse to comply.  That is how low this presidency has sunk.  The generals that Trump once held in such high esteem have seen behind the curtain.  They have seen him kowtow to the Russian dictator.  They have witnessed his cowardice when confronted with the violent crimes of a Saudi prince.  They know who he is. 

If we do not impeach the president we have taken his criminal conduct off the table.  We have removed his corruption and character from the topics of debate.  We have given him the kind of aid and comfort only the gutless Democrats can provide.  We will have matched the Republican Party in complicity. 

We must impeach the president.  Without regard for the trial in the hallowed chambers of the United States Senate, we must impeach the president.  We must impeach the president because he is guilty beyond all doubt and by any honest reckoning.  We must impeach the president to restore the fundamental value of American democracy. 

We must impeach the president to assert now and forever that no one is above the law and no one is beyond the reach of justice. 

The idea that some internal Justice Department memo can overrule the basic tenet of judicial decree is ludicrous and offensive. [1] All presidents should be held to account for criminal conduct without delay and without exception.  This president has scorned justice and turned the office of the Attorney General into a sycophant for the chief executive.  It must not stand. 

The president of the United States is guilty of high crimes and conduct not only worthy of but demanding impeachment. 

1.  The president through his agents conspired with agents of the Russian government to defraud the 2016 presidential election. 

The Mueller Report chronicles over one hundred interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.  The Trump campaign provided polling data to target key voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – the very states that turned the election.  The Russian propaganda machine in turn provided fake news to targeted voters through fake social media accounts.  Before the eyes of the American public, candidate Trump incorporated the daily WikiLeaks reports into his campaign.  Russia provided the attack data, WikiLeaks laundered it and Trump employed it on the campaign trail.  This is what collusion, coordination and conspiracy look like. 

2.  The president and his agents repeatedly lied to the public, the FBI and Congress to cover up their interactions with Russian agents. 

Trump stated point blank he had no business dealings whatsoever with Russia.  That was a lie.  He stated he had no interactions with the Russians.  That was a lie.  The truth is he was trying to negotiate a deal for a Trump Tower in Moscow even while he was campaigning.  Reports have it he wanted to gift Vladimir Putin one entire floor of the tower.  The truth is he had many dealings with Russian agents concerning laundering money for real estate deals in Florida.  The truth is we have only uncovered the tail of the elephant when it comes to laundering dirty money from Russian oligarchs for their supreme leader.  The truth is Trump authored a misleading statement for his son to explain the meeting in Trump Tower.  The truth is Trump is willing to throw his own son to the wolves if it serves his interests. 

3.  The president willingly engaged in behavior that would subject him to extortion by foreign agents in Russia and Saudi Arabia because of his and his family’s hidden interests and criminal activity. 

Son-in-law Jerrod Kushner received untold millions to save the family business from certain bankruptcy due to one of the worst investments in the history of New York City.  The record will show that the Saudi’s loaned Kushner a great deal of money when no legitimate banking interest would and that Donald J. Trump helped broker the deal.  While we do not yet know what the Saudis expected in return we do know that Trump vetoed legislation blocking a sell of arms to Saudi Arabia.  We also know that Trump excused compelling evidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia ordered the killing and dismemberment of a prominent journalist. 

We have not yet begun to uncover the Trump money laundering operation.  We need to begin the impeachment process to gain access to his financial records, his tax returns and his accounts in the notorious Deutsche Bank as well as the Bank of Cypress where his Treasury Secretary Wilbur Ross was once chief executive. 

4.  The president failed to act to defend the nation’s electoral integrity from an overt attack by a foreign adversary. 

Never mind that his failure to defend American democracy serves his own political and financial interests.  The president has alternatively refused to acknowledge Russian interference, implied that there is nothing wrong with foreign interference and pretended that it had no impact.  He has done absolutely nothing to ensure that it will not happen again.  He is a president that places no value on the integrity of the ballot.  He has done everything in his power to block minority voters and tip the balance in his favor.  He steadfastly refuses to support legislation that would require a paper trail in the event of electronic ballot tampering.  He pushed hard for a citizenship question on the census that is designed to suppress the Hispanic vote, resulting in reduced funds for minority districts and under representation of minority voters.  His admiration for foreign dictators and disdain for our own democracy is alone grounds for impeachment. 

5.  The president has intentionally imposed policies resulting directly in crimes against humanity on the southern border. 

We have all seen the photos, the videos and heard the testimonials of children being separated from their parents for the “crime” of seeking asylum in the United States.  This nation has long offered refuge to individuals seeking to escape discrimination, inhuman treatment and unconscionable violence in their own lands.  We value immigration because the founders of our independent democracy were themselves refugees seeking to escape intolerance in their native land.  Though we cannot neglect the intolerance, violence and discrimination that our founders dealt to Native and African Americans, we cannot allow any president to close the border by practicing inhuman and inhumane treatment of innocent children and families to dissuade them from seeking and claiming asylum. 

It has been a long time since anyone in our government demanded that individuals who dissent from the majority view should leave the country.  That is the very definition of un-American yet this president made that request of four members of congress.  In so doing he has demonstrated an intolerance that crosses the boundaries of inhumanity and demonstrates unfitness for office. 

6.  The president has profited from the presidency in violation of constitutional prohibitions against accepting gifts or equivalent items of value. 

The president and his family have collected large sums of money from the family hotels and business ventures.  They have accepted loans from foreign interests and encouraged corporate interests to invest in Trump business concerns, including stays at Mar-a-Lago and Trump International Hotel – the old Post Office – in Washington D.C.  The president has somehow persuaded the military and government officials to spend millions for stays and unnecessary refueling at Trump properties in Scotland and Ireland. 

Trump business ventures have made record profits at Trump Tower in NYC as well as memberships at Trump country clubs and his Florida resort.  Every time Trump holds an event at one of his properties, profits soar.  Corporations and foreign governments courting the Trump administration’s favor book rooms at his Washington hotel and spend lavishly.  Trump has zealously guarded his financial records, including his tax returns, so that we do not know the full extent of his profiteering but we certainly know enough.  Open Secrets has estimated that Trump business interests have received in excess of $35 million from Republican Party organizations since becoming president.  Open the books and we will learn how boldly the president has sold his office. [2]

7.  The president attempted to extort the president of Ukraine by withholding military aid in exchange for compromising information on a political rival. 

Shortly after special investigator Robert Mueller’s listless testimony before congress, the president withheld congressionally mandated military assistance to Ukraine and requested on a phone call to President Volodymyr Zelensky that the Ukrainian government re-investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden, son to former vice president Joe Biden.  At the time of the call Joe Biden was clearly the leading candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.  [3, 4]

While the underlying story should offer cause for doubting Biden’s squeaky-clean reputation and his claim of electability, that President Trump would consider it acceptable to withhold allocated aid for political advantage even after an investigation of his dealings with Russia in their attempt to interfere in a presidential election, suggests that this president is far beyond redemption.  He truly believes the Mueller Report vindicated him.  It absolutely did not.  He truly believes he can conspire with any foreign government to interfere in our elections.  The law says otherwise.  He truly believes he is above the law.  He is not. 

Let us stipulate that you cannot and should not be impeached for being a being a man of substandard character.  Let us stipulate that you cannot and should not be impeached for despicable behavior toward women – even if that behavior may have included criminal liability.  Let us stipulate that you cannot and should not be impeached for being a common con man and a crook. 

Let us focus on what he has done and why he is a danger to the nation.  Let us place no value on what the United States Senate may or may not do.  It is sufficient that we compel each and every senator to stand with us or stand with the crook in the Oval Office.  If we value our democracy, if we value our system of justice, if we value human rights and common decency, we must impeach the president. 

1. “Indicting a President Is Not Foreclosed: The Complex History.”  By Walter Dellinger.  Lawfare, June 18, 2018.

2. Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics.  “All the President’s Profiting.”  Federal Election Commission Data released June 10, 2019. 

3. “Trump pressed Ukraine leader to investigate Biden, memo reveals.”  By David Smith.  The Guardian, September 25, 2019. 

4. “As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production.  Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.”  By Michael Kranish and David L. Stern.  Washington Post, July 22, 2019. 

Jack Random is the author of the Jazzman Chronicles. 

GO BOLD! DEFEATING TRUMP IN 2020

--> JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP

THE PRAGMATIC PATH TO DEFEAT IN 2020

By Jack Random

“I think the base of the party wants bold leadership right now, and they might start wondering why the Speaker of the House and the party leader is spending time attacking progressive members. And down the road, they might start wondering what other House leadership might look like.” 

Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats

There is a war going on within the Democratic Party, pitting the young and dynamic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against the elder Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  It might surprise diehard Republicans that the woman they have vilified for the last three decades represents the moderate voice of the party. 

If we have learned anything from history it is this:  Today’s moderate is tomorrow’s conservative.  The future belongs to the young, the bold and the progressive. 

Say hello to a brave new world, Nancy Pelosi:  Your time has passed.  Yes, you made a point that I made four years ago by paraphrasing Trump’s motto:  Make America White Again.  But when the best you could do in response to Trump’s racist attack on four new members of the House is an invitation for the White House to join you in immigration reform, your time has passed.  You come up short.  You stand in the way of badly need change. 

The resolution of the internal Democratic Party conflict in favor of Ocasio-Cortez is as inevitable as the finality of the third act.  That same conflict is playing out in the selection of a candidate to oppose Donald Trump in the coming presidential election.  On that the future of the republic, the free world and the planet depends on a wise and astute resolution. 

The conflict is between the moderates who have governed the party virtually unrivaled since the election of Bill Clinton and the true progressives who have always been the neglected heart and soul of the party.  The moderates have always argued that the time’s not right to stand up for principles.  We have to be rational.  We have to be willing to bend, to compromise and to work with the other side.  The true progressives always counter:  If not now, when?  We’ve played your game too long.  We’ve waited for meaningful, fundamental change too long.  The time is now!  The people are yearning for change!  Then we give way.

The American electorate is as rational as a caged beast.  The political class repeatedly struggles to make sense of that which does not make sense.  Why did working people vote for Ronald Reagan?  Reagan did more than any other single president to destroy the middle class by eviscerating trade unions in America.  Did workers understand this?  Did they act rationally in assuring the demise of their children’s future? 

Did the American electorate act rationally in electing George W. Bush to not one but two terms in office?  After he had revealed himself a front for the neocon war machine led by his vice president, the people rewarded him with a mandate to continue the destruction?  After he came as close as any leader could to triggering a worldwide depression, who’s to say we would not have given him yet another chance?  After all, he seemed a good old boy. 

Democrat Bill Clinton did more than any other president to close the gap between conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, by selling out the fundamental principles of his own party.  Clinton transformed the Democrats into a party of Wall Street with a conscience on social issues ensuring that the people would have even less of a choice than they had before.  Still, the people rewarded him with two terms in the White House. 

It can be argued that the two-party system has offered little choice in selecting a president.  It is undeniable that the Electoral College and systemic corruption often allow for rule by the minority but it does not follow that Americans are rational in casting their votes. 

Reagan represented government of the rich, for the elite and by the privileged yet he is worshipped to this day by ordinary Americans who still remember the iconic leader as their man.  George W. Bush should never have won a first term no less a second and Bill Clinton is still held in high regard among old-line Democrats. 

Americans are not rational.  We are as a group unpredictable and instinctive.  We choose presidents like we select salad dressing:  We stick to what we know and trust unless something catches our eye.  If we’re born Republican we vote Republican unless someone gives us a compelling reason to change.  If our parents voted Democrat we vote Democrat without regard for the issues.  It’s a team sport and we inherit our allegiances. 

Choosing a president according to the law of electability is doomed to failure and always has been.  Donald Trump stole the last presidential election from a field of Republican has-beens and Hillary Clinton because he offered something completely different.  Like Bernie Sanders on the other side, he stood out.  Like a rock star on a stage with folk musicians, he commanded the spotlight.  Rationally, he didn’t stand a chance.  But Americans were and remain sick of the standard politician.  No one believed a word Clinton spoke because she didn’t believe it.  She played out the script without passion or conviction.  Trump called bullshit and with a little help from his friends in Moscow and the Electoral College he took down the political establishment and stood it on its head. 

Four years later we are walking down the same tired path that gave us the least inspired choice from a field of uninspired choices: the path of pragmatism.  The argument goes:  We don’t really care what the candidate stands for as long as he or she can knock Trump around and send him back to Manhattan to face the wrath of justice.  When you start with a false premise, a series of false conclusions follow:  Hillary Clinton lost and Hillary Clinton is a woman; therefore a woman cannot beat Donald Trump.  Trump is a backlash to a black president; therefore only a white candidate can beat Trump. 

These are profoundly wrong conclusions founded on a desperately wrong premise. 

Allow me to play the pundit for one slim moment:  Donald Trump will beat back a pragmatic candidate like a dirty old rug.  Pragmatism is the great compromise.  It is neither left nor right.  It lacks passion because it has no principles or values to guide it.  Pragmatism is afraid of words like socialism, radical and leftist.  A pragmatist trembles at the slightest hint of criticism.  Pragmatism is afraid to call a racist a racist.  A pragmatist follows every statement of substance with a qualifier:  We have to address climate change as the crisis it is but we have to do it in a way that doesn’t damage our economic interests.  We have to get out of Afghanistan but we must protect our strategic interests. 

If it sounds familiar it should.  Kamala Harris wants to withdraw from Afghanistan but “in a responsible way.”  [1]

Former VP Joe Biden supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but now wants us to believe he will end those conflicts.  Biden favored the Trans Pacific Partnership though he insists he supports Fair Trade.  His current positions are as clear as mud, suggesting a strategy of triangulation if not obfuscation.  He doesn’t want you to know what his positions are; he just wants you to trust him. 

Biden opposes Medicare for All because it will spell the end of Obamacare.  He doesn’t seem to realize how badly Obamacare has failed to control the costs of healthcare.  He wants us to know that our taxes will go up but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you eliminate a trillion dollar industry – the health insurance industry – ordinary people will save a great deal despite a raise in taxes. 

Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar deliver the progressive positions on trade policy and universal healthcare but when push comes to shove they tend to fall back:  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.  [2]

We know.  We understand.  We didn’t let “perfect” stand in the way of Obama’s retrograde compromises on trade (Trans-Pacific Partnership), healthcare (he didn’t even propose the public option) or the longest war in American history (Afghanistan).  We didn’t let “perfect” get in the way of nominating Hillary Clinton.  The progressive left is famous for compromise.  It’s what we’ve always done.  Maybe it’s time we tried something new. 

If you really want to lose to Donald Trump again go down that middle road.  Say goodbye to an army of activists eager to walk precincts and work the phones for a candidate they can believe in.  Nominate a moderate and he’ll be back-stepping from the first debate to Election Day. 

That’s the day we lose.  Again.  To Donald J. Trump. 

If you want to win, nominate someone who possesses the courage of her convictions.  Nominate someone who will call a spade a spade and a Trump a Trump.  Nominate someone who is not afraid of words.  Nominate someone who will fire back when fired on. 

There’s still plenty of time for a candidate to emerge from the pack.  There’s still time for those who have flirted with moderation to find stronger ground.  I’m waiting.  America is waiting.  We don’t want another four minutes of Donald Trump – no less four years. 

Stand up for the people!  Stand up for impeachment!  Stand up for Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats!  Stand up for Fair Trade, an end to stupid wars and universal healthcare. 

Stand up and you will be amazed at how many of us stand ready to follow. 

Jazz.

1.  Rachel Maddow Show, January 23, 2019.

2.  The People’s View.  “Enemies Among Us:  An Open Letter to Those Attacking Senator Cory Booker,” January 15, 2019.

1ST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: KAMALA RISING!

JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP.

A LONG AND WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

FIRST ROUND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Kamala Rising!

By Jack Random

It is often said that presidential debates are not as important as the hype would have them; that a debate at the end of June has no bearing on the end result.  To some extent that may be true but it is also true that candidates are made or broken by the early debates.  It is also true that no other single event has greater significance than a candidate’s first appearance on the presidential debate stage. 

Readers may remember when Rick Perry, then governor of Texas, took himself out of presidential contention by calling for the abolition of three federal agencies but could only recall two of them.  Oops.  In one of the most ironic and revealing moves of the Trump presidency, Perry now serves at the helm of that forgotten agency:  the Department of Energy. 

The pitfalls are many, the rewards are great and the one who prevails will rise to become leader of the free world. 

NIGHT ONE:  WARREN HOLDS FIRM

THE CANDIDATES:  BILL DE BLASIO, TIM RYAN, JULIAN CASTRO, CORY BOOKER, ELIZABETH WARREN, BETO O’ROURKE, AMY KLOBUCHAR, TULSI GABBARD, JAY INSLEE, JOHN DELANEY. 

The first debate in the current season did not produce a Rick Perry moment but they absolutely revealed a great deal about the candidates on stage.  Senator Elizabeth Warren secured her place as a policy guru.  Senator Cory Booker, former Representative Beto O’Rourke and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro competed in the category of Best Foreign Language.  Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii held her ground as the conscience of a party that seems to have forgotten the critical lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bill de Blasio inserted himself into issues without seeming to play the bully.  Despite a few one-liners Senator Amy Klobuchar failed to capture the kind of attention she needed to gain ground in the polls.  The same holds true for the Green Governor Jay Inslee who seemed determined to emphasize his knowledge outside of protecting the planet. 

To the extent that anyone won the first night of the first round of debates it was Julian Castro.  He pushed hard on immigration and made Beto O’Rourke appear uninformed.  He also won the Spanish speaking debate by virtue of the fact that he is Hispanic. 

Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio reminded us why Senator Sherrod Brown should be on stage when he talked about the Democrats needing to be the party of the working people.  He lost us when he argued for a continued presence in Afghanistan.  His gaff led to a shining moment by Representative Gabbard who had to remind him that the longest standing war in American history is an absolute disaster.  She had to remind him that the Taliban was not responsible for the 9-11 attack.  Al Qaeda was.  Had she more time she might have reminded the uninformed congressman that the Taliban offered to hand over the Al Qaeda suspects to an impartial tribunal but the Bush administration refused. 

Tulsi Gabbard stood alone through this exchange and that should worry all of us who spent more than a decade fighting the disastrous and ill-conceived wars in the Middle East.  At a time when President Trump is threatening war with Iran every candidate on stage should have rallied to Gabbard’s side instead of remaining politely silently.  Hopefully the candidates who emerge from this process will find their antiwar voices.  If not they will find a great many potential supporters peeling away from the Democratic Party. 

It was patently unfair of the moderators to ask Gabbard to defend her already retracted position on LGBTQ rights.  She has a stronger record on these civil rights issues than Cory Booker who strangely attacked her for not including transsexuals in her response.  She was not asked about transsexuals and Booker should know better.  Too often he seems a voice in search of a cause. 

Nearly every candidate on the stage Wednesday night demonstrated why he or she needed to be there.  Elizabeth Warren is clearly the most knowledgeable candidate not only on economic issues but on all issues.  She is the leading female contender representing the progressive wing of the party.  Castro is the only Hispanic candidate and the strongest voice on immigration.  De Blasio is an uncompromised liberal with nothing to lose.  Inslee is the Green candidate.  Beto has staked ground as the viable alternative to Inslee as the Green candidate and the man who might stand a chance in Texas.  Booker is a powerful voice on criminal justice.  Klobuchar is the reasoned moderate who knows how to talk to Republicans.  Gabbard is a veteran of the Iraq War and the strongest voice against going to war again. 

That leaves only two:  Congressman Tim Ryan and former Congressman John Delaney.  The former distinguished himself as not ready for prime time on foreign policy and the latter wins the Dead Man award (1) as a man who speaks a lot, says nothing.  Delaney interrupted at every opportunity and consistently failed to deliver poignant remarks. 

At this juncture, Ryan and Delaney are out.  Because Beto stumbled, Inslee remains alive but should stick to climate change as much as humanly possible.  De Blasio stays where he was: hanging on by a thread.  Klobuchar and Booker get a pass but they still need to distinguish themselves from the field.  Warren holds strong.  Castro and Gabbard rise in the hearts and minds of their respective constituencies. 

NIGHT TWO: KAMALA RISING

THE CANDIDATES:  MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, JOHN HICKENLOOPER, ANDREW YANG, PETE BUTTIGIEG, JOE BIDEN, BERNIE SANDERS, KAMALA HARRIS, KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, MICHAEL BENNET AND ERIC SWALWELL

We all want to be charitable.  It is kind to say that former Vice President and frontrunner Joe Biden could not keep up with the competition.  He began his performance with checklist answers delivered at a rapid clip and eventually broke down into a semi-incoherent ramble. 

As the only African American on the stage, Senator Kamala Harris took aim at old Joe’s rationale for working with the Old South’s segregationists and his stern opposition to bussing as a remedy to segregation.  He could not have known that one of the dark skinned children who benefited from bussing was Kamala Harris.  Harris took him down softly but he is unlikely to regain his unbeatable status.          

The rest of the field offered interesting insights and solid rationales for their candidacies but none made a move that will register in next week’s polls.  Bernie was Bernie and I love him for it but he has not evolved and others have caught up to him. 

Marianne Williamson is unlikely to sustain her place among legitimate candidates but we should be grateful for her insight into how the Democrats will beat Donald Trump.  Essentially, Trump operates out of fear and his opposition must counter with love.  It is an oversimplification but there is fundamental truth in it.  The Republicans have long been perceived as the Daddy party and the Democrats are the Mommy party.  Poor old dad has been doing a bum job lately.  It’s time to give mom a try. 

Mayor Pete distinguished himself once again for his sharp mind and speaking ability.  His response to criticism regarding the racial makeup of his police department was however inadequate.  He said simply:  “I didn’t get the job done.”  The mayor needs to take care of business in his own back yard before he moves on to the highest office in the land. 

Andrew Yang demonstrated he is a man of substance.  He deserves a place in the next government and his ideas warrant serious consideration. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand staked ground as the candidate representing women’s issues.  She was forceful, knowledgeable and well spoken.  Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has assumed the role of attacking Bernie for not cowering when confronted with the dreaded “S” word.  It may do a little damage to Bernie but it will not carry Hickenlooper to the next tier.  Colorado Senator Michael Bennet appeared to be a nice man and a solid Democrat who simply does not have the charisma to advance to the White House.  Representative Eric Swalwell laid claim to represent the next generation, goading old Joe to hand over the torch but he pushed too hard like a rambunctious teenager.  His issue of gun control will stick but he must wait for a better opportunity to advance. 

In the end the only candidate to significantly advance her cause is the junior senator from the state of California.  She has learned on the trail.  She connects.  She has proven to be a determined opponent and Joe Biden felt the sting of her jab.  She broke through the cacophony of white noise while the others drifted. 

Kamala rises.  Now she must sustain her momentum. 

Jazz.

1.  The character Nobody in the 1995 film Dead Man, directed by Jim Jarmusch and starring Johnny Depp. Music by Neil Young. 

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES AND THE FOUNDER OF CROW DOG PRESS. HIS COMMENTARIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AT DISSIDENT VOICE AND COUNTERPUNCH. 

THE GREAT DISAPPEARING ACT

--> JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  IN THE AGE OF TRUMP.

THE GREAT DISAPPEARANCE

People I Wish Would Go Away and Why

By Jack Random

During the reign of Augusto Pinochet of Chile individuals who expressed opposition to his rule were often made to vanish.  The disappeared became a euphemism for mass murder.  Over a thousand dissidents were disappeared in Pinochet’s Chile between 1973 and 1981.  Tens of thousands were disappeared by a US backed military junta in Argentina’s Dirty War between 1976 and 1983. [1] 

As a man of conscience who is opposed to violence as well as despotism I cannot advocate the kind of disappearing that Pinochet ordered and the CIA orchestrated in the seventies and eighties but there are a growing number of individuals on the political scene I would love to see and hear no more.  I do not wish them harm.  I just want them to go away.  I want them to live within their own circles of friends and family and never to appear before any public forum.  If I could wave my hand and be done with them I would do so. 

First on my list is former President George W. Bush.  In fairness, we don’t see a great deal of the former president but when we do it reminds us that Donald Trump was not our first systemic collapse in electing a president.  The son of Poppy Bush took his rightful place at the podium to eulogize his father and that should have been the end of it.  We cannot allow ourselves to forget what this man did as commander-in-chief and how he misled us into everlasting war and quagmire in the Middle East.  That he himself was misled by his amoral vice president and a circle of Neocons is no excuse.  He was “the decider” and his decisions led to disasters.  We should not forget as well that his economic policies nearly pushed us into a global depression.  Go away, Mr. Bush.  Let that be the end of all Bushes.  You cannot rehabilitate a pile of rubbish. 

In the spirit of bipartisanship, next on my list is former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee for the presidency, Hillary Clinton.  Let’s add Bill to the list for good measure and give warning to Chelsea that she’s not far behind.  Hillary may be suffering under the illusion that – because she was cheated out of the White House – people want to hear from her.  As one who firmly believes she was cheated by a collaboration of nefarious elements, including Russian intelligence, Facebook and dimwitted members of the Trump campaign, I can say without reservation that I do not want to hear from her.  Even with Russia tampering and the complicity of social media, Hillary should have thumped Trump like a dirty old rug. 

She thought she could win without a discernable message.  She thought she could get the working person’s vote by not being Trump.  She thought it was enough to be a woman against a misogynist.  She thought she could just show up with corporate money and buy her way to the top.  It was not enough.  Now go away and write another memoir that no one wants to read. 

Next on the list is Vice President Mike Pence.  Here is a man who seems to believe he is welcome in any room because he is not Donald Trump.  I have to concede:  He is not Donald Trump.  He is a man so twisted with fundamentalist venom that he fears being alone in a room with any member of the opposite sex.  He is man who refuses to speak out against laws that would send doctors and women to jail for terminating a pregnancy in the first two months of gestation.  Mr. Pence is a primary reason Democrats hesitate to impeach the president.  What if they succeeded?  What if Trump was removed from office?  The notion that Pence would get the next Supreme Court appointment must give us all pause. 

Now we proceed to the heart of the matter:  I would like to see disappear the honorable Attorney General of the United States, head of the Department of Justice and Obstructer-in-Chief, William Barr.  Best known for his defense of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, Barr volunteered for his current role as the president’s personal lackey with an infamous 19-page memo summarizing his opinion that the president is above the law.  As Nixon once said:  “When the president does it… it’s not illegal.” 

Barr spun the Mueller Report with the veracity of a spider on steroids.  To say that he misrepresented the report is an understatement on par with declaring Native American genocide a quiet resolution of conflict.  Barr used the president’s terminology in stating his conclusion that there was “no collusion” and implying no obstruction.  In his testimony before congress he displayed a thousand and one ways to avoid answering a question.  Is he guilty of obstruction?  Absolutely.  Will he be held accountable?  Highly unlikely.  Barr should be hauled out of the Justice Department, tarred, feathered and transported out of town on a rail.  Am I advocating people taking justice into their own hands?  No, Mr. Barr, I’m simply sharing a vision of justice for your amusement. 

Next and most prominent on my list of wishful disappearance is the honorable Robert Mueller, Special Counsel assigned to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  Of all the mealy mouthed and cowardly testimonials the Special Counsel’s report will have a prominent place in history.  Despite a mountain of evidence collected over the course of two years the honorable Mr. Mueller could not draw a conclusion because a Justice Department policy forbade him.  Had he made his position clear he should not have taken the job in the first place. 

In declaring Trump and his associates – most notably Donald Jr. – innocent of conspiring with a foreign power for nefarious purpose because they were too stupid to know what they were doing, Mueller should be remembered as the man who made ignorance an excuse for breaking the law and betraying the founding principles of democracy. 

Trump and his minions were blatantly guilty of conspiracy with the Russians and a consistent pattern of obstruction in full view of all Americans and Mueller failed to do his job.  To top it all off, he refuses to testify in an open hearing before congress because he feels it might be perceived as political.  It is political you fool!  It was always political.  It is also a matter of justice and possibly the only way to the right the wrongs of your timidity. 

In his latest public appearance Mueller announced his retirement and reiterated his firm stand on why he will not, would not and could not take a stand.  He becomes the latest conspirator in Trump’s campaign to obstruct justice. 

Mueller will go down in history as a coward of the highest magnitude and one who utterly failed his country at a critical time.  He may also go down as Trump’s lackey.  Time will tell. 

The list of those I’d love to see saunter into setting sun of public discourse would not be complete without all the Neocons who should have disappeared with the younger Bush administration but somehow have found a home with a president who promised an end to dumb wars in the Middle East – of course he didn’t say anything about Latin America.  Most prominent in this group are national security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

If there is anyone more hawkish than Pompeo it is Bolton.  He served the younger Bush as Ambassador to the United Nations.  He was there when the Bush administration manufactured a case for war with Iraq in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy.  He was there when Colin Powell sanctified the weapons of mass destruction travesty.  He was there when the CIA failed to topple the popular Chavez regime in Venezuela. 

Like Bolton, Pompeo never saw a war he didn’t like and never saw an opportunity for war he wouldn’t take.  Pompeo has presided over the dismantling of the nation’s diplomatic corps.  Who needs diplomats when you have an unlimited war budget? 

The final entry on this list – though it could on forever – is anyone and everyone in the Trump family circle.  Let us begin with son-in-law Jared Kushner, the supposed wunderkind who was charged with peace in the Middle East, solving the opioid crisis, administering government reform, negotiating relations with Mexico and China, accomplishing immigration reform, balancing the budget and everything else his father-in-law could not be bothered with.  If the Donald wins reelection with a little help from his friends in Moscow, he will no doubt appoint Jared to the Supreme Court. 

Let’s not let that happen.  Let’s say goodbye, Jared!  One good look at the financing behind the infamous building at 666 Fifth Avenue and you’ll be on the next flight to Qatar!  Goodbye Donald “I’m too dumb to commit treason” Junior!  Goodbye, Melania!  “I don’t really care, do you?”  Goodbye Ivanka!  You couldn’t be bothered with family separations or abortion rights or sweatshop labor to produce your clothes. 

Goodbye, Donald!  We have had many bad presidents in this country’s history but none as eminently unqualified as you.  We can only hope to mitigate the harm.  Let’s broker a deal with the Southern District of New York:  Resign your presidency, take a vow of silence and you will not spend your remaining days in a country club prison. 

Jazz. 

[1] A People’s History of the World by Chris Harmon.  Verso Press 2008.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES AND THE FOUNDER OF CROW DOG PRESS. HIS COMMENTARIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AT DISSIDENT VOICE AND COUNTERPUNCH.  NOTE: THIS ARTICLE FIRST PUBLISHED AT OP ED NEWS. 

Road to the White House: Part Three: The Contenders

JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP. 

A LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

A Presidential Election Analysis from Pretenders to Contenders

Part Three:  The Contenders

By Jack Random

In part one of A Long & Winding Road I submitted an analysis of seven pretenders in the race to capture the Democratic nomination for the presidency.  In part two I provided an objective assessment of ten decided underdogs, including one mayor, three governors, one former cabinet member, one former congressman and four current members of the House of Representatives. 

While each of these candidates has a reasonable rationale for running, not one has a reasonable chance of grabbing the top rung.  Most of them will claim a spot on the debate stage in the early going and some certainly have a chance to gain the second spot on the Democratic ticket. 

We have now arrived at the top tier of candidates, the heavyweights, the genuine contenders for the nomination.  It has been said that every member of the United States Senate believes that he or she should be president.  After decades of observation I see no exception to that rule.  Moreover, by definition, every US Senator is qualified for the ascent to the Oval Office, including those who may appear to us as dimwitted fools with their eyes on the brass ring and their hands in the cookie jar.  Fortunately, none in this analysis falls in that category. 

TIER THREE:  THE CONTENDERS

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN

“Our country is in a crisis.  The time for small ideas is over.”  [1]

We have entered the twilight zone in the political season where the pitfalls are many and varied.  Some are as absurd as they are deadly.  Trump buried half the field in the 2016 Republican primary with scandalous labels like Lying Ted and Little Marco and Low Energy Jeb.  He was quick to pick up the Pocahontas label and paste it to Elizabeth Warren’s forehead.  She’s as sincere a politician as there is but she’s having a problem with it.  Her family clearly passed down a false rumor that their genetic line included a significant portion of Cherokee blood.  Modern genetic testing revealed that it was an “alternative” fact. 

The honorable Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is white.  She has very little native blood.  Why is that significant?  It isn’t.  Many families have wrongly claimed native blood based on family legend.  The Cherokees famously intermarried with Scottish immigrants.  In fact, one of their most famous chiefs was John Ross, the son of a Scottish father and a Cherokee mother.  He led the Cherokees during the tragic period of the Trail of Tears.  Our current president has chosen to vilify the Cherokee while embracing Andrew Jackson, the American president who defied the Supreme Court by ordering the relocation of the Cherokee from eastern Tennessee to modern day Oklahoma.  Jackson committed an act of genocide against a people he befriended as a young man.  Few should doubt that Trump would do the same with immigrants from below the border if he were empowered. 

The president has made it clear he sides with Hollywood cowboys and Indian killers like Custer and Colonel John Chivington.  He’s made it more than clear he doesn’t like anyone with skin color lighter than the circles of white surrounding his beady eyes.  Maybe Elizabeth Warren should give him an Indian name:  Wasichu – the Lakota word for greedy whites – comes to mind.  Or maybe White Eyes will do. 

Senator Warren is fundamentally sound on every significant issue and a true believer when it comes to economic justice.  She has a solid proposal for everything under the sun, including cancellation of student debt, universal healthcare, a Green New Deal and a wealth tax to pay for it.  She has a plan to bring down the cost of housing.  She’s as knowledgeable as a Jeopardy champion and as sharp as a razor. 

I must say her age gives me pause.  She will be seventy on the 22^nd of June.  I generally scoff at the notion that someone is a “young seventy” but in her case I believe it.  She has as much energy as Draymond Green in the closing minutes of a championship game.  If anyone can hang on to her mental acuity through her mid-seventies it’s her. 

Aside:  For those who say that considering age a factor in choosing a candidate is “ageism” and comparable to other forms of discrimination, I beg to differ.  Unlike race, sex or sexual identity, old age comes to all who are fortunate enough to survive.  The effects of age vary but they often include lapses in memory and cognitive weakness.  President Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s in his second term.  It’s an issue. 

SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS

“We need to begin impeachment proceedings.”  [1]

Kamala Harris of California must put up with the same crap Obama had to endure:  Is she black enough?  Or is she black at all?  It turns out her racial mix is Asian Indian and Jamaican but I really don’t care.  For her entire life she has been perceived as a person of color.  Now she has to be black enough?  No.  Because no white person must answer an equivalent question, the question itself is racist.  The question of race is important, however, because the road to the nomination rolls through the South.  Obama was the first to recognize and exploit the advantage of being black in the Democratic Party.  If Harris is not recognized as “black enough” she will yield that advantage to Senator Cory Booker. 

Harris also has an advantage in an earlier California primary.  While the nation’s most populous state has traditionally been rendered irrelevant in presidential primary politics, it’s rescheduling from June to March is critical to the junior California’s senator’s chances. 

Harris does have some explaining to do.  As San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general she is accused of failing to embrace criminal justice reform.  She was also accused of suppressing a story regarding a lab technician who fabricated evidence and repeatedly stole drugs from her lab.  Six hundred cases were dismissed and a judge found fault with the district attorney’s conduct.  As attorney general she tried to overturn a federal judge’s decision that the death penalty was unconstitutional.  In 2015 she opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate police officer shootings and she refused to support state regulations requiring officers to wear body cameras.  Finally, Harris defended a number of wrongful conviction cases that might have had merit. 

Harris is at her best questioning witnesses before the Senate Judiciary committee.  Her questioning of US attorney general William Barr pierced his armor of self-righteous circumlocution.  She is at her worst defending her record in law enforcement.  She has without doubt moved to the left in her pursuit of higher office. 

SENATOR CORY BOOKER

“This election cannot be about what we’re against.  It must be about what we’re for.”  [1]

Senator Booker of New Jersey seems to be taking a curious tack in the early going.  Like Obama he is pleading for one America and applying to become the Great Uniter.  It looks like an attempt to capture the moderate vote despite taking progressive positions on healthcare (supports Medicare for All – at least in principle) and the Green New Deal.  He is a champion of criminal justice reform and falls on the progressive side of social issues.  As time presses forward all the candidates must favor impeachment.  Booker has not taken the lead on the issue. 

Here’s where the rubber hits the road:  He supports Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians, his position on trade policy is muddled and his foreign policy is no clearer.  Would we remain in Iraq-Syria-Afghanistan under a Booker presidency?  Would we embrace Fair Trade?  Would we unconditionally support Israel as we currently do or would we attempt to be a fair and neutral arbiter? 

Booker has taken a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry and voted against a bill to allow the purchase of Canadian drugs.  He will have to make amends in triplicate to qualify for a progressive vote.  At this writing, he is rapidly slipping into underdog territory.  He will have to make an impact during the early debates and if he believes appealing to the middle ground will do it he is mistaken. 

SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR

“I don’t have money but I have grit.”  [1]

Senator Amy Klobuchar of the northern exposure state of Minnesota has also planted her stake on moderate territory.  She is from the state where a major bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed in 2007.  Accordingly, she is the first and perhaps the only candidate to propose infrastructure as her top budget priority.  Well known for her Midwest pragmatism she advocates an incremental approach to universal healthcare.  She proposes policies to help farmers and rural communities.  She wants to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is on the side of the environment.  She proposes a $100 billion dollar plan for mental health treatment with a large portion of that money coming from drug companies for their culpability in the opioid addiction crisis. 

All of her proposals fall safely on moderate ground.  While she does back the Green New Deal voters will have to wonder how much time and resources, political and otherwise, will be left after her infrastructure initiative.  She pointedly does not support Medicare for All or extending free public education from preschool to university. 

Like most Minnesotans Klobuchar is exceptionally nice, humorous and witty.  I don’t believe those nasty reports of her being mean to her staff.  If you can’t get along with Amy Klobuchar you can’t get along with anyone.  The question is:  Is this the year of the moderate?  So far the answer seems to be:  No. 

SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

“Our president is a coward.”  [1]

Senator Gillibrand of New York succeeded Hillary Clinton in that position.  She was supposed to be a Clinton loyalist.  Imagine the shock in the Clinton household when Gillibrand emerged as the spokesperson for the Me Too movement and promptly threw Bill Clinton under the bus along with the suddenly dishonored senator from Minnesota and former Saturday Night Live cast member Al Franken.  Those who consider themselves left of the political divide may have differing opinions on the relative merits of Franken’s dismissal from public life but the lightning speed with which she tossed him aside was dizzying.  Franken fans, including those who support the Me Too movement, may not be so quick to forgive her.  It seemed just a little too opportunistic. 

Gillibrand is relative young at age 52 and her voting record in opposing the Trump administration is the strongest of any US senator.  She votes against the president on 88 percent of votes cast.  Sexual assault and women’s rights are her trademark issues.  She co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation and supports the Green New Deal.  It seems everyone but Nancy Pelosi is now on board with the GND.  She is against Citizens United.  Who isn’t?  She wants public financing of elections.  Who doesn’t?  She supports comprehensive immigration reform and pledges to nominate to the Supreme Court only judges who would uphold Roe V. Wade. 

While she once advocated gun rights she has since embraced strict gun control.  Ay, there’s the rub.  Too many of her positions seem the product of Clintonian triangulation – even her turn against Clinton.  She was once a proud member of the conservative Blue Dog coalition in congress.  Now all her liberal-progressive credentials seem more opportunistic than genuine.  The early polls seem to agree. 

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS

“We have got to make it clear that when the future of the planet is at stake there is no middle ground.”  [1]

The indefatigable senator from Vermont is running again.  He is a spry 77 years old.  If his stump speech seems familiar it is because he has had little reason to change it.  He wears a badge of consistency and he’s very proud of it. 

Uncle Bernie pretty much defines what a progressive Democrat must be to win the nomination in 2020.  He wants Medicare for All phased in over four years.  He would expand Medicare coverage to include dental, vision and hearing.  He’s for Fair Trade although I’m still waiting for the specifics on what that means.  He wants a substantial boost in the federal minimum wage. He wants the US to be a fair and impartial negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Bernie is curiously moderate on impeachment.  He prefers a cautionary approach.  Along with fellow elder Nancy Pelosi, he tends to believe that impeachment would bolster Trump’s standing.  I don’t think so, Bernie.  If you want to maintain your reputation as the harbinger of the progressive cause, you cannot take the middle ground on impeachment.  It is not enough to say Trump is a pathological liar.  The man broke the law repeatedly and congress would be abrogating its duty if it did not embark on the impeachment path. 

Bernie has revisited the issue of reparations.  Last time around he virtually ceded the South to Hillary when he refused even to consider reparations for slavery.  Let’s not even begin to address the Great Genocide.  Shall we give back the land to its original inhabitants? 

There are many of us who marched in Bernie’s parade four years ago but times have changed.  Bernie’s on the right side of virtually all issues but I’m no longer convinced he’s strong enough on those issues.  He does not seem to get that climate change is paramount and he needs a better answer to substandard living than the federal minimum wage.  When technology replaces cheap foreign labor as the most critical threat to our living standards, shall the federal government serve as the employer of last resort?  Shall we guarantee a living wage to all? 

Finally, there is the matter of age.  How long can Bernie last?  If he does make a run at it, he had better choose a young progressive as his VP.  I can only wish him well. 

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

“I’m not Bernie Sanders.  I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble.”  [2]

It’s already happening.  That new car scent has worn off and all the dents and scratches and mechanical flaws are coming to the fore.  When you have been in public life as long as Joe Biden has you’re bound to have a few skeletons in the closet. 

As chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, Biden allowed the Republicans to run over Anita Hill with a bulldozer.  He failed to call witnesses who could have backed up her story.  With a silent Ted Kennedy next to him, he enabled the ascent of Clarence Thomas to the highest court in the land.  That’s a ghost that will not go away. 

Old Joe is like the uncle whose off-color jokes, sexist remarks and inappropriate hugs are ignored because, well, that’s just the way he is. 

As hard as it may be to explain his past with regard to women, it is harder to justify his sponsorship of Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill.  His current apologetic tone notwithstanding, he boasted during a 2007 presidential debate that the Clinton crime bill was originally the Biden crime bill.  For the uninformed the Clinton Crime Bill more than any other single factor was responsible for the mass incarceration of predominantly black and Hispanic Americans. 

Yes, folks, he was proud of putting those darkies away before he was ashamed of it.  After all, it was a different time.  The minorities were less of a factor in national elections and few of them bothered to vote. 

I really hate beating up on the old boy.  It feels a little like elder abuse.  If you think his rivals will overlook the myriad misstatements and misdeeds in Biden’s closet you are mistaken.  It all comes out on the long and winding road. 

If we pretend the past did not exist the present is problematic enough.  Biden skipped the California Democratic presidential forum because he knew what awaited him.  California progressives are not satisfied with old Joe’s homilies.  Elizabeth Warren has a policy for every issue; Joe Biden has a platitude. 

It’s not his fault.  Old Joe is 76.  At 76 he should be at home with the grandkids and great grandkids.  He should be spinning stories at Thanksgiving dinner.  He should be working on spreadsheets for heart healthy diets.  He should be taking daily walks with the dog.  He should be fishing or playing golf or bowling or whatever he is inclined to do at 76.  Get a solid rocking chair and write your memoirs.  Your time for politicking is past. 

So there it is:  A rundown of 23 candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, including seven genuine contenders.  It is not a very satisfying exercise.  It is a process of elimination and it is far more difficult than it should be.  Every candidate has shortcomings.  Every candidate has virtues.  Every candidate must jump through the traditional hoops, pander to the traditional parties and somehow distinguish his or her self from every other candidate. 

At this early stage any one of the contenders can win.  The question for me is:  Whom do we want to win?  My criteria are somewhat at variance with the Democratic Party.  The party seems to be obsessed with the odds of beating Trump.  No one would like to see Trump walk into the sunset more than me but I believe the obsession with data match-ups, critical states and key demographics is going about it the wrong way. 

Doug Johnson Hatlem put it this way:  “This ‘ideological spectrum analysis’ is a junk science rooted in the flawed assumption that the electorate is basically polarized along party lines and that candidates compete for centrists who identify as independents. This view of independents as centrists to be wooed has been debunked over and over and over but persists anyway.  Presidents McCain, Romney, and Hillary Clinton roundly approve of this confusion!”  [3]

Every time the Democrats try to play it cute they end up with a John Kerry playing up his war record instead of his credentials as a peace candidate.  They end up with an Al Gore pretending he never heard of the environment.  They end up with a Hillary Clinton because it’s her turn and it’s time for a woman.  They end up with a Joe Biden because he knows how to talk to these working folks.  It’s not so much how to talk to them, Joe, it’s what you have to say. 

The Democrats have a way of finding a way to lose and it’s always worse to lose when you run someone you don’t really believe in.  We may despise Donald Trump but his people are devoted to him.  More than anything else, the Democrats need someone who believes passionately in a cause.  The last thing they need is someone who wants to work both sides of the aisle. 

I would prefer a candidate who is relatively young, vibrant, confident and knowledgeable.  I want someone who can own a room with his or her presence.  I want someone who is not afraid and will stand up for progressive ideals.  I want someone who doesn’t shudder at the dreaded S word.  The moment I see a candidate backing off or trying to mollify the other side I turn off. 

I wish Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio were running.  I would have liked to see him become the working class candidate I believe he could have become.  Maybe he just didn’t have it in him.  Maybe he’s a family man and no one would wish a presidential campaign on any family.  In any case he is not running and so we’re left with what we have. 

At this early, early stage, keeping in mind that it can certainly change, I’ve run all the data through my processor and arrived at one candidate:  Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Yes, she’s old but she’s not as old as Bernie or Joe and she’s got all the other qualities.  She knows the facts and she’s worked out the policies.  She’s confident, energetic and has the ability to command attention.  Ultimately, the key factor is that she refuses to back down. 

When Trump comes at her with “Pocahontas” I’d like to see her come back with:  “Yes, Mr. Trump, I’m Pocahontas and you’re a billionaire.” 

Enough said. 

Jazz.

1. California Democratic Party State Convention, June 1, 2019.

2. “Joe Biden Clarifies He’s No Bernie Sanders” by John Queally.  Common Dreams, May 9, 2018. 

3. “Electability is Real – Unless Married with the Junk Science of Ideological Spectrum Analysis” by Doug Johnson Hatlem.  Counterpunch, February 20, 2019.

3. “The 2020 Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet” by David A. Graham.  The Atlantic, April 9, 2019.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES AND THE FOUNDER OF CROW DOG PRESS. HIS COMMENTARIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AT DISSIDENT VOICE AND COUNTERPUNCH.