Full disclosure. I hadn't intended to renew the blog, but I've been pretty good about not spouting off on politics on Facebook, and the blog seemed a adequate way for casual Facebook friends to avoid my opining altogether. So be warned. Lots of unsupported political opinions await. Intrepid readers carry on!
Warning - I'm telling you one last time, this is a political blog, and the opinions, however correct, are those of your blogger and not any candidate's campaign or super-PAC. ;-)
__________________________
So who can resist the daily drama regarding the upcoming 2020 Presidential election? Not this guy!
Intriguing. Beto-mania has led your political blogger to wonder, "is charisma enough?" for a President, or does he/she have to put forth a concrete statement of policy to be considered a worthy candidate? It's a rhetorical question. NO ONE EVER pays attention to policy (unless it pertains precisely to them). It's been a popularity and vote-rigging, vote-buying, process for ages. But with that in mind, read on.
Further intrigue, stemming from a NYT article regarding Joe Biden. Who burnishes this old man's credentials as he makes a valiant last grasp for the brass ring? While for some time I was thinking Beto, knowing full well that the "Irish x 2" doesn't add up to 4, much less a multiple of same. No, as of today (I reserve the right to wholesale change my mind) the near-ideal VP for the nascent (and recurring) presidential campaign is likely Kamala Harris. For a Trump-weary but more centrist electorate, this combo checks almost all of the boxes without stepping too far into a.. heaven forbid, Socialist candidacy. Here Harris' background as a prosecutor comes in as a strength, not a weakness. She's young enough to offset his age, and demographically she easily reaches the necessary voters that would otherwise be lukewarm to Biden individually (and would remain lukewarm with O'Rourke as a running mate).
If I'm wrong, then Harris as the AG is an easy call. CAN she be President? Of course. Can she win? Sorry, but I doubt it.
Downsides of Harris as a Biden running mate? Losing the racist vote. Perhaps (but unlikely) losing the far left progressives (what, they're going to vote for Trump? Besides, I think there are fewer than people give them credit for).
Beto O'Rourke in Madison this past weekend, standing conveniently in front of a HUGE painting of Russia. #PoorOpticsMore about Beto. It occurred to me that a frequent criticism leveled at him is his "thin" Congressional resume. But seeing him in person, and hearing him talk (albeit in generalities) about his positions (mostly mainstream Democratic) and the bills he co-sponsored whilst in Congress, it's no wonder his record is thin. HE'S A LIBERAL! Most of the legislation he was behind in Congress (actually, in the Texas State House his record is quite different) was not in favor with the lobbyist crowd, so there was little chance of success there. But overall, offsetting the obvious charisma is the great unknown associated with youth. In this unique time in our Nation, buyers (voters) may be willing to take that chance. Oh, and BTW, I'm very, very confident that the Russians wouldn't touch Mr. O'Rourke with a communally-owned 10 foot pole.
Other candidates, there are oh so many. I find Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, IN, intriguing (there's that word again), but do I think he can win the primary? Nope. But he's seems more than smart, which is a double-edged sword as IMO that's greatly overrated as a trait of a winning candidate. But without a doubt his candidacy has raised his profile exponentially, and I think that's been the goal all along. Elizabeth Warren? I love her, and am probably more aligned with her policy positions pre-candidacy than anyone else. But frankly, my dear, she's kinda a shit politician and the stoopid Native American fiasco is a nothing burger she's not been able to digest or throw up and move on. Move On, hahaha, pun not intended. Somewhat similar sentiments towards Amy Kloubuchar. It seems that behind the scenes she's really not "midwestern nice", and it seems unlikely to me that people would want to vote for someone they probably wouldn't like (and wouldn't like them). Next. Kirsten Gillibrand. Desperately trying to find an open lane to swim in, I think the ghosts of Hillary and Bill would, more than for anyone else, do anything and everything in their diminished power to cause her pain and suffering. They're just that vindictive. So no. Cory Booker. No, for no other reason that the racial politics that unfortunately define much of the Democratic party are saying, "wait, we had a charismatic black guy the last time, it's someone else's turn". Stoopid but true.
Bernie deserves a whole paragraph. As my single-digit following of faithful readers may recall, I was all on board the Bernie train last time around, and although I'm probably not on it this go round, in my mind Bernard Sanders has already won in the ways that have meaning. Essentially single-handedly he's slapped the Democratic Party upside its head and brought them back from the ranks of "Republican-lite". Think of it. In four short years he's not even the most left-leaning candidate in his (adopted) party! The face of the current party is the face he helped to create, and IMO it will serve the party well in the long run. In many ways (did I mention this blog has no intention of being politically correct?) he's Elijah to the chosen people who call themselves Democrats, "make straight in the wilderness a path for our... candidate". Or at least until the Dems have a taste of power again, then (almost non-sarcastically), it'll be back to business as usual, this time the checks for graft and corruption will simply be written by different special interests.
There you go, my picks on this first weekend of the "real" March Madness. I'll update as the spirit move me, or if there's an intervening indictment. Whichever comes first. Thanks for reading!
