A. commit suicide by allowing Donald Trump to finish out the campaign; or
B. nominate somebody to face the Sanders/Democratic landslide.
The one fly in the ointment, conceivably, is if the Republicans have the cunning or survival instinct to then nominate John Kasich. That is a CANDIDATE, y'all. I disagree with his foreign policy statements viscerally, except for one that I heard him make at one of the debates: "When our military forces achieve their objectives, we will withdraw."
I take that (or I am hopeful that) his pugnaciousness ("It's time to punch Russia in the nose," he said at an early debate) MIGHT be negotiable. He's supposed to be a Christian and a great family man.
He's been both a top political executive and a legislator. I bought his constant reiteration of those credentials, with examples in most cases.
Domestically, he's no worse than a moderate. In fact, he inhabits the same place on the political spectrum, roughly, that Hillary Clinton does.
He could definitely win the Presidency against Hillary. He could possibly make the margin by which Bernie would win quite close, and reduce the "mandate" Sanders would receive.
Let's see what the California voters say. I'm in Central Time, it's 6:45 on a windless Mississippi early summer evening, so polls close at-- what, 9 PM Pacific Time, so in 4 hours and 15 minutes, the votes will start to be counted.
If Bernie wins California, even narrowly, and other states besides, the Democratic Party must think about the nature of its winning prospects. Which shot do they want to win this pool game with, a pot shot or a three-rail kick combination in the opposite corner?
*****************************************************************
Then, while awaiting the primary results after the media had queered the whole deal by announcing Hillary had won the night before the primaries, in answer to the rhetorical questions from one of the conservatives I sometimes cross swords with about what distinguished a progressive from a liberal, or from a Democrat, I replied with this:
If there is common ground between what a progressive as it was first formulated was and what one is today, it is in the regulation, or outright breakup, of huge corporate/banking conglomerates. Theodore Roosevelt was the first significant politician to identify as Progressive. He campaigned against and successfully at least hindered the power of the Gilded-age Trusts.
Now, Teddy Roosevelt was also a bullish imperialist, of course*. Today's progressive would be utterly against the foreign wars we have. They are so opposed, but they are not in such numbers that they can effectively turn the foreign policy tide against a war-weary but numbed American public.
I needn't even mention the comparative attitudes toward race of the original progressives and today's.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
