Tag Archives: Joe Biden

Victory off the Port Bow!

(AP)

You wouldn’t know it if you watched the 24/7s — either in the form of gloat or complaint — but this month, liberals claimed their most significant political victory since Joe Biden was sworn in.

Stephen Breyer is stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court.

That may not sound seismic, but consider Biden’s pledge for the next judicial nominee: He has already tipped that it should be a black woman. Just as he tipped his vice presidential preference in Kamala Harris. That too, was historic.

But this history should no longer surprise us, because history’s tendency is quite predictable.

History is liberal.

With the exception of The Dark Ages in the 4th-to-10th centuries (which just happen to coincide with the heyday of Abrahamic religion), history has consistently juked left. Whether it’s science correcting priests about the weather or law correcting priests about what sparing the rod actually means, history is no friend of conservativeness. Nor is nature: Second Law of Thermodynamics and all.

This is obviously distressing for fans of the good ’ol days, when white was right and male didn’t fail. And the nation lurches as it copes with its browning. But make no mistake: America spectrums more everyday. And that’s good news for anyone once relegated to the kid’s table for the country’s nightly supper, which would mean most Americans.

Take any American political issue since 1970 (including the country’s hippie, drug, and free love cultures): Is there any topic that we are more conservative on? Sex? Drugs? Race? We may not be able to pass a more aggressive voting act, but 50 years ago, any voting act was a struggle. If you are female, are you not more masculine than your mother? If male, are you not more feminine than your father?

History’s leftward arc.

Which brings us to the next Supreme Court Justice, which is already creating a rare alliance of Democrats behind a singular message: It is time again for progress. And while she likely wouldn’t touch it with a hypodermic jousting lance, I’ve already got a suggestion for the job.

Her last name is Obama.

Why It Had To Be Kamala

Kamala Harris hits Trump, promises progressive change in ...

Boy, you’d think someone had just been elected president.

Perhaps it’s PPF (Pandemic-Protest Fatigue), but the 24-7s have been on Joe Biden’s choice for a running mate as if they’d just had their first orgasm — or abortion — depending on the crier.

Blues are radiating like first-time parents, and why not? Liberals haven’t had a ticket to get excited over in 7 1/2 years (name one thing about Tim Kaine other than he is a Senator who ran for Vice-President). Tim Kaine (@timkaine) | Twitter

For the Reds, that child is Damian, a demon-spawn cross-pollination of socialism and anarchy. To embrace her is, literally, to “hurt God.” He Will 'Hurt God, Hurt The Bible': Trump Attacks Joe Biden In A ...

Yet they seem to agree: Kamala is a risky choice. And I just don’t get it.

Sure, I guess it’s always risky in politics to suggest historical precedent. After all, something had to create precedent.

But perhaps it’s instructive to consider what the Democratic presidential ticket would have looked like if it had not included Kamala Harris.

After all, there have been just three political movements in America over the past half-decade. One was on the Republican side, two on the Democrat. And both parties had no choice but to acknowledge the great tailwind currents that propel them.

For the GOP, the political wave is Trumpism. He is the closest thing to an avatar Republicans have left that resembles the ideals they once held dear. Lawmakers have tried to resist that tailwind. They’re known as ex-lawmakers.Paul Ryan moving his family to Washington from Wisconsin - POLITICO Republicans will ride Trump’s coattails until the coat stops winning. When that happens, they will distance at O.J.-Simpson-speed.

For Democrats, the political wave has been two-fold: #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. Both have drawn marches by the thousands, perhaps millions, and led the  Blue Tide in the election wins of 2018. Black Lives Matter and Me Too have seen similar backlashes.

Those movements, however, lacked a face (a common lament for Dems).

Until now.

Who was going to be the face of #MeToo? A male, of any race? How about BLM? A non-African-American, of any gender? When you realize the nominee had to be a woman of color (an inevitable first for a changing nation), the choice seems less risky.

Particularly when you look at the notable contenders, namely Stacy Abrahms and Susan Rice. While both boast bona fides, only Harris has been through presidential politics, impeachment prosecution and has a law enforcement background. Imagine the criticism if Joe had not recognized the woman who famously undressed him during a presidential debate?Joe Biden's Running Mate Should Be a Black Woman | ZORA

While Biden could have probably  picked a bowl of pudding as his running mate (#TeamTapioca) and still carried the ticket, the black vote was the Dems’ least certain base. Had Joe picked anyone not of color, what incentive would minority Americans have had to come out and vote, in a pandemic no less? How could Dems have claimed that change is nearby?

And let’s be honest: Dems had to take a risk.  We have picket-dimples in our ass from sitting on the fence so long.

Time to pick a side.

 

 

 

Both the News That’s Fit to Print

Biden VP Rumors: Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris? It 'Will Be A Woman ...

Considering the pandemic it faces to function and the disinformation coming from its taproot source, the New York Times deserves Pulitzers in multiple categories, including investigative and explanatory honors.

Editorially, however, the bible of journalism has been as spotty as, well, the bible.

Consider: During the presidential primary run, the Times endorsed Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, depending on where you stood on the progressive scale — a copout endorsement, plain and simple.Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren: The New York Times endorses ...

If you don’t define the scale, how do do you know where you fall on it? (And there was conspicuously no defining where the Times fell on it.)

Now it’s taken the same wavering stance on who Joe Biden should pick as his (promised) female running mate. In a political piece last week, the outlet named Kamela Harris, the Representative from California, as the most likely pick.Kamala Harris For The People

But in an opinion piece today, the Times said that Stacey Abrahms, the gubernatorial hopeful from Georgia, was the “obvious pick,” because of the Democrats’ need to secure the state and connect to young voters.Stacey Abrams 'absolutely' wants to run for president one day, but ...

This is no time for hemming, brethren. Donald Jemimah Trump does enough waffling for the rest of us. Besides, there are real stories to be found in Biden’s ultimate choice — starting with the historical nature of the pick itself.

Regardless of whether there’s an actual election in November (and that’s seriously in doubt), Biden’s VP of choice may be the most telegraphed in modern politics. When has a candidate ever promised to name a VP from the pool of the politically-shunned?

More importantly, the pick is going to tell us what the Democratic party envisions for its future. Does it see national political experience as a merit badge or mark of shame?

The choice matters, even if Trump remains in office until his death. Because when he goes, so too will the party anchored to him. They simply have no provision for this inescapable political reality: For the first time in U.S. history, most American 15-year-olds are non-white, according to the latest census data.

Not only will that fact never change in the U.S.; it will apply to an ever-growing demographic. Whenever we do conduct a presidential election, it will be the last between grandpa Simpsons: angry, white, male and uncertain of their place in the world.Old Man Yells at Cloud | Know Your Meme

And finally, brethren, how about some propers for Warren? She has failed to crack the circle of serious contenders among the pundits, which is simply wrong. Among all the finalists, she truly deserves to be our vice-president. She’s worked longer and harder for the executive office than any of her colleagues, male or female, in office of out of it.Elizabeth Warren has 'a plan for that' — more than 50 expensive ...

That her efforts have gone unrecognized perhaps says the most about the American political landscape and our view of women in it, regardless of how progressive we fancy ourselves.