Even in the “bluest” of blue states, like Washington, no one should ever take anything for granted. A Seattle Times poll shows that Sen. Patty Murray’s lead for reelection slipping from 18 points to 8 points. Most troublesome is that Trumpist challenger Tiffany Smiley has a sizable edge among independent voters. It may seem head-scratching that a Marjorie Taylor Greene-wannabe is the “right” choice for the state; although Murray has become an “old reliable” who goes virtually unnoticed until election year, I don’t understand why the people of this state would want a “change” to “liven” things up—especially if that means making the state “famous” for putting a far-right fanatic in the Senate, like Wisconsinites having to live with the knowledge that their most “famous” senator is Joe McCarthy.
In their debate earlier this week in which they predictably disagreed on everything, Murray seeming to be the sensible one, while Smiley was just being contrary for the hell of it; I’m not sure turning up the volume helped convince those who are still on the “fence.” As usual with far-right conspiracy theorists, she used the dearth of factual information to make false political points. For example, Smiley claimed that fentanyl was the “primary” crime resulting from an “uncontrolled” border. Here we see a graphic supplied by a 2020 DEA report showing that illegal fentanyl—which was first created in the U.S. in 1959—and/or the ingredients used for its manufacture almost entirely originates in China, not Mexico:
So what is the Republican plan to stop the illegal drug trafficking from China? Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously this is about politics, not policy solutions. Murray, on the other hand, insisted that the border was not “out-of-control,” and as noted yesterday, the real problem with the border is the lack of a coherent U.S. immigration and temporary worker policy.
Smiley of course raved on about crime, claiming that Murray was at fault for crime “everywhere.” But as criminologist Justin Nix pointed out in an article earlier this week in Salon, Republican claims about crime have little basis in reality. Over the decades crime has fluctuated from year to year regardless of who is control of government or whether a state is “blue” or “red.” Crime is also localized—meaning that perpetrators and victims of crime tend to be of the same race or ethnicity, and usually both living in the same communities. If white people are concerned about the crime their neighbors are committing, then they should put the question where it belongs, their local police—or start asking questions about their own hypocrisy.
Smiley’s “solution” to climate change is of course to promulgate fossil fuel policies that make it worse, and in regard to what the Democrats hope is their “winning” issue—abortion rights--Smiley side-stepped the issue by implying that Washington women won’t have to worry about what she does as senator, thanks to Democrats having control over the state (although there are limitations to its “blueness”—note the state has now passed anti-affirmative action initiatives twice). But that doesn’t mean that someone like Smiley won’t support a national law banning or limiting abortion if she is elected to the Senate.
Of course “liberals” are capable of supporting foolish, illogical initiatives. For example, on this year’s ballot are Propositions 1A and 1B, which a Seattle Times editorial tells us that “There are so many things wrong with Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B, it’s hard to know where to start.” 1A basically allows voters to engage in a free-for-all vote for as many clowns who want to run for city office as they want, and the top-two vote getters will then be selected for a runoff election.
1B is even more unnecessary (if that is possible), allowing voters to “rank” their choices. According to the Times, “In the first round of processing, each voter’s top preference would be counted. The candidate receiving the fewest would be eliminated. If your candidate was eliminated, your next choice on the ballot would be awarded your vote. Successive rounds of counting would eliminate one candidate each round, counting each voter’s top preference among remaining candidates, until two candidates remain to proceed to the general election.”
Uh, what? The absurdity of this is too obvious, right? How many ways to count how this can be a total master class in confusion, with recounts demanded galore to make sure the votes were properly “ranked”? Who is going to have either the time or sense to make correct choices? Pick who you think is the best candidate for the job and leave it at that. I already filled out my ballot and dropped it off. I should have written in “F--k” next to the “No” vote indicator:
I didn’t bother expressing an opinion on which part of the proposition was “better,” because they are both idiotic. Otherwise I voted Democrat right down the line (why take any chances?) and to maintain the barely noticeable funding bills already passed by the legislature.
Elsewhere, if there is any doubts about who will control Congress after the midterms, it seems to be mainly a function of just how much people are affected by Trump. Do people care that he is facing multiple civil and criminal cases, like any corrupt Third World tin-pot dictator? Do his supporters think this is really just a witch hunt not just against Trump, but vicariously against themselves, or are they thinking twice about having this kind of moral and ethical disease dictate national policy? Is there a significant portion of the population who call themselves “patriotic,” but they don’t seem to know exactly what that means beyond white nationalism?
We are told by the New York Times and many others that there is a significant portion of the white population that feels the world has left them behind, one where they once could flex their muscles and bully anyone they chose because they felt they were in control of everything. Now their world is “vanishing,” they are losing their “status.” Of course it is a fair question what they mean by “status”; what the paranoids probably mean, in the moments huddled together to bemoan their world, is white supremacy.
Naturally, what people mean by a needed “change” is relative, since many voters change their minds every two years about what that means, and they have largely themselves to blame for being “confused.” After all, look at all those things they buy that has a “Made In China” label on it. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, taxes for the rich were cut, the “trickle down” economics promised was more like an upside-down waterfall where the average consumer couldn’t afford to buy products made in America, and the people who claimed that they acted in the interest of “the workers” in fact only acted out of their self-serving cupidity
How was it that the white working class could have so much faith in people who at least on an economic level told them lies and hoped they wouldn’t be found out? At least Democrats won’t make things worse for working people, and support policies that have long-term benefit. Why support an alleged billionaire like Donald Trump who as a businessman only cares about cheating people who he thinks he is smarter than? None of his policies during his administration did anything to actually help working people improve their circumstances and standard of living. Any “improvement” was just an extension of factors already in place during the Obama administration.
What we see in reality is an egotistical narcissist whining and moaning about the walls of his crimes collapsing around him, and he is begging for support from people who perhaps see themselves as being unfairly “punished” for a lifetime of an arrogant belief in their own superiority and privilege. There are “exceptions” of course: former Trump friend and real estate financier Tom Barrack is currently on trial facing hard prison time for secretly using his influence with Trump for economic gain for deals with the United Arab Emirates. Barrack conveniently rues the day that he allowed Trump’s contempt for the laws of the land to influence his own actions as well.
What we are seeing Republicans doing is no different than what Southern politicians did before: in order to prevent “poor whites” from leaguing with blacks and pose a threat to the Southern “noble” class, they promulgated the belief that even “poor whites” were “superior” to blacks and must not throw in their lot with “inferior” people. This in turn gave “poor whites” the idea that when the party they did not vote for passed social programs that were opposed by the party they voted for, they assumed it was for the benefit of those who voted for them, say, blacks and other minorities, since whites who voted for the “liberal” party were (and are) a rare breed in Southern states.
Of course they don’t want to admit that they too are also “allowed” to benefit and generally do so in often larger raw numbers, just like they will benefit from the programs passed during Joe Biden's first two years. Who benefits when Republicans are in power? Two kinds of people: the rich, and little people with little minds.
The general consensus seems to be that Republicans will regain control of Congress, but the Trump factor will likely put a damper on any significant gains, particularly since many Trumpist candidates appear to be embarrassing buffoons who have no clue of governance save just shouting out the usual culture war bullshit and blaming Democrats for everything wrong with the country without proposing any “plans” that we haven’t heard before, and didn’t work before either. I don’t know if people will have sense enough to see through that, and as Liz Truss’ brief tenure as the UK’s conservative prime minister shows, stupid is as stupid does, and we don’t need more stupid in Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment