Author Archives: pandora

About pandora

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Candidate Fair Tonight – Delaware Americans for Democratic Action (DADA)

Via FaceBook:

Want to get involved in a political campaign for economic, social, and racial justice? Were you supporting one of the Presidential Candidates in Delaware and want to continue that push for progressive social change?

Then come to this Political Candidate Fair for Economic, Social, and Racial Justice where we’ll have campaign teams from those running for Congress, Lt. Gov., and Mayor of the City of Wilmington.

Co-sponsored by the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League Young Professionals and Delaware Americans for Democratic Action.

If you’ve never been part of a political campaign, but have been curious to what it’s like then this is your chance!

When: Tonight! May 23, 2016

Where: Woodlawn Library (2020 West 9th St., Wilm, DE 19805)

Time: 5:00 – 6:30pm

I’ll be there! Hope to see some familiar faces.

 

A Self-Respecting Feminist?

Yesterday’s comment section was, indeed, nuts, but when I went back and reread it several things jumped out at me.

First, the incorrect use and expectation of feminism. Let’s start with the definition of feminism:

  1. 1 :  the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

  2. 2 :  organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

That’s it. Basically it’s about women being treated and having the same opportunities as men. It’s about keeping the standards and expectations the same for women and men. It doesn’t mean you always side with women and are always against men. It means a woman has the right to her own thoughts and opinions and actions – even if we disagree with them. The most obvious example of this rears its head in the Mommy Wars (Destructive, divisive wastes of time) that says: In order to be a feminist a woman needs to work outside the home. (ugly flip side: women who work outside the home are bad mothers. Ugh.)

Both men and women are guilty of this behavior, but they are soooo wrong and prove they don’t understand feminism. To me, as a feminist, I support women doing what they want and what works for them. Their choice is simply that – their choice. It’s not good or bad. It’s simply their decision. Supporting women’s choices is feminism.

To say, “You’re too stupid to realize that the “none of your business” answer BUTTRESSES the idea that she has something to hide. Which she probably does, and what she probably wants to hide is that any self-respecting “feminist” would have struck out on her own, but she was unwilling to give up the access to power for both of them.”

I actually found this comment interesting. There’s so much there. First, her “none of your business” answer means she’s hiding something? Okay, let’s say she is. What could she be hiding? Open marriage, sham marriage, calculated political move? That’s a big leap for me. Most people I’ve known who’ve experienced cheating feel a variety of things – heartbreak, betrayal, embarrassment. By going with the open/sham marriage and calculated political move we make the person cheated on an accomplice to the cheater’s behavior. We blame her for his actions. It’s sorta like, “You made me hit you.”

Now, none of this means that the commenter couldn’t be correct. The point is that he has absolutely NO WAY of knowing one personal detail of their marriage, and yet it was put forth with such certainty; not about what actually happened, but about who Hillary is – something he couldn’t possibly know. Somehow we make Hillary complicit in Bill’s adultery. In order to believe that we’d have to believe that, not only is she cold and calculating, but that she’s stupid – that she signed onto his affairs ignoring the political fallout that discovery would bring. Not very calculating.

Sure, she’s a public figure and a lot of this is fair game, even if it is disappointing to read comments like this. This is one of the biggest right-wing talking points out there. It feeds into… Hillary is cold (frigid?), calculating, overly ambitious narrative. There’s so much of this out there. I have a friend who says she’s been told she has a “resting bitch face”, something said to no man ever. We could spend hours discussing that one, and all roads would eventually lead to men telling women to smile – and if she doesn’t smile… well, then she’s obviously cold and calculating. Vicious circle.

We’re on that road here, folks. Basically, what was being said (and this isn’t really about one commenter. This hit a chord with me because it’s so pervasive.) Hillary did it wrong.

Second, this sentence: “Which she probably does, and what she probably wants to hide is that any self-respecting “feminist” would have struck out on her own, but she was unwilling to give up the access to power for both of them.”

Before getting into this, let me say: There is no one rule as to how a “self-respecting feminist” acts in this situation. It’s like a funeral. People grieve differently, and no one gets to judge that. If you’re going down this path (which really amounts to, yet again, telling a woman what to do and how to act) you might need to take a step back and ask yourself why.

This line (she should have left him) has been around forever. It’s tossed out there without much thought, so let’s think about it. She should have struck out on her own? So, she should have moved out of the White House and taken an adorable little apartment in Georgetown? Or maybe people mean she should have waited until Bill left office (two years later) and then left him? I’m sure her staying for those two years wouldn’t have been held against her. I’m sure people wouldn’t have said that she left him after benefiting from being First Lady. How calculating. But maybe she should have just publicly chastised him (it would have to be public, right? We’d have to know, right?, because no one would have called her a nag, a fishwife, a woman who couldn’t sexually satisfy her man. Starting to see how this works? Right there. That’s the point of this post – the no win situation.

The double standard is alive and well. Pointing that out isn’t me telling you to support or vote for Hillary, because the language being used is bigger than her. Believe me, I have been in situations where I’ve had to defend attacks against women I don’t personally like because the attacks are sexist and, in the end, weaken valid points.

FYI: This really isn’t a post about Hillary. Hillary is the example used in this post. Everybody got that? Hope so!

 

 

The “Pull” Of Trump

Before I get into this post let me say that I know anything can happen in a general election. That rule applies to every candidate.

Everybody got that? Good. Moving on…

I have a terrible fear of heights. It’s not a fear of being so far off the ground; it’s a fear of jumping. Let me explain. When I’m standing on the observation deck of the Empire State building, or on the look-out at places like the Grand Canyon, or on a balcony, I feel a pull within the center of my body – a pull that wants to propel me, without consent of my brain, over the edge. It’s frightening to feel such a disconnect between my brain and body. It’s like I’ve lost free will.

That’s what I’m noticing with people most concerned with Trump. It reminds me of my fear of heights. Their brain is telling them that there’s no way they can vote for Trump, but there’s this “pull” that worries them that, once in the voting booth, they will… jump.

When I hear our commenters and contributors worry about Trump winning I can’t wrap my head around it – (other than “anything can happen to any candidate in a general election.) I keep trying to figure out why they see Trump as a dire threat when every woman and minority person I know doesn’t feel the same. I don’t care how Trump pivots in the general. The things he’s said about women and minorities can’t be unsaid. They exist, and women and minorities aren’t forgetting them.

So why are certain people so worried? Is there, like my fear of heights, a… pull?

 

Policy Discussion: College Tuition

I’m starting with this one because I’m most familiar with both candidates platforms. There are pros and cons to both. Before we get into the actual policy, here are both candidates positions from their Issues page:

Bernie Sanders Issues – College Tuition

Hillary Clinton Issues – College Tuition

FYI: I am sticking with the candidates’ issue page, because these are their policies in their own words and not from a biased source or publication. Fair?

First, I’ll point out that both candidates only address tuition, not room and board which can cost close to the actual tuition. The schools we looked into, the cost for room and board ran from 18,000.00 – 28,000.00 a year. Yikes!

Hillary offers free tuition at Community Colleges. She also applies this plan to not borrowing for an individual’s state college – which wouldn’t have worked for us because neither of my kids wanted to attend UD. Her plan addressing universities and colleges is limits students to their state schools. I don’t like that because I can easily see how it can be manipulated in student selection. More out of state students getting in? She says states will have to step up and invest in higher education – which, imo, is extremely doubtful. They’ve been cutting money to higher ed. Will this plan happen? Doubtful, but there may be inroads into Community Colleges which is good.

Bernie’s require states to fund his plan along with the federal government. Like I said above, are these the same states that are cutting higher education funding now? It also looks like this is a state-by-state opt in plan that will need support of Governors and State reps/senators? Sorta like the Medicaid expansion in the ACA (Don’t even get me started). This will probably play out as free tuition in extremely liberal states – like California – but not in most others. So he’s really not proposing tuition free college for all. Will this plan happen? Doubtful – I was going to end with the same sentence in the paragraph above, but I don’t see Community Colleges addressed on Bernie’s Issue page. Am I missing this? That’s a serious, snark-free question since I’m sure he’s addressed this.

In the end, I’m 100% on board for free community college, not so much for public colleges/universities – unless we’re talking about free tuition at every public college and university in every state – then sign me up! I do think we should increase the amount of Pell Grants issued and colleges be held responsible for lowering tuition.

I didn’t go into the parts of their plans they agree on, like having students work to contribute to their education and restructuring student loans (present and future), but if anyone sees a difference I missed, please point it out.

Some Things Can’t Be Unsaid

And this is one of them:

“She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote unquote unqualified to be president. Well let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of million of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you have supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement that has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama Free Trade Agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which all of you know has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.”

I spent last night and this morning trying to find where Hillary Clinton said Bernie Sanders wasn’t qualified to be President. I came up empty, but if anyone can show me where she actually said this…

I’m really not sure what to say about Bernie’s statement. I’m disappointed and concerned. There’s no doubt Bernie had his first bad week on the campaign. It was also the first week he was actually treated like a serious candidate whose issues and words come under scrutiny. That’s the way it works. Yeah, this outburst does have me questioning how he’d handle the general election. Sorry, but it does.

I’m also worried. Is #FeeltheBern turning into #BernitDown?

Outing People Is NOT Okay

Kevin Ohlandt, of Exceptional Delaware, has crossed a line. He has outed an anonymous commenter – and one that doesn’t post on his blog. Publius posts on Kilroy’s. I disagree with Publius almost 100% of the time. His comments read like a high school burn book, but that is no excuse for what Kevin has done. There might not be many rules in blogging, but this one is carved in stone.

I hesitate to link to the post because giving this sort of behavior more hits is wrong.  I have emailed Kevin asking him to pull the post. I’ll update with his decision.

This Is How It’s Done – More Of This Please

For years I’ve been saying that sexism and misogyny is a men’s issue. Hats off to Jordan Gleason, owner of Black Acre Brewing Company, for telling “a 60-year-old man to never return to his Indianapolis bar because the customer harassed and ogled his staff.”

Here’s Jordan’s FaceBook comment:

This is a longer post, so bear with me…

Today I had to explain to a 60 year old man why he was banned from the pub.

In January he made several sexist remarks about the female staff that were working. He told them to their faces that that he liked looking at their tits while they washed dishes, and their asses while they were pouring drinks. He was told to leave and not come back. He came back last month, and was told we wouldn’t serve him. He came back yet again today, and when told he wouldn’t be served demanded to talk to a manger.

I sat with him for a few minutes as he explained that what he said would have been okay 20 years ago, and that it was just some off colour remarks. He told me he had apologized, and that he guessed my servers were too sensitive. He then told me that if what he said was a problem, then I should tell them not to wear low cut shirts, and that I should face the dish washing sink away from customers. But since he apologized, he should be allowed to drink in my establishment because he he lives in the neighborhood and will bring in business.

I told him flatly that wasn’t happening, and that what he said to those ladies was incredibly offensive. The simple fact that he couldn’t understand that just because they were were working didn’t mean they deserve his disrespectful language. That these ladies were part of my family, and were human beings that deserved respect. They aren’t objects, and they certainly shouldn’t have to wear different clothes because he can’t be bothered with showing them any decency or respect. “But we’re men and they’re females. Is cleavage just not a thing anymore?”

I told him yeah buddy, it’s not, and I won’t be changing my mind about having him served. He threatened bad publicity, I told him I didn’t care, and he left.

I work in the service industry, and we get the sheer joy and pleasure of meeting and talking to so many great people in our city. I’ve met some of my best friends here behind the bar. I live for it man. Connecting people who haven’t met, making sure people can relax from a shitty day, or celebrate a great one, or just to simply enjoy a few beers with friends. I’ve seen wedding proposals, birthday parties, political discussions, deep philosophical debates, neighborhood organization, the absolute works. The best of humanity coming together and bonding. That’s my JAM. It’s one of the biggest reasons I get out of bed in the morning to come in to work day after day.

As absolutely insanely fun as that is, the dark side of this business is we run into some pretty horrible goblin people. Folks who think that just because we’re serving, we don’t deserve any basic decency or respect. I’ve been snapped at, mocked, threatened, and insulted about not having a real job. Anybody in this line of work gets used to a degree of it and develops a thicker skin. Here’s the thing though, women in this field get infinitely more disgustingly treated. The sheer number of times they get groped, or harassed, or treated like objects would blow your mind. The worst of it is how normal their harassers think their behavior is. Every single lady in here handles it with grace and aplomb, and I applaud them for it. I’ve had their backs as we’ve bounced people out for that trash, but countless times they just deal with it before it even gets to me.

Sometimes the dudes get so worked up that they demand to see a manager, and I get called in to speak with them. Every single fucking time they attempt to appeal to me solely because I’m a man. They try to weasel in with me about how the women are asking for it. That women shouldn’t dress that way if they don’t want to be stared at. They attempt to explain it away as just “dudes being dudes.” It’s expected for men to stare at women’s breasts and make jokes about how much they want to fuck them. Wink Wink. Of course you’ll understand they think, because you also have a dick. What terrifies and enrages me is how every one of them thinks that this is normal behavior, but also that other men will agree with them.

Men, we often don’t see the level of filth that our friends, sisters, and mothers go through every day. We hope to surround ourselves with people who would never treat a woman like that. We live in a safe little bubble. But the reality of this thing? It’s an insidious disease that’s happening every single day, several times a day and it turns my fucking stomach.

So why am I writing this? I want to acknowledge the struggle of every single woman who will read this. You deserve our respect and to be treated with decency. I want to stand up and say, I’m fucking sick of this. To every dude out there, we need to fucking combat this disease like its the god damned plague that it is. If one of your friends says something shitty about a woman, tell him to shut his fucking mouth. Don’t just laugh it off or ignore it. We need to listen when our sisters talk about this, and not just blame it on some bad apples. Not just say “not all dudes do that” or “well no one I know would ever do that.” Nah man. This is an endemic cultural problem. If we want to start taking our status as gentlemen seriously we need to do more than just avoiding being a sexist prick ourselves. We need to open our eyes and fight it everywhere we see it, because the only way this thing gets better is to start calling it out for what it is.

Edit: Sorry for so many edits. I keep finding typos. Writing in anger isn’t so conducive to well typed responses.

[emphasis mine]

FYI: This is how it’s done. Men are the ones with the power to break up the “boys will be boys” club.  Jordan Gleason showed how it’s done. Bravo.

 

Donald Trump Speaks On Abortion – And It’s Just As Bad As You Imagine

Via The Daily Beast:

There must be “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, Donald Trump said Wednesday afternoon

Adding…

“you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it.” and the exact punishment would “have to be determined.”

And the finishing touch…

Asked whether men would be held responsible for abortions under the law as well, Trump replied, “I would say no.”

This hardly surprises me. It is right in line with the Republican platform and would be the easiest (and first) law passed during a Trump/Cruz/Kasich Presidency. These are not side issues.

 

If I Could Have A Moment Of Your Time…

It’s no secret that I’m 100% supporting Eugene Young for Mayor of the city of Wilmington. He’s young, energetic and has a vision and a plan for our entire city.

Cassandra wrote about him (and the other candidates) here. I’ll copy what she wrote about Eugene:

Eugene Young — Advocacy Director, Delaware Center for Justice

Eugene is a young man from Wilmington’s East Side who has spent his career in public service, including founding and running the Delaware Elite program.  Eugene announced this month, with a hugely professional announcement (a nice press release, an intro video, and  a website launch) controlled by the campaign (not forced by the media) and designed to capitalize on the groundwork his folks have been executing since the beginning of the year.  He also started walking the neighborhoods on the day he announced.  This promises to be a highly energetic and focused campaign effort by a young man (and a young-ish team) looking to change Wilmington’s tipping point to a positive one.  He has alot of work to do to ask for votes all over the city, but he seems committed to spending the shoe leather to do that.  I think that the campaign that he and his Team plan to run will upend the usual path to running for Mayor here, which should have some long term political consequences, not the least of which is energizing a group of young Wilmington professionals to weigh into a conversation about creating the city they want to live in.

I canvassed with Eugene this past fall and was impressed with his grasp of the issues and his solutions. I’m impressed by the broad coalition of volunteers and staff he has been surrounded himself with — people who are energizing their networks and creating one of the most professionally run campaigns I’ve ever seen in the city. It is gratifying to see (and work with!) younger people energized by stepping up to do the work of making sure that Wilmington is a great place for them to live in and work in.

The diversity and outreach in this campaign is awe-inspiring. Eugene is campaigning across the entire city, in every community. That’s refreshing and smart. Far too often candidates for mayor focus solely on certain communities. Even worse, a few pit communities against each other by employing fear and the familiar “tough on crime” stance, dividing the city into “us and them”.

It’s also no secret that campaigns need contributions. It’s also also no secret that our city needs a new direction and vision. I believe the person capable of setting us on a new path is Eugene Young. So I’m calling on (really, asking) the DL statewide community (because you guys are awesome!) to contribute to Eugene’s campaign. In order to keep track of our awesomeness please add .16 to your contribution. (You know… 25.16)

Click here to donate and make my day!

(Don’t forget to add the .16!)

*The campaign is having a citywide canvass/rally/bbq on May 7. All are welcome. Details here.

No.

I had to read this article twice, and it still didn’t make sense. Wooing “pro-lifers” to the Democratic Party by implementing more laws restricting abortion? No. Just no.

Many pro-lifers were already frustrated with a party that merely goes through the motions and lacks a coherent plan when it comes to protecting prenatal children from violence. After last year’s conservative-led effort to defund Planned Parenthood failed, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the pro-life Christian Defense Coalition, charged Republican congressional leadership with the “betrayal” of “the pro-life community that helped elect them”; and when Republicans yet again failed to pass antiabortion legislation last year, conservative commentator Erik Erickson declared that “the pro-life movement must stop being whores of the Republican party.”

Democrats can make a home for these stranded voters. Opening a big tent to pro-lifers would not only offer a hospitable climate for Democrats who value a “whole life” ethic, which weaves together common Democratic concerns like care for the impoverished and elderly with an equal interest in the unborn; it would also put them in a good position to win the next generation. Millennials and Latinos, after all, are trending more antiabortion than any other young generation in recent U.S. history. Only 37 percent of young people think that abortion is morally acceptable — while 54 percent of Latinos think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Hey, I know another way to add more D voters. Let’s embrace the NRA! Just look at all those new voters we could get. This is Nixon’s Southern Strategy all over again. How’s that working out for the GOP?

It’s difficult to predict just how many disaffected pro-lifers currently attached to the Republican party might cast their votes for Democrats given the opportunity. But there is good reason to believe that, especially among Millennial voters, such a strategy could have meaningful returns for Democrats. In 2010, research conducted by NARAL found that there is a significant “intensity gap” between pro-life and pro-choice Millennial voters: While 51 percent of pro-lifers under 30 considered abortion a “very important” voting issue, only 26 percent of pro-choice Millennials said the same. The fact that such a high percentage of young pro-lifers consider abortion a top priority suggests that, should Democrats shift their stalwart pro-choice stance, the next generation of antiabortion voters may well lend them much-needed support. Judging by the example of 2006, such a groundswell could bring about a real, lasting boost for local and congressional Democrats.

It’s difficult to predict? But there’s good reason to believe? I should have stopped reading right there. It’s tempting to flip this argument. Republicans could win if they welcomed pro-choice Dems. If it works one way, then it works the other. The reason for the “intensity gap” is obvious. Abortion is still legal. Change that and watch what happens to the “intensity gap”.

The idea that “pro-lifers” would be satisfied with a few tweaks to abortion waiting periods and access is a big lie – and Professor Charles C. Camosy knows it. If you are “pro-life” then your end goal is to outlaw abortion. (I’ll eagerly await a “pro-lifer” to tell me I’m wrong and explain why.) And for many in this group it also involves banning contraception. It always comes down to one thing: controlling women. It’s not enough for you to be “pro-life” and to not have an abortion, you have to make sure everyone lives by your rules. And if they disagree with you? Too bad. Abortion will be illegal so it doesn’t matter what they think. It only matters what you believe. “Pro-lifers” are always in everybody’s business.

There’s plenty of room for anti-abortionists in the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. See? Problem solved. But that’s not their agenda, and it’s why they fit in so beautifully with Republicans. They, like the GOP, are authoritarians. They are quite comfortable in telling (legislating) everyone what to do and what to believe. They have been quite capable of justifying their abortions while limiting the choices of others. This group does it all the time. Their welfare is different. Their tax based roads, libraries, internet access, etc. are different. Their Medicaid and unemployment benefits are necessary… and merited.

But what is this professor really proposing? That Dems should have a “pro-life” and pro-choice platform? How would that work? It wouldn’t, because there really is no compromising with “pro-lifers”. And I get that. They are entitled to their beliefs. Right now Dems enjoy the women’s vote – they win with it. Why would they ever take this article seriously and risk losing their major voting block?

I’m very sorry “pro-lifers” feel like they don’t have a home, but they don’t get to come into mine and rearrange the furniture so they’re comfortable.

Josh Marshall: Someone Will Die

Go read the entire thing.

Today we appear to be going further and further into uncharted territory. After the cancellation of Trump’s event yesterday in Chicago, we had the incident at the rally in Dayton, Ohio in which a protestor, Thomas Dimassimo, jumped the security perimeter surrounding Trump and tried to rush the speaking platform. Dimassimo was charged with disorderly conduct and inducing panic and later released on bail. At a subsequent event and on Twitter, Trump claimed that Dimassimo was tied to ISIS, apparently on the basis of a hoax video his staff found on Youtube. At yet another event this evening Trump called for the mass arrest of protestors, noting that arrest records would leave an “arrest mark” and “ruin the rest of their lives.” Trump also repeatedly blamed “communist” Bernie Sanders for what now appear to be the almost constant protests and disruptions at his rallies.

Dimassimo shocked me for the same reason he shocked Josh Marshall. “This is not only totally unacceptable behavior, it is also totally unhinged behavior. When you try to rush the stage when a presidential candidate with Secret Service protection is speaking, you are literally taking your life in your hands.” 

He speaks about the climate:

Is the man invoking Nazi concentration camps in that video an anti-Semite or just a ramped hater in a frenzy of provocation? I’m not sure we know. And as I’ll argue in a moment, in a climate of incitement and crowd action, it doesn’t necessarily matter.

It may sound like hyperbole. But this is the kind of climate of agitation and violence where someone will end up getting severely injured or killed. I do not say that lightly.

Josh Marshall isn’t given to hyperbole. He’s correct. This is a perfect storm scenario.

What we have seen over the last two weeks isn’t just an escalation of chaos and low level violence but a progressive normalization of unacceptable behavior – more racist verbal attacks, more violence. This is in turn clearly attracting more people who want trouble – on both sides. If you’re an angry racist who wants to act out on his anger, can you imagine any better place to go than a Trump rally? If you hate Trump, his supporters and all he stands for and want to get physical about it, where best to go?

Again, this is not meant to equate the two sides. As I mentioned yesterday, Trump has repeatedly claimed that instances of crowd violence at his rallies occurred when protestors – “bad dudes” – attacked his supporters and his supporters fought back. Until the events last night in Chicago, there is no evidence that anything like this ever happened. Not once. It is all lies.

He definitely isn’t arguing “both sides do it.” He’s saying that the climate Trump is creating will bring out the lone wolf “crazies” from all sides. No rational person is justifying Dimassimo’s actions. His behavior was unhinged, but it fit right in with the climate Trump has created. I fear we can expect more of this.

The climate Trump is creating at his events is one that not only disinhibits people who normally act within acceptable societal norms. He is drawing in, like moths to a flame, those who most want to act out on their animosities, drives and beliefs. It is the kind of climate where someone will eventually get killed.

Unless something happens to knock us off this course, it is the kind of climate where someone will eventually get killed.

Don’t believe me, then consider Trump’s words today:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sunday that he has instructed his team to look into paying the legal fees of the man who sucker punched a black protester.

Trump said he doesn’t condone violence.

“But I want to see. The man got carried away, he was 78 years old, he obviously loves his country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country,” Trump said.

That’s not only encouraging this sort of behavior, it’s inciting it… complete with a get out of jail free card and a pat on the back for a job well done. Because something has to be done, right? If you love your country and don’t like seeing what’s happening to it then you have to do something, right? Scary times.

The Republican Debate – Heaven Help Us

I’m not even sure what to say. When you don’t have one substantive candidate there will be no substantive discussion? Know why none of them can call out the others plans for health care, the economy, etc.? Because all of their plans are nonsense. That is the #1 reason none of them can take Trump out. In order to attack his policies, which amount to “It’s (fill in whatever position/plan you want) going to be great!”, they’d have to defend and explain their own policies. Watch the segment on health care last night. Not one of them had a policy. Not one.

Mr. Pandora and I were stunned by the end of the “debate” last night. If Dems need something to rally behind, here it is.

We laugh at Ben Carson’s “The fruit salad of their life is what I will look at” comment, but he is really no different than any other GOP presidential candidate on that stage last night. The only difference is he doesn’t hide his nuttiness behind his chosen facade. He lets it all hang out.

I haven’t read any commentary on last night’s debate yet. I wanted to lay out my impressions first. So, here they are:

Trump:

Mother of god! Sorry, had to get that out. Trump has zero policies on anything. Building a wall paid for by Mexico and It (again fill in the blank) is going to be great are not policies. His entire platform is based on emotion. Several times last night the moderators and other clown car passengers tried to pin him down. Here’s what happened: He’s got nothing and his supporters don’t care. He’s their daddy, don’tchaknow, and they have complete trust in daddy.

He did expose a weakness last night. Donald Trump does not like anyone pointing out his business failures. He goes off message when an attack hits its mark and ends up throwing nonsense – basically, he suffers from word vomit when attacked. I found myself scratching my head several times during his nonsensical tangents. He loses focus and ends up all over the place.

But one of his biggest weakness, and one the Dems would be well served exploiting, is his complete inability to articulate any of his policy ideas. Last night I found myself, many times, wishing the other candidates would shut up and let Trump stumble his way through the nothingness that is his policy. But, nope. They saved him every time – too focused on throwing punches that never connected, at least not enough to do any damage. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity.

The person who can take out Trump? Trump.

Rubio:

First, I was wrong yesterday when I mused it would be Cruz going on the attack against Trump. Rubio did most of the attacking, but he didn’t do it well. It wasn’t that he didn’t make valid points it was that you could tell he wasn’t comfortable in the role. He spoke very quickly, sometimes frenziedly, while Trump smirked and then called him a name. Trying to play the game on Trump’s turf is a mistake. The rules aren’t the same. Trump’s allowed to be Trump – no one else is. And it’s stupid to try and out Trump Trump – because Rubio sweats a lot. smdh.

I’d write more about Rubio, but there isn’t much there there. I’m sure the pundits will be crowning Rubio the winner (He is the only one who gets this title without actually, you know, winning anything), but the voters won’t agree.

Cruz:

Cruz was much more restrained last night compared to Trump and Rubio. He took his swipes at Trump, but managed to keep a more even keel. So if there are points for not letting Trump fluster you then Cruz gets them. I’m not sure what else to write about him since there was nothing substantive said last night.

Kasich:

Has Kaisch met the Republican base? They aren’t remotely interested in what he’s selling, but he’s staked out this losing lane and is going to stick with it. Never mind that he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Not exactly sure why he’s decided to be the Kumbaya candidate. It’s a losing proposition. It’s also dishonest. Kasich is not a uniter or a moderate. But it doesn’t matter. He’s not going to win the nomination – maybe the VP slot or cabinet position, but not the nomination.

Carson:

I got nothing, other than… since the GOP primary has turned into a reality TV show it’s past time he was voted off the island. I would say he has no business being on that stage, but that would apply to everyone on that stage last night.

If you find my comments about the candidate a little thin, sorry. I guess I could write that there was a lot of unintelligible yelling over and over again. BTW, the moderators were awful. I kept forgetting they were there.

Which brings me back to Trump. Trump’s attacks are based on going after the other candidate’s masculinity. Take a good look at his every attack. They all boil down to “My penis is bigger, and better, than your (low energy, sock down your pants lying, sweaty) penis”. Not. Kidding. And yes, that applies to women, but in a different way. With women, Trump employs gross misogyny which makes the attacks different – more like “My penis wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot pole – and, btw, my penis is ten feet long.”

I’m not being snarky with the penis analogy. It’s apt. Trump masculine shames his opponents and the Republican base loves it. One might say they eat it up. (My bad!) It will be interesting, if Hillary is the nominee, to watch how Trump handles debating a women.

In the end, I doubt last night hurt Trump. He benefits from three things:

1. His support comes from people who don’t care about policy – let alone understand issues.

2. His supporters can’t get enough of his racist, bigoted, fascist and sexist comments.

3. GOP primary voters have settled on their candidate, and if it isn’t Trump then, for many of them, he’s their second choice.

So how does the Dem candidate take on Trump. First, do NOT do what the other GOP candidates have done. You can’t out Trump Trump. Here’s my advice. In a two person general election debate – let him talk. Make him explain his policies in detail. He can’t do it. Go watch the segment last night on his health care plan. He doesn’t have one. All he has is emotion, hence his appeal to Republican primary voter. Second, use humor. He can’t stand being painted as a fool. He cannot handle being laughed at. Call him names and you’ll lose. Mock him and I predict he loses it. He’s a very serious, very successful person who has no humor when it comes to himself. Third, do not let him interrupt. Call him out on that. It stuns me that he gets away with that behavior. Tell him he needs a time out. (Yeah, not really sure how that would work, but it needs to stop.)

I guess what I’m saying (and I’ll keep with his theme) is if you want to beat Trump, take away his Viagra.