Democrats can't shoot at all, let alone straight

I've never seen the political constellations align so forebodingly.

As Republicans plot and execute the cavalier hijacking of battleground-state elections with little to no resistance, congressional Democrats are squabbling and splintering over aggressively popular issues such as freeing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and taxing untaxed billionaires, while "activist" Democrats are now pondering how best to hand the White House to Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis — without Republicans even needing to steal it.

They're pretty sure — already — that they know how to achieve this mother of all political blunders and final, kamikaze act of sheer stupidity: support Vice President Kamala Harris for a job promotion in either 2024 or 2028, whichever year is available for an unsightly Democratic suicide.

This intel I learned from a Washington Post piece on Vice President Kamala Harris, who, in turn, is assiduously, successfully persuading progressive Democrats to back her in the next presidential cycle.

There is, of course, nothing unorthodox or surprising about a U.S. vice president hankering for the Resolute desk. Equally unsurprising is that Kamala's activist cheerleaders believe in her potential success; they'll never stop dreaming the impossible dream — that of a brassy progressive's odds of presidential inevitability.

I quote the Post's sympathetic reporter: "Behind the scenes, Harris has been quietly seizing the opportunity to build a liberal national network of dedicated activists that is convinced she embraces its causes. If Harris has a path to the presidency, it is likely to run through an energized liberal base — not, as it did for Biden, through blocs of centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans."

I've no idea — not one clue — as to why a political reporter would report that a Democratic presidential nominee's "likely" path to the White House is through an "energized liberal base" — a base dismissive of centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans, whose votes made Joe Biden president; in incontrovertible fact, without whose votes Joe Biden would today be a Delaware retiree.

I shall put aside the other, cluelessly reported fact that progressive activists are fast warming to a just-tell-me-what-you-want-me-to-say presidential wannabe who's an abysmal political retailer to boot. Noteworthy, however, is the additional fact that there's a political science professor at Southern Methodist University who was willing to say this to the Post's reporter, which progressives will undoubtedly buy:

"It is unlikely that Kamala Harris will ever be broadly popular and loved by the center of the American electorate. [But] you can get elected president without being loved by the center of the American electorate. For evidence of that, ask Donald Trump."

My dear, historically addled professor. I won't ask Donald Trump, who in 2016 captured sizable "centrist" swaths, thus permitting his foul ascendence. I shall instead ask Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern how their dismissal of the Great American Middle worked out.

Worse, Ms. Kamala Harris lacks a genuine devotion to doomed progressive causes, however righteous they may be. Nonetheless, progressives are allowing themselves to be bamboozled early on. At least Bernie believed in his unrealizable promises.

Democrats. They're AWOL on Republicans' election thievery; they're shattering party unity on easy, popular issues; and now the ideological base is fawning over the most defeatable presidential candidate since Gov. Dean.

There are 1,134 days of the presidency's self-destruction to go, and Democrats appear eager to take suicidal advantage of each one.

Comments

[Anne J]

Ugh!! Tired of this fucking depressing shit! Later. I

[Peter G]

In this case I would hesitate to assign all blame to the progressives. In this case many of the Dems contributing to the current gridlock are characterized as moderates or centrists. Watching the Democrats prove the Republican's assertion that the Dems do not know how to govern is rather painful. There are a whole lot of issues sitting out there, like increasing taxes on the rich, that poll very well across the political spectrum. It would make sense to use them. But noooo.

comment failed before. This is my second try.

[PM]

I agree with you about House moderates. Then again, for progressives to sabotage the infrastructure bill if Manchin and Sinema refuse to sign on to the full 3.5 also seems foolhardy.

[Sherman]

Democrats want to govern, but are afraid to rule; Republicans are desperate to rule, but uninterested in governance. And therein lieth the problem.

[Ivory Bill Woodpecker]

[snark] But don't you understand? It's our civic duty to run around with our hair on fire, screaming "The sky is falling!", dammit! [/snark]

[Ed Doerr]

You say it in so many fewer words than I would have used. Well done.

[Peter G]

Extremely foolish it will be. So they will probably do it.