NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: How To Win Back The White House In 2020 (and Congress in 2018)

No explanation necessary as to what this place is. Photo courtesy of nbcwashington.com

 

THE STRATEGIES I WOULD TAKE IF I WERE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, THE SENATE, OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

I have recently realized that I haven’t written about politics on this blog for a while.

After observing what our President-who-will-continue-to-not-be-named and his people have been up to these past eight months, with his approval ratings remaining at the lowest of any commander-in-chief,

It surprises me that no one from the Democrats has talked about strategies regarding how to take Capitol Hill and the White House back in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I don’t pretend to be an absolute expert in politics, and I’m aware that it would be a bit more complicated, but here is what I would do if I were running for the Senate or the House in next year’s midterm elections;

Or more importantly, the presidency in three years, where the way things are going, it would mark a GOLDEN opportunity to tell President You-Know-Who two words that he has told many people on that reality show of his…

“YOU’RE FIRED!”

 

ONE OF THE ULTIMATE GOALS: To see a lot less of this…

 

1. HIT THE MIDWESTERN/RUST BELT STATES AND HIT THEM HARD.

The reason why our President-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is sitting in the Oval Office?

The states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Having been blue (going for Democrats) for over thirty years, it was their voters switching to You-Know-Who and turning their states red that was the difference last November.

Which I will always say was completely Hillary Clinton’s fault, as she completely took those states for granted; former President Barack Obama (I’m quite proud to mention his name!) said that while he took twelve trips to Michigan to campaign for the former First Lady and Secretary of State, she didn’t make one appearance.

This is why I’ve said that You-Know-Who did not win the 2016 election; Hillary lost it.

I would not make that same mistake!

To say that I would have a constant presence in those three states – plus Ohio, as that’s always been and will always be a crucial swing state – would be an understatement as I would have campaign office in as many cities as possible and hold rallies and town hall meetings in cities such as Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Columbus so often that people would get tired of me.

I would also sent folks such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to those states, particularly hitting the smaller towns (as would I).

Those folks need to know that the Democrats are for them, which they didn’t feel in 2016.

Which is why they went for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

 

2. BORROW A CAMPAIGN PHRASE THAT WORKED FOR A ICONIC CONSERVATIVE IN 1980

I remember Ronald Reagan, during his campaign for President in 1980 amongst crises like inflation, the gas shortage, and those 44 hostages being held in Iran, saying something like this during a commercial,

“Are you better off now than you were four years ago (or two years ago if I was running for Congress)?”

“Do you have a secure job with benefits?”

Do you have solid healthcare?”

“If so, then feel free to vote for my worthy candidate. “

“If not…”
(I’ll let you figure out the rest)

With tensions between the U.S. and North Korea at its highest in 65 years, You-Know-Who and Kim Jong Un threatening to nuke each other’s countries,

And with the homeless issue now at a crisis, tensions between the different races and ethnic groups at an all-time low, and employment not greatly improving among other things,

It’s safe to say that for the working class folks in particular who supported our President-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in droves,

Things are not any better for them personally then they were when he took the Oath of Office last January.

Which is why I would state the phrase “Are you better off now than…” every chance I got; every campaign rally, every town hall meeting, every debate.

 

3. VOW TO CUT TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS – AND PROVIDE JOBS

This is for all those who tend to vote Republican because they hate being taxed.

Cutting taxes for people and families making (just throwing numbers out there; it’s obviously something that would have to be worked out) between $50,000 – $200,000 would rebuild a middle class that has been all but eliminated.

It would do wonders for the economy as such folks would have more money to spend.

And yes, taxes on those who can easily afford it – millionaires and billionaires – would be raised, with a list on what those funds would be spent on: Infrastructure, education, programs to “teach a man how to fish” rather than “give a man a fish”, to coin a Chinese saying.

As for providing jobs, which was a huge issue in the last campaign…

I haven’t seen any news saying that loads of people have gained employment since You-Know-Who took office.

I would hammer home that unlike him, I would fulfill that promise by providing programs to re-educate the working class, so rather than depending on steel mills and coal mines to provide them a living, they could do other things.

Plus I would fight to keep auto factories – and other factories – from moving overseas.

 

 

The skyline of Detroit, Michigan, a KEY state which the Democrats MUST take back. Photo courtesy of detroitunderground.com

 

Yes, these strategies seem simple.

But I still say that any Democrat with aspirations for the White House or Capitol Hill,

Who uses these tactics,

Would have a good chance of winning in 2018 or 2020.

 

An anti You-Know-Who protest after last November’s elections…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

A FEW THOUGHTS ON AMERICA’S NEW REGIME AND THE REACTIONS OF SUCH

20140616-whitehouse-exterior-sl-1454_5c57a317bef2495f30ebf48a314ac6f3-nbcnews-fp-1200-800

The home base of the new leader of the free world. Photo courtesy of nbcnews.com

 

The many marches that took place not only in every major city in these United States, but throughout this planet, in light of the inauguration of this country’s new president – I absolutely refuse to write his name in this post and on this site; this will be my policy throughout his administration,

Was, to state the obvious, a HUMONGOUS reaction to what everyone who is not white, conservative, Christian, male, straight, or a combination of the five is fearing may happen now that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (to borrow a phrase from Harry Potter) and his right-wing cronies are in power.

I think it’s great that millions of folks have marched in protest of our new president and the now ruling far right conservative’s views, policies and plans. If it were not for the fact that I can’t take huge crowds for too long before I get a sense of being straitjacketed, I would have been at the Los Angeles march.

I also think it’s very cool that different groups, organizations and states like my California are planning to stand up to and resist the policies that You-Know-Who is planning to, and has already started setting the motion to, implement such as deporting all eleven million (so-called) illegal immigrants and repealing now-former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act.

 

web1_dc-womens-march_012117ev_017_7826297

A scene from the Women’s March on Washington. Photo courtesy of reviewjournal.com

 

However, as I was reading about all the marches and checking out the photos of celebrities and others taking a stand against You-Know-Who, I couldn’t help thinking this…

No matter how many women’s marches, or any other kind of marches for that matter, that are put on, I really don’t think our new President-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named or any of his people will care, simply because he and his followers don’t care about anyone who is not a Caucasian of European descent, a Christian, a conservative, a female whose views are not conservative, or a heterosexual.

Or any combination of those five descriptions.

I truly don’t see him or any of his people backing off implementing their plans and keeping all the programs and policies that Obama enacted.

Especially since You-Know-Who has a right wing Republican Congress, meaning that he’ll have an easier time getting his agenda passed and implanted than Obama did.

There is one thing that’s foremost in my mind as this Second Cultural & Ideological (Cold) Civil War has gotten a bit hotter…

Despite everything, it’s my hope and prayer that our new Commander-In-Chief does NOT get impeached or assassinated.

The reason?

Our new Vice-President-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (I likewise refuse to write his name in this article or on this site) is worse!

As is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who by law is third in line to the Presidency and whose name I won’t mention either!

I was told by some of my friends on social media to give this new president of ours a chance, but you know what?

I’m counting the days until the 2018 midterm elections, which judging by the massive protests will spell the end of the terms of many conservatives in the Senate, the House, and among the various governors and other state officials.

 

signs-feature-994x559

Check out all the signs from the Women’s March on Washington. Photo courtesy of Washingtonian.com

 

I also have a prediction:

Our New President-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and his administration will be in power for only one term.

By 2020, not only will folks be SO fed up with him and his people, but those who voted for him because of his promises of returning jobs will feel betrayed.

Which is why whoever is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination must be SO spectacular, You-Know-Who would lose in a massive landslide like Walter Mondale did to Ronald Reagan in 1984.

I certainly hope we as a nation can survive four years of this new Commander-In-Chief-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

I reckon if we can get through eight years of Reagan and twelve years of Bushes Sr. and Jr.,

I’m fairly confident that those who were so devastated by the recent election can survive four years of You-Know-Who.

 

Thousands of people march from MacArthur Park to the Edward Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles during a "Not my President" Anti-Trump protest march and rally in Los Angeles on Saturday, November 12, 2016. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Thousands of people march from MacArthur Park to the Edward Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles during a “Not my President” Anti-Trump protest march and rally in Los Angeles on Saturday, November 12, 2016. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Orange County Register/SCNG)

 

 

 

 

The REAL Reason Why You Should Never Vote For Those Advocating Cuts For The Poor

01-29-14-poverty

 

THIS SHOULD SERVE AS A MESSAGE TO THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO SCREAM TO THE POOR, “PULL YOURSELVES UP BY YOUR OWN BOOTSTRAPS!”, WHEN SUCH POOR HAVE NEITHER BOOTS NOR STRAPS

 

Ever since the days of Ronald Reagan the conservatives in this country, particularly the far right – which has ruled the Republican Party for roughly eight decades, dating back to Hebert Hoover and the Great Depression – have called for and enacted policies that have served to do nothing but devastate the poor and less fortunate.

These devastations have come in the form of tax breaks for the super rich and cuts in safety net programs, which has increased joblessness and homelessness.

I have personally noticed this in the town I grew up in, Santa Monica, CA, in the 1980s when not too long after Reagan was inaugurated President in 1981, Palisades Park, an iconic stretch of grass which overlooks the Pacific Ocean and offers spectacular views of Malibu to the north and the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the south on a clear day, became inundated with the displaced as Palisades Park became a tent and sleeping bag city.

I also noticed increasing numbers of panhandlers hanging around various blocks.

Far right conservatives will tell you that those who are in that situation are themselves at fault for making bad decisions are not taking personal responsibility.

Or if they became poor and/or homeless through no fault of their own – such as being laid off from their jobs – those “Far Rights” would usually say that they are not working hard enough to rectify their situation; why should those who have the means subsidize those who don’t through tax raises, which in the Far Rights’ eyes serve as nothing but a free, welfare handout which encourages laziness?

I’ll tell you why…

BECAUSE THE BIBLE, WHICH THESE FAR RIGHTS HOLD SO DEAR AND REFER TO EVERY CHANCE THEY GET, SAYS SO.

Check out what Jesus said to the rich man who asked him what should he do to have eternal life:

“Go and sell everything you have, and give the money to the poor; and you shall have treasure in Heaven; and then come, follow me…It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to ever the Kingdom of God.”   – Matthew 19:21, 24

And in Acts, here’s how the Apostles set up the first church after Jesus’ ascension:

“All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.”  – Acts 2:44-45

Sounds a lot more like Karl Marx’ philosophies than anything that John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh would advocate.

In fact, when you go by these quotes from Matthew and the Acts, you can make a convincing argument that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, was the world’s first Socialist.

While studying the Bible, which I have doing quite a bit of lately, I came upon some quotes from the Book of Proverbs that overwhelmingly seals the argument of how to treat the poor and what God thinks of those with the means who don’t – or directly hurt them due to budget cuts or changes in policy, i.e., Far Right Republicans…

“Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.”   – Proverbs 14:31

“Mocking the poor (which I’ve seen a lot of people do online and elsewhere in the form of taunts such as “Get a Job!” and other things)  is mocking God who made them. He will punish those who rejoice at other’s misfortunes”  – Proverbs 17:5

“When you help the poor you are lending to the Lord – and he pays wonderful interest on your loan!”  – Proverbs 19:17

“He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.”  – Proverbs 21:13

“Giving preferred treatment to rich people (i.e., tax cuts, tax loopholes and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or the “1%”) is a clear case of selling one’s soul for a piece of land.”  – Proverbs 28:21

Sure, there are plenty of folks who would state another quote from Jesus that appears in the books of Matthew, Mark and John, “The poor you will always have with you…”   which in their interpretation means that the government is wasting their time helping the less fortunate because poverty will never be completely eradicated, and those less fortunate are better off helping themselves because that’s what America is all about – independence and self-reliance.

To those Far Rights who point that out, I say, “Does the government have to contribute to the plight of the poor, make things harder by taking away their safety nets, as you seem to want to do?”

In my book, those who advocate budget cuts and policy changes that will hurt the less fortunate can be described in two words:

Heartless.

and Mean.

Nowadays I often wonder what will Far Rights – those in and out of government – people say when they die and God tells them that they have to answer for their beliefs and practices concerning all of this, God saying,

“You were in favor of cuts and policies that did nothing but make my children suffer. What do you have to say for yourself?”

One thing is for certain at the end of the day…

Anyone who takes a position of being in favor of policies that help the poor, the homeless, and otherwise less fortunate should never, EVER vote for anyone in the Republican Party.

The reason? Because based on what too many of them have said and advocated, it is crystal clear that they do not care about those who are “down on their luck”; at least to the point where they are willing to leave programs that help such – Medicare, Social Security, Welfare – alone.

Those “Hoovervilles” that were all over the landscape in the 1930s are certainly evidence of that, as well as the many domestic cuts that Reagan enacted in the 80s; the increase in homeless during that time was a direct effect of that.

I’ve spoken enough about this subject, as I don’t want to get myself riled up over the thoughts of these policy makers in the now-Republican-majority Congress that want to screw the less fortunate over by the changes they want to make.

God Bless…

 

 

homeless-poor-american-family1

If those right wingers in Congress get their way, we’ll see a lot more of this