Not In These Hyper-Polarized Times
When I was growing up, Republican senators like Jacob Javits (NY), Mark Hatfield (OR), Charlies Mathias (MD), Olympia Snow (ME), Lowell Weicker (CT) and House Members like John Lindsey (NY), Peter McCloskey (CA), John Anderson (IL), Ogden Reid (NY) regularly stood up to their own Conservative Party to back progressive positions, while far right Democrats were far, far worse, from Strom Thurmond (D-SC), James Eastland (D-MS) and John Stennis (D-MS) in the Senate to Howard Smith (D-VA) and William Comer (D-MS) in the House. There were lots of others. Now they are none, beyond an occasional vote or two.
When does “but the Republican is even worse” stop becoming a viable excuse for you to vote for a Democrat despite how bad they are? I never voted for Kamala for anything— not for attorney general, not for senator, not for vice president— but Trump is so horrible that I considered doing it this year. And then… well first it was how she sucked up to Wall Street and overturned Biden’s decision to raise capital gains taxes on the super-wealthy to 39.6% and go for the much for rich-people-friendly 28%. It;’s always something with her… and it’s always bad. Yesterday, Jennifer Dlouhy and Ari Natter reported that “From stump speeches to the Democratic convention and her debate with Donald Trump, Harris has largely shied away from touting the success of Biden’s green initiatives, despite the staggering size of the private investments the policies have sparked. Her motives are clear. Fighting climate change may win voters in her home state of California. But the topic is far more divisive in natural-gas rich Pennsylvania and other states pivotal to the election. The implications go well beyond the campaign. Harris’ reluctance to make green initiatives a central platform underscores how fighting climate change still fails to resonate with many US voters, even when those efforts stimulate the economy and create thousands of jobs. That will make it difficult to marshal broad support needed from US lawmakers to take another legislative leap forward. Ultimately, the lack of political will risks leaving the nation, the world’s second-biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions, dangerously short of its net-zero goals.”
Is she really going to be any better on genocide? If I lived in Pennsylvania or Arizona, it would be a lot harder for me, but in California… I’m not voting on the lesser evil candidate. I hope Trump loses but I’m not casting a vote for her. That said, you may have noticed how aggressively negative I’ve been about some of the putrid DCCC candidates this cycle— the worst cycle for candidate quality I’ve seen since I started systematically vetting candidates in 2006. I can usually find a couple dozen House candidates I can get behind. Not this year. And some are so bad… they might as well be Republicans, like John Avlon in Suffolk County. He’s so terrible that not even the DCCC can get behind him! [UPDATE: The DCCC, true to form, added him to their Red-to-Blue shitshow today!]
And then there are Rudy Salas and Adam Gray right here in California, without Avlon, the two worst congressional Democrats running last cycle. They were the 2 worst members of the state legislature— corrupt conservatives— and then ran in blue districts in 2022 and lost, despite massive amounts of money wasted on them. The DCCC persuaded them to run again. Salas and Gray haven’t been in the legislature for a couple of years now, but there are plenty of California Democrats in California just as horrible— piles of excrement who belong in the GOP. And yesterday CBS ran a lengthy report on the topic: Why California Democrats take Big Oil money and vote against environmental laws. Right from the start the acknowledge that the Republicans are worse. “California Republicans in Congress voted against most (92%) environmental bills in the last session, even though surveys show that most of the people they represent think lawmakers should do more to prevent climate change. The oil and gas industry donated nearly three times more to Republicans than congressional Democrats in D.C., who, in contrast to Republicans, rarely voted against environmental legislation (1%). But that's in the nation's capitol where many of the environmental policies they've been debating— such as the Cap-and-Trade program, in which companies purchase permits for greenhouse gas emissions— are already state law in California. A related CBS News California investigation found a different story in California, which has long been a leader in environmental policies and is among the nation's top oil producers and refiners.”
Then the report turned to Sacranmento: “Among state lawmakers in California, we found Democrats are receiving more money from the oil industry, and Democrats in the statehouse vote with the oil industry and against environmental legislation more than a quarter of the time. When California lawmakers, especially Democrats, accept oil money or vote against seemingly climate-friendly bills, they are often criticized or accused of being beholden to the oil industry.”
They began with a Salas/Grey pal, a grotesquely corrupt conservative from eastern L.A. County, Blanca Rubio, AKA “Big Oil Blanca,” someone who should have been tossed out of the Democratic Party long ago.
Rubio was one of several Democrats targeted by a billboard campaign from the Working Families Party, criticizing Rubio— along with state Sen. Melissa Hurtado of Bakersfield and Bay Area Assemblyman Tim Grayson— for being among the Democrats who accept oil money.
All three represent counties where a recent Yale climate poll found a majority of respondents think their local officials should do more to address climate change.
…CBS News California caught up with Hurtado at the State Capitol and asked her to explain her votes.
"I'd say I'm on the same page as [my constituents]. I want to reduce carbon emissions. I am a believer of climate change," Hurtado said.
She represents Kern County, part of the largest oil-producing region in California.
"We have to think about what's going to keep our economy going; what's going to keep people employed," Hurtado said.
Oil & Gas money makes up about 3% of all of Rubio and Grayson's political donations and less than 1% of Hurtado's donations.
Capitol insiders note, however, that if any Democrat accepts oil money, all of them do because all Democratic lawmakers are expected to donate money from their individual contributions back to the Democratic caucus. As one lawmaker put it during a background conversation, “It may be washed, but oil money is funding the Democratic caucus in California.”
…California Democrats, as a party, got nearly 25% more money from the oil industry than Republicans did during this session ($443,000 to $356,000)— mostly because there are far more Democrats than Republicans in California's supermajority statehouse (93 Democrats to 26 Republicans).
California Republicans voted in alignment with the oil industry on the majority of all votes (93%) regardless of whether they received industry contributions.
Meanwhile, the Democrats who accepted oil money this session voted in alignment with the oil industry less than a quarter of the time, on average (23%).
One-third (30 out of 93) California Democrats accepted oil money this session, including state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was the only Democrat to vote against big oil on climate-related bills 100% of the time.
However, it is important to note these are just the bills that made it to a committee or the floor for a vote. Insiders stress that lobbyists can kill bills before they ever get to a recorded vote. If and when a special interest group or party leadership convinces a committee chair not to set a hearing for a controversial bill, it can die without any recorded vote or public opposition.
The oil & gas industry was far more successful on bills this session when the State Building & Construction Trade Council took an aligned position.
While the Democrats who accepted oil money this session voted against the oil industry the majority of the time, most of those same Democrats voted with the oil industry on bills where big oil teamed up with labor.
"Construction trades carry some significant weight here," said author, lobbyist, and law professor Chris Micheli, who is widely considered an expert on the inner workings of California's Capitol. He does not lobby for oil or labor.
…While some lawmakers say jobs are the driving factor when voting against climate-friendly legislation, others, like Rubio, say it's the cost of driving.
"Guess who pays the highest rates of gas?" Rubio said, referring to the price of gas in California.
Taxes and environmental programs account for nearly a quarter of the average cost per gallon in California, which, according to AAA, has the highest gas prices in the nation.
"When I vote, or withhold the vote, I make my constituents the primary focus of how I'm voting," Rubio said. "For example, the fact that we're all going electric, and there's a deadline."
Rubio points to California's controversial landmark clean car regulations, which will ban the sale of new gas-powered cars in California by 2035. Experts now say it's unlikely we’ll have the electric charging infrastructure needed to support the number of EVs that are expected in the state by the deadline.
The best republican ever was Lincoln. And he may or may not have been better than FDR, but he was better than all the rest of your Democrats and democraps.
The best republican in my memory might be Everett Dirksen. Yeah, he was far better than pretty much every democrap since 1968. He cared about the republic first and would have been sacked by proto-nazi voters had he not died in office in '69. When LBJ pussied out on prosecuting nixon for treason, he asked Dirksen to make nixon stop undermining the Paris peace talks. Cuz Dirksen cared about stuff.
He was better than every single democrap that was elected to DC since 1980. By slick willie's DLC, nobody i…
Once one learns to not take the Democrats that seriously, it gradually becomes easier.
Had Team Biden not managed to push up the initial debate to 6/27, they would have a nominee who's clearly not up to the job know and who likely won't be capable of functioning independently by 2028. It took almost a month after that fact became painfully apparent for him to finally drop out.
My wife & I watched most every Dem presidential debate in 2019-20, and we took all of them seriously. Bernie and Warren clearly stood out then as being capable of original thinking and for portaying a sense of conviction. Bernie was never going to be a Dem nominee under ANY circumstances, …