Kamala Harris Could’ve Been President, but Black People Wouldn’t Let it Happen

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

On January 20, 2019, Senator Kamala Harris entered the race for president. She had a huge campaign rally in Oakland with 20k+ attendees, which was much larger than a lot of the major candidates. She had a great start. On December 4th, she suspended her campaign due to lack of funds to continue. 

Kamala Harris was seen as the next Obama. She was the first elected official to campaign for him in Iowa in 2007. Hillary Clinton’s donors groomed her right after her historic Senate race win in 2016. She was a District Attorney, Attorney General, and a Senator in California. She had the makings of a great presidential candidate. So what happened you ask?

4 days before she entered the race, the NYT wrote a hit piece on her titled, “Kamala Harris Was Not a Progressive Prosecutor” – that was the beginning of the end. From there, she never received adequate press coverage with the exception of any negativity that was going on in her campaign. Even her much-lauded debate performance in November received little coverage. AM Joy did a panel on why Kamala wasn’t receiving the media coverage she deserved. (you know there is a problem when the media says you aren’t receiving enough coverage). Her poll numbers were low due to several factors such as name recognition, no media coverage, and her reputation as a “cop who locked Black people up.”

What I have found is that most people wrote her off from the beginning due to the fact that she was a DA. Without giving her a fair chance or actually reviewing her record, she was doomed from the jump. Amy Klobuchar was a DA too with a far more troubling record. Joe Biden wrote the crime bill and Bernie voted for it. Did they receive any negative coverage for it? NO.

Many will say her campaign was flawed. But I am here today to tell you that EVERY CAMPAIGN IS FLAWED. I believe with Trump in office and the media pushing this white savior complex since 2016, no woman or person of color will be able to win this race. 

Black people have overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden due to the fact that he markets himself as the only one who can beat Trump and he was Obama’s VP. In 2016, the fear of Trump did not win us an election and it will be the same in 2020. The treatment of Kamala Harris by Black people has by far been the worst I’ve ever seen of any candidate. Even after she dropped out, Black social media continued to drag her. They said she wasn’t the one, but maybe she would be a great AG or VP. If you criticized her record as AG of California… why would you want her to be AG for the entire country? If she isn’t good enough to be President… why is she good enough to be VP? I believe Black people have always made it harder for other Black people to succeed. 

The day after she dropped out, campaign vultures began to swarm around Kamala’s supporters and donors. Elizabeth Warren even created an ad with a picture of her and Kamala stating that Kamala was forced out of the race due to low funding and billionaires got to stay in the race and if she was president she would fix that problem. That is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen in my life. She used the demise of a Black woman to boost her own candidacy and gain her followers. That’s how America treats Black women… uses them up and throws them away.

I was deeply invested in the Kamala Harris campaign for many reasons. The main reason was because I believed in her ability to win and get things done. I believed she would have dragged Donald Trump across the debate stage and trounced him in an election. I believed in her vision for America – to uplift people instead of put them down and to speak truth. When she was on the debate stage, she was the only candidate that would bring up issues that directly related to Black people. That will now be gone forever as there are no Black candidates able to qualify for the debates. Her impact was felt as you have seen in the days following her announcement to drop out.

She has received more media coverage in the days following her exit from the race then she ever has. It’s a sad state of affairs. 

Similar Read: The Demise of Kamala Harris – the Good, the Bad, and What’s Next 

The Demise of Kamala Harris – the Good, the Bad, and What’s Next

by with 3 Comments FeaturedPolitics

Kamala Harris suspended her campaign (12/3) just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times ironically wrote a devastating article about her campaign just a few days before she made the disappointing announcement to drop out of the race. To add insult to injury, one of her former aides, Kelly Mehlanbacker wrote a damning resignation letter than somehow leaked to the media. Mehlanbacher mentioned that “while she no longer had confidence in the campaign or its leadership,” she still felt that Senator Harris was the strongest candidate to win the General Election 2020. So strong that she ended up joining Bloomberg’s campaign right around the time her letter leaked. Hardly a coincidence. 

How did we get here?

When a Black woman makes the decision to run for any political office in America I believe she does so with a certain level of understanding that is unique and quite different than her White counterparts. Kamala Harris had never lost a race – only the second Black woman in US history to be elected to the US Senate. It’s fair to say she has successfully calculated political and personal risk time and time again, faced immeasurable odds, and won.

But ask any presidential historian, and they’ll quickly tell you that nothing can prepare you for a presidential run.

Did Senator Harris have to deal with racism AND sexism? Of course. Could she have also run a better campaign? The answer to that question, unfortunately, is YES as well. However, that second question quasi-argument, which seems to be of major debate amongst liberals, becomes a moot point when you consider the fact that EVERY candidate in the race has also made strategy mistakes in regard to their campaign, especially the front runners, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. (If we agree with that, then why was she being held to a different standard and penalized more than them?)

Factor in the mainstream media and it’s inevitable huge role in national elections… they purposely erased her from polls, allowed other campaigns to steal her slogans AND data without holding them accountable, refused to interview her in primetime slots on issues relative to 2020 (healthcare, immigration, trade, etc), and wrote article after article focusing solely on controversies, hearsay, and the negatives of her career as an elected official. Such attacks are hard to counter, and eventually, it’s too much and you’re left with no other decision but to exit the race.

The Good: While Kamala Harris is suspending her campaign, it’s plausible to accept the moral argument that she picked up the torch Shirley Chisholm (1972) and Carol Moseley Braun (2004) dropped and carried it further down the political path for Black women who will come after her and run for Commander-in-Chief. That’s important and should not be overlooked. While this is the first time she’s ever lost a race, she is still politically young. If she chooses to run for president again, she has the time and now the experience to tweak her strategy and message. Hillary Clinton, Biden, Romney, as well as most presidential candidates, also lost their first bid for the White House. While her supporters might not be in favor of her taking a cabinet position for Biden, I mean whoever the presumptive Democrat nominee is, maybe Vice President, AG, or Secretary of State, it’ll give her the inevitable experience and exposure needed in case she does plan to run for president in the future.

The Bad: The critiques for Senator Harris were many, and came from all directions. Many point to her initial statements and mishaps on her healthcare plan, her record as a DA in California, even allegations of her having an affair with Willie Brown, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly at the time when she was 30 and he was 60. While many applauded her brilliant performance in the second debate, they cringed at her not so good performance in the next debate highlighted by Tulsi Gabbard attacking her criminal justice record in California. Gabbard telegraphed her attack a week prior to the debate and Senator Harris was still not prepared. Rumblings of strategy missteps, turmoil within, and inconsistent messaging didn’t help her campaign.

What’s Next: With Kamala dropping out of the race, and neither Corey Booker or Julian Castro having qualified for the next debate, there will be no people of color on the Democratic debate stage next week. For a party that can’t do anything without the support and backing of their diverse base, that says a lot. You’ll have mumbling Joe Biden, whose latest gaffe includes talking about kids touching his hairy legs in a pool, Pete Buttigieg, who literally drops the ball every time he’s asked about race and is currently polling at 0% with Black voters, and Bernie Sanders, who thinks that if Black men just respected the police they wouldn’t get shot in the head. All of these men have been given the benefit of the doubt, time and time again. No obituary articles and plenty of primetime interviews with softball questions. A spade is a spade, Kamala wasn’t afforded the same luxury or grace.

Against all odds, campaigns are tough and candidates make mistakes… let’s see how she does the next time around, I’m sure she’ll be back.

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust?

My Summary of the 5th Dem Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedPoliticsRace Relations

MSNBC/WaPo should be banned from hosting debates. Too many of the questions were centered on Trump’s personality. That shouldn’t be the focus of the questions for a presidential debate, but talking about DT has been excellent for MSNBC’s ratings. DT has especially helped Rachel Maddow’s career.

The debates took place in Atlanta, at Tyler Perry Studios. Buttigieg’s camp just had a week of race-related issues and the only people who got questions concerning race were Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. ? Yang’s response was spot on though. 

Warren – She’s good when she’s prepared to answer non-surprise questions so this performance wasn’t bad for her. I appreciated that her responses were more specific than most of the other candidates’ responses. At one point she said: “And in the first 100 days, I want to bring in 135 million people into Medicare For All at no cost to them. Everybody under the age of 18, everybody who has a family of four income less than $50,000. I want to lower the age of Medicare to 50 and expand Medicare coverage to include vision and dental and long-term care.” This doesn’t sound too different from what is available now through the ACA. ?

Booker questioned Warren’s wealth tax much like Yang did in the last debate. Booker had a great night. I’m miffed that the media puts so much glory on Buttigieg, the Rhodes Scholar, when Booker is ALSO a Rhodes Scholar. I’m glad Booker let people know! ??

Buttigieg – If I weren’t following the race and only saw this debate, I might think Buttigieg was great. He claims the progressive title but he totally isn’t. He has a lot of big money backing him. The moderators favored him so much that instead of addressing him on his manufactured Black endorsements, people from his camp using stock images of Kenyans to show Black support, and being dismissive of his own constituents in South Bend – they tried to bait Kamala to attack him. Kamala didn’t take the bait. I wonder if she didn’t because she thought that if he were to win the nomination he’d seek her out as his VP since she’s a Black woman and he polls at 0% with Black voters. The moderators were really SOFT on him.

Gabbard went after him, but I doubt her attack will affect his polling numbers. He’s a big-money establishment candidate. She is not.

Harris came into the debates with planned statements. Not once did she answer a question. LOL, She’s very evasive. She also seems to get a thrill out of criticising people. I think she’d make a horrible Commander in Chief. A leader who gets off in criticizing others isn’t a good thing. We already have that!

Neither Harris nor Biden could respond to how they could get Republicans to work with them. I think that says a lot.

I’d feel so badly for the person put in charge of typing up the transcript of a Biden vs Trump debate. ?

Klobuchar – She brings absolutely nothing new to the table. She’s a younger Biden in a dress.

Steyer annoyed me. He also isn’t offering anything new but he thinks he is. He also kept saying he’s the only candidate talking about term limits. He’s wrong. Yang has been talking about term limits too. In fact, Yang is for 12-year Congressional term limits and 18-year Supreme Court justice term limits.

Yang made the most out of the little time he was given. He isn’t the establishment and is obviously not an MSNBC/WaPo favorite. All his answers were substantive and teachable moments. Who knew the only other country without paid family leave for new mothers was Papua New Guinea? What other candidate has concluded that we should have a WTO, but for data (new world data organization) and that this would get Russia to the table and make it so they have to join the international community and stop resisting appeals to the world order?

Sanders offers great teachable moments too. He’s the best at revealing the country’s problems and realities.

Similar Read: Who Did Well in the 4th Debate… Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg? 

Why Deval?

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

A new candidate has entered the Democratic primary for president. His name is Deval Patrick. A Chicago native, Patrick is notably a close friend of former President Barack Obama. While the Democratic Party primary is open to any candidate, there are already over 15 candidates still in the race. Thus, the question becomes why Deval and why now? One can only imagine that he has entered the race because the other candidates are dismal or he has entered because he believes he has the best chance at securing the Democratic nomination next year. We should also consider that Duval chose to enter the race rather than endorse one of the current candidates.

His entry into the Democratic primary for president leads some to believe that he doesn’t think any of the other candidates can secure the nomination. But why would he think this if there are viable candidates in the race, which includes two US senators, a former vice president, a former cabinet official from the last president, a congresswoman and other business people?

We must also examine if the Democratic Party put Patrick up to run for president. Is the Democratic Party so insecure that they would be willing to pull a Hail Mary, or find an “elite” candidate for whom big donors would be pleased? Patrick literally filed to run in the New Hampshire primary on Thursday (11/14) and will foreseeably continue throughout the rest of this campaign cycle. While he is a former governor of the state of Massachusetts and a seasoned statesman, his entry this late in the Democratic primary for President of the United States should raise some eyebrows. But alas, Patrick is not alone.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also said that he is considering entering the primary. Again one has to question, why? And one has to question, why so late? Many of the candidates who are actively running for president entered the race early this year. They have campaign offices and they’ve hired campaign staffs. These are not things that Patrick or other new entrants cannot do, but momentum is towards those who have been in the race longer. Or is it? Could it be the reason Patrick has entered and Bloomberg is considering entering the race is the current field of candidates is dismal? Patrick’s entry and Bloomberg’s question about entering says more about the Democratic Party then it does them. It also shows that the primary next year will be a tough race and the base consolidation that will have to be done after the candidate is decided will be even tougher. The Democratic Party can only hope that with all the candidates that are in the race the party will be able to unify behind the candidate who wins the primary. 

Similar Read: Bloomberg’s Move to Clear the Field

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia. 

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. 

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red. 

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Beto’s Stance on Guns and Churches Proved To Be Too Much For Liberals

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Beto O’Rourke ended his campaign for Democratic presidential nominee last week. His run to win the nomination was a disappointment to say the least. Despite gracing the cover of Vanity Fair and tons of media coverage, he never did well enough in the debates to garner enough national support. His appeal in Texas, which was enough to make his 2018 Senate race against Republican Ted Cruz closer than anyone could imagine, never resonated on the national stage in regard to his presidential candidacy.

There’s probably a number of reasons why Beto was forced to end his race, but his stance on two issues, in particular, missed the mark and were probably the final straw for potential voters and donors.

Issue #1: GUNS

Very few reasonable lawmakers or voters on either side of the aisle will argue that we don’t have a gun violence issue in America. But the reasons why the issue exists and the solutions to fix it are all over the place. Beto proposed a mandatory gun buyback program for all AK-47s and AR-15s. It’s important to note that even liberals love their guns. While some applauded his bold proposal, it didn’t fall in line with Congressional Democrats and their goals for gun reform. In fact, Senate Democrats want nothing to do with mandatory buyback programs.

“I don’t know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O’Rourke, but it’s no excuse not to go forward.” – Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

In other words, if you want to commit political suicide, go right ahead… you will get no support in these congressional halls.

Issues #2: CHURCHES

In an “LGBTQ Equality” town hall on CNN, Beto called for all religious institutions to lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage. Whether you believe in the true separation of Church and State, similar to guns, this was a mile too far. Upholding and protecting the rights and equality of every American is paramount, but forcing churches to get on board by threatening to remove their tax-exempt status might’ve even been too much for the left, mainly Democrats, who are the main party trying to make sure same-sex marriage is protected and upheld.

While Beto’s exit from the race for Democratic presidential nominee shouldn’t deter future candidates from proposing big and bold ideas, it should make them consider the details of such ideas and how best to roll them out. 

Similar Read: Who Did Well in the 4th Dem Debate… Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg?  

If I Was Your Son, What Advice Would You Give Me Next Time I’m Pulled Over By a Police Officer?

by with 3 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

Scene: Presidential Justice Forum at Benedict College, an HBCU – Historically Black College & University, in South Carolina (the actual forum itself is worth a deeper discussion than this post)

Black student: “If I was your son, what advice would you give me next time I’m pulled over by a police officer?”

(The question stumped Bernie and he asked the student to repeat the question)

Bernie Sanders: “I would do my best to identify who that police officer is in a polite way, ask him or her for their name. I would respect what they are doing so that you don’t get shot in the back of the head.”

It’s important to note that Bernie agreed to do this forum about criminal justice at an HBCU. This wasn’t a hot mic walking out of a congressional hearing or another event following a traumatic incident of police brutality. Did he not expect to get asked a question about criminal justice and its impact on African-Americans at this event? Regardless, that’s the best answer he could come up with?

Unacceptable.

That response is beyond troubling because Bernie is basically implying that the only reason Black men get shot by the police is because they’re not respectful, and if they would just be respectful then they wouldn’t get shot and killed. We don’t have to dive deep into history to know that this is a false narrative often pushed by media, ignorant and racist pundits, and a narrative clearly perpetuated by one, if not more than one, presidential candidate.

Sean King and Nina Turner, prominent Black social and political supporters and voices in his corner, and he was still ill-prepared to answer such a question. It’s embarrassing and likely disqualifying for many millennials of color.

Will he win the nomination? Who knows. If I was a gambler I’d say Biden will win because he’s atop of the polls and appears to be the safe choice, for both White women and older Black voters. But Bernie has consistently been a top-3 candidate from the beginning, and whether he is or not, it’s not reassuring to know that the potential Commander-in-Chief thinks police brutality is a byproduct of victims being disrespectful.

Race, a tough topic that has stumped many of the Democratic candidates, can’t be brushed aside considering these candidates simply can’t win without minorities turning out in droves to vote for them. Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, they’ve all struggled when dealing with issues and direct questions about race, and this is yet another unacceptable-disqualifying example.

Democratic presidential candidates… do better. 

Who Did Well in the 4th Dem Debate… Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg?

by with 4 Comments FeaturedPolitics

My thoughts…

Buttigieg – He expresses himself well but everything about him seems so contrived. Why does he seem so disingenuous to me? He seems like someone who talks over people. I can see how some people might view him as the winner of this debate. I didn’t.

Biden – I wonder if he can respond to a question without saying “Look” and pointing his finger at people. I really hate that. Every response he gave was horrible plus he was patronizing to Warren.

Warren – How she shaded Biden after the patronizing was great ??! Problem with her is that she is vague. She isn’t a straight-shooter when responding to questions and when she’s taken by surprise she gets flustered and grabs her notes. I can’t see how anyone would think she won this debate.

Booker – I’ve either gotten used to his theatrics or he’s toned them down a bit. He made some good points but my takeaways are that he lives in an area with gun violence and he’s a vegan.

Beto – He had to remind us that he can speak Spanish. He couldn’t answer the simple gun question. I think he’s hurting his chances of running for Senate in Texas.

Steyer – It was his first time hitting the stage. He didn’t do badly but I hate the fact that he essentially bought his way onto the stage.

Tulsi – She tripped up Warren as expected. Her interaction with Buttigieg was interesting too. But Buttigieg expresses himself more convincingly even when he might be wrong.

Yang – His best debate performance to date. The post-debate interviews allowed him to get a little more in for people who aren’t familiar with his platform, but I loved how at the end he invited everyone to his website on Friday where he will be answering questions from all tuned-in Americans for 10 straight hours. Brilliant. #AskYang #AskYangAnything #AskAndrew

Bernie – I can’t say I’m a fan of his but I feel like he won the debate. What a way to come back after having a heart attack and the death of his daughter-in-law these past two weeks!

Harris – Lost. It was a huge waste of time when she started pressing Warren on booting Trump off Twitter.

Klobuchar – She was able to get a lot of talking time.

Castro – I think this was his weakest performance to date. I’m glad he stopped attacking people based on their age.

1. Sanders
2. Yang
3. Buttigieg 

Do you agree?

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust? 

Syria Will Be Part of Trump’s Legacy – But History’s Judgement Is Still Unclear

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

The president’s pullout of Syria is essentially an effort to force an end not only to our engagement in the area, but also to the basic credibility of the neoconservative worldview- as well as efforts in the future to shape global democracy and influence world order. There are plenty of Republicans who see this approach as heresy, and there are plenty of Democrats and media outlets who relish the blood-on-blood infighting to come (and who will strangely express their outrage at a decision they would have lauded once merely because the opposite of the administration’s policy is their policy), but the reality is much more nuanced.

On the surface, the president’s motivation is driven by polling. Our commander in chief is a populist at his core- not an idealist.  Most Americans (many in both parties) don’t favor extending the war in Syria. This is quite simply because we aren’t able to do what it takes to win. Assad’s forces are backed by Russia; there’s no way to build real stability in the region without a heavier hand than we are willing to take or through regime change, and there seems to be no way to force regime change short of open war with Russia. Further, as China increasingly begins to flex in the pacific and begins to highlight our “meddling in the affairs of others” -including Syria- as China launches their own massive campaign for development, seeking access to the natural resources of sub-Saharan Africa, the president is mindful that it’s from China where we face the greatest long term security threat, and it’s China who benefits most from our distraction to a protracted entanglement with Syria and Russia. Further, while the timing of Iran was the president’s doing, it’s also clear that they are a much greater threat to global security in the near term. Our security interest in Syria is that someone accountable to the UN controls and regulates the area- whether it be Turkey or the US, either will make certain that it isn’t ISIS. We really can only do so much.

But that’s only part of the story. Turkey’s interest in Syria isn’t focused first on restoring peace to Syrians. The Kurdish forces we have used since the beginning of the war in Iraq have fought with us because they are a people without a land. Spread throughout Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, this proud, ethnic population descended of Saladin is at odds with each of those nations as they seek to restore some autonomy. They have been capable allies because they have more than 1,000 years of history fighting for their own survival. Walking away from them when we are done will be a public betrayal that the Chinese and Russians will hold up as the true nature of “American Imperialism.” They will say that Americans come with high ideals, but leave when it’s no longer convenient. To Bush-era neoconservatives, it’s unthinkable; to Trump and his “America First” agenda, it’s a way to cross the bridge back from nation-building and burn it behind him.

In the long term, this may be the better move. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq, and increasingly the people of Afghanistan have come to realize that Americans come and Americans go. If we fool no one, and if we do really lack the resolve (and quite possibly the ability) to build regimes and promote democracy in the aftermath of conflict, then it is possible that the sooner we go the better. This may also help us usher in a day when America accepts that it is no longer the sole global hegemon and must share global military and economic influence with both China and Russia once again. If pulling back now gives them space we would have needed to cede eventually through direct conflict, it may increase stability in the long term also.

But in the short term, it’s a lot of bad taste. To those who can’t bear to see America as anything but a beacon of light that can dictate the ways of the world, it looks like a retreat. To those focused first on human rights, it’s a turnover of power to another heavy-handed imperial force that will bring another wave of increased violence before it can hope to bring local stability. While the president’s motivation may be no deeper than extending a political olive branch to a growing, centrist plurality of the American public focused on their own economy, anxious to make a trade deal in China and not willing to subsidize stability of the Kurdish population (so long as there’s someone on the ground containing ISIS), if America is a truly is a shrinking power, in 50 years this may be seen as a thoughtful and pragmatic preservation of resources. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Dems Can Learn From the Patriots… “On to Milwaukee”

by with No Comment FeaturedPoliticsSports

I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase “We’re on to Cincinnati.” This was the famous line used by New England Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick during a Monday Night Football postgame conference. He used the phrase after the New England Patriots were blown out by the Kansas City Chiefs (not those Chiefs with Patrick Mahomes) 41-14, and fell to 2-2 in the early 2014 season.

The reason behind the phrase, and Bill Belichick’s entire coaching style for that matter, was that the loss was not due to the Chiefs, but due to the Patriots. “On to Cincinnati” was his way of saying… look we got blown out, we’ll adjust, it’s on to the next game to do what we do best… win.

The Patriots would hold true to that and beat the tiger stripes off the Cincinnati Bengals… 43-17. And oh, that Bengals team went to the playoffs the year prior and the same 2014 season the Patriots beat them. 

You see, the secret sauce to the Patriots success is their relentless discipline to only focus on one opponent at one time. And each opponent is analyzed with the same mindset that they can beat the Patriots. In other words, the Patriots focus on their own strengths against the weakness of their opponents… in order to beat them. 

2020 Presidential Election… 

At the time of this writing (October 2019), there are more legit Democratic candidates than teams in the NCAA tournament! And though there are many candidates… they all have the same mindset…

DEFEAT TRUMP! 

The same mindset… from the useless impeachment orchestrated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to each and every Democratic candidate during debates using Trump as their rally call to gain an edge against their opponents. 

We know Trump is terrible, so what… his base is MORE entrenched now than they were in 2016. Which means that if a lackluster candidate wins the nomination for the Democratic Party… you’re looking at a close night come Tuesday, November 3rd 2020. 

So what’s the answer? Go to Milwaukee and double down on bold clear agendas on why a Democratic president is needed moving forward. No matter who it is, the policies are what matter. That’s the Patriots way. That’s why they went 3-1 without Tom Brady and 11-5 overall him during their 2016 Super Bowl Season. Because for the Patriots… opponents don’t matter… THEY DO. 

So go to Milwaukee Dems. Make bold declarations that the Democrats along with its newly elected president will be bold on the environment, be bold on fixing immigration, full legalization of marijuana, universal healthcare, and so on.  

Make the race about principles over (Trump) the person, because the current way isn’t working. Dems need to go to Milwaukee and plan to win in November 2020. The Patriots are great because they focus on one team and one game at a time. Despite starting the 2014 season 2-2, the “on to Cincinnati” Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. And Dems can do the same. 

Similar Read: The Language of the Soul: The Power of Sports