I learn from my critics.
Yesterday I wrote that I welcomed additional candidates filing for the Democratic nomination for president. |
| Biden in Portland, April 2022 |
Democratic critics help me understand the self-destructive behavior of Republicans who are riding the Trump train over a cliff.
One reader said my observations on Biden made me a backstabber, sore loser, and Trump-ish.
The haters and backstabbers are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by constantly tearing down Joe Biden, which you have been doing since the last presidential campaign. You sound like a big sore loser, who still can't get over the fact that Joe Biden won. So you have something in common with the Orange Traitor, whose political skills you perversely admire.I was "racist," too. I had written:
Biden's team was too clever by half. They arranged to make South Carolina, not New Hampshire, the first primary state for Democrats. The DNC used the cover of saying it was to empower Black voters. Everyone knows the real reason. It protected Biden. Lock up the nomination with South Carolina Black voters before someone catches fire in New Hampshire.
That reader said of this:
The comment about South Carolina sounds like a racist rant.Another reader told me to "support the team" and that "dissing and booing your own team is very low down."
I am grateful to these critics.
Regular readers know I have been disappointed with "normal Republicans." These are people who know better, but who go along with Trump anyway. These are people who disapprove of Trump's shameless behavior but turn a blind eye to it. Trump's unfitness is apparent to at least 60% of American voters, but they stay on their team. Why? Republican partisans enforce team loyalty. Acknowledge Trump lost in 2020 and expect to be called a RINO.
Biden's age is no secret. It bothers voters. Democrats are risking the 2024 election on two "maybes." Maybe Trump will be the GOP nominee. They better hope so. The second is that some Biden health event -- the flu, a stumble, a moment of public confusion -- won't happen in the next 17 months and irrevocably spook voters. Pointing out that risk draws objection from the loyalty police.
South Carolina saved Biden's 2020 primary campaign. It is no secret that in the polarized racial party line-ups in the American South, South Carolina Democrats are majority Black. It is not possible to un-see this reality. But to acknowledge the racial skew in Biden's support threatens Biden's overall credibility and somehow diminishes Black voters. Democratic thought police must squash that with the nuclear bomb of political argument, calling it a "racist rant."
That shuts down discussion about the implications of moving up the date of the South Carolina primary Some people would argue that it shows Biden at his best, his having used brute force to bend circumstances to his will. It is what strong leaders do. But on balance I think Biden would have been better off showing he could win contested elections against a credible opponent without having stacked the deck. What is the better approach? Where does Biden do best? Don't talk about it lest the Democratic loyalty police cry "racist.""Racist!" is the Democratic version of "RINO!"
 |
| Stump speech: Iowa, August, 2019 |
 |
| Stump speech: New Hampshire, September, 2019 |
Disclosure: My wife and I have each maxed out on our legal contributions to Biden 2024, per this fec.gov report, and we have each given additional contributions to Senators Wyden and Merkley, which indirectly give Biden yet more support. We also give to state and local candidates.
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
22 comments:
I love Joe, but I think most Democrats fear his age will put off a lot of voters. He'll be 82 in a couple of years and, if he wins, will be 86 by the end of his term. How effective can an 82-86 guy be? Trump will certainly point that out. How good will he be in a debate? I fear not so good.
I would like to see Biden acknowledge that he's just too old and let someone else carry the torch. There are lots of good Democrats in the wings who just need a chance. I pointed out Jon Tester yesterday, but there are others. Let's see who they are.
PS.I read that Trump doesn't want to do any more debates. I wonder why.
What the anonymous commentor Peter quoted demonstrates is that we have mindless zealots on both sides of the political spectrum. Republicans just have more of them and they tend to be a lot crazier. There is nothing on the left comparable to the denial of reality we see from the majority of Republicans.
Now we are self-destructive, like Ultra MAGA and other Republicans. You couldn't possibly be wrong, right?
I see you are still avoiding the subject of Vice President Kamala Harris. Is that subject too hot to handle? How many Democratic
black, progressive and women voters (and combinations of all three) want and expect her to be next? What do you think that food fight is going to look like? Very, very ugly, so be prepared for a lot more R-word, S-word, M-word and all the rest. Women are the majority in the Democratic Party and African Americans are a major and powerful group within the Democratic Party. Younger voters, LGBT and progressives expect inclusion, diversity and representation. Joe and Kamala already managed to win before.
I think it is interesting that, apparently, you put the musician and the female Biden supporter (No Names Allowed) in the crazy Biden supporters category. Bernie Sanders also endorsed Biden recently, as I recall.
But we are all stupid and crazy...
You claim to have donated to his campaign and I am sure you have your "political" reasons for doing so. It would be helpful if you actually supported him. You remind me of a guy who is dating one woman but keeps looking around for someone "better." He will get rid of the first woman the second he can catch the eye of his next conquest. That guy is known as a jerk, a narcissist and a user.
You seem to think that you are right and that Biden supporters are dumb, pathetic followers. Friendly reminder that You were wrong about Joe Biden when he sought the nomination, when he ran in the general election and during the mid-terms. You supported Lil Mayor Pete.
You can disrespect and even despise Joe Biden all day long. It is very rare for you to give him any credit for anything. I think You are the one who has "issues."
What makes democrats better than republicans, in my opinion, is that democrats deal with truth and facts, rather than exclusively their own beliefs. The corrupt attorney general in Texas attempted to deflect the facts of his criminality by accusing his accusers of being “liberal.” Implying that if your a liberal, the facts don’t matter?
Is Biden old? Yes he is.
Democratic thought police must squash that with the nuclear bomb of political argument, calling it a "racist rant."
The left uses “racist” the way Joe McCarthy used to use “communist”.
The word used to mean something about racial discrimination. Now it just means the left doesn’t like something you said.
As the sign at a Tea Party demonstration once said, “It doesn’t matter what this sign says, because you’ll call it racist anyway“.
To Anonymous:
I watched Kamala Harris up close in New Hampshire. She is competent and the complaints about her campaign are unfair. She lost because 16 out of 17 candidates lost, i.e. everyone but Biden.
She was a prosecutor and will be better at defending herself against the charge that she is soft on crime than would be most Democrats. Unfortunately she must prove herself to progressives in the party which makes her messaging less clear than it would be if progressives felt sure she was one of them. She isn't. She has some mannerisms that reduce her appearance of dominant leadership, including her laugh. I assume her staff and advisors are telling her that and attempting to coach her. Things like that are facile but important, alas, in communicating leadership and inspiring confidence.
You say I "claim"to donate. That is why I supplied a link to public information. I don't "claim" it. I did it.
Comments are more persuasive and readable if one does not imagine motives and the presumptions of others. Saying, "you seem to think" and "you can despise" reduce the impact of a comment. It reveals that one needs to go beyond the evidence and text. It is a mirror, not a camera. But thanks for reading and commenting.
Peter Sage
Each time you blog about Joe Biden, you should include a disclosure statement that you did not support his nomination, or the nomination of Kamala Harris, for president. Regular, longtime readers already know this, but others may not.
I think you are jealous of him.
Regarding U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Biden's "chief rival" for the Democratic nomination in the previous election, last month Sanders endorsed President Biden in 2024.
According to CBS News on-line (4-25-23), Sanders told The Associated Press that he would "do everything I can to see the president is re-elected."
Google/search to read more of his comments when he made the announcement.
A lot of people prefer to pretend otherwise, but racism remains a serious problem in this country. For anyone unfamiliar with all the data supporting that, here’s a quick look: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6
One of my favorite Tea Party signs: GET A BRAIN! MORANS [sic].
Joe Biden is very busy being President of the United States. He should not have waste his valuable time, attention and energy campaigning against other Democratic wanna-bes. He has not committed any unpardonable sins.
He should continue focusing on doing his job and preparing to campaign against the GQP nominee. He has many surrogates who can and will campaign for him, including the Vice President and other leaders in the Democratic Party.
No one denies that there are people in this country who have racist, beliefs, and who act on those beliefs and hurt others. It is also simultaneously the case that many on the left use unjustified accusations of “racism“ as a bludgeon to shut down the expression of opinions that they don’t agree with.
No amount of actual racism can justify false accusations of racism. The truth matters.
The main problem is that most people who are racist will deny that they are in fact racist. "I don't have a racist bone in my body" they'll say after saying or doing something racist.
As a thought exercise think about replacing the word "racism" with the word "rape" in the statement you wrote: "No amount of actual racism can justify false accusations of racism. The truth matters." I think you can see why I disagree with the sentiment of the first sentence very strongly while agreeing with the second one. And the truth is that racism is WAY more alive and well in this country than most people care to admit or acknowledge. Which makes sense because when you're able to acknowledge that racism is still a pervasive problem in this country, it's to be as excited about it. For myself, I want this country to do better on racism, I want people to be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin, I don't think anyone should have an advantage over anyone else simply because of the accident of the color skin of the parents they were born to.
A false accusation of racism is certainly a bad thing, same with a false accusation of rape, but the issue is that most people who say and do racist things have a problem with being called out on it. An anonymous commenter on this blog accusing Peter Sage of racism because he brings up the Biden switching South Carolina to the front of the primaries thing IS an example of the kind of overreach that you Michael Trigoboff so abhor, but these instances aren't nearly as common or as life ruining as you seem to believe.
A good rule of thumb is this: Not *all* Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republican. Call me crazy but if the political party I supported was also supported by active neo-Nazis (Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer etc.), white supremacists (Stuart Rhodes, David Duke etc.), and people who openly advocate for ending our system of democracy (Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon etc.) I'd really want to reconsider my political allegiances.
Michael -
You have a good point, but it's just as true the other way around: No amount of false accusations of racism can justify actual racism. That's true of bad behavior in general. There are crimes and there are false accusations of crimes. Neither is justifiable.
It isn't just individuals harboring racist beliefs that are the problem. As the data show, it's systemic.
By the way, do you really believe verbal bludgeons are limited to those on the left? What do you think "woke" is to those on the right?
It isn't just individuals harboring racist beliefs that are the problem. As the data show, it's systemic.
“Systemic racism” is a very broad and poorly defined concept. I probably agree with some applications of it, and strongly disagree with others.
By the way, do you really believe verbal bludgeons are limited to those on the left? What do you think "woke" is to those on the right?
“Woke” has definitely become an effective rhetorical bludgeon. It is not, however, a false accusation.
When Ibram X Kendi says that discrimination in favor of blacks against white people is appropriate and anti-racist, that’s woke. You can see why an idea like that might be wildly unpopular. Activists like Kendi created the opportunity for their opponents to turn the word into a weapon. Live by the rhetorical sword…
How interesting that Michael would refer to Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court as racism. The racial overtones on display during her confirmation hearings were reminiscent of Senate efforts to stonewall the first Jewish nominee, Louis Brandeis.
In regards to your 2nd point first about the Supreme Court, it's been beyond high time for a long time that a woman of color should sit on the Supreme Court. This isn't rocket surgery, black folks in general, and women in particular have been the most oppressed and abused group of people in our country's less than illustrious history. Having the first black woman EVER appointed to the Supreme Court is one very small way to at least make a meager attempt to right the wrongs of history.
In regards to your first point, I'm not ready to have an opinion on the accusation leveled against you unless I had more details regarding the nature of your "online discussion" about the event. My understanding is that PCC's Whiteness History Month is a campus wide attempt to shine a spotlight on systematic racism, white privilege and things of that nature.
Based on your insinuation that it was "racism" to actively choose to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court, I can potentially imagine how comments you made in an online discussion regarding PCC's event could be construed as racist, though perhaps I'm wrong.
What were the specific things you said in the online discussion that led 5 people to file incident reports against you accusing you of racism? I'm eager to hear.
Mike Steely said:
How interesting …
I am glad you found my post interesting. I always try to create that feeling in my readers.
To the best of my knowledge, Woodrow Wilson did not tell the country, “I am going to pick a Jew this time” before choosing Louis Brandeis for the Supreme Court. His message to the country was that he picked the best person for the job, who happened to be a Jew.
Biden’s message to the country was very different: merit comes second; race and gender come first. That’s not a message that can bring this country together; that’s a recipe for turning this country into a war of the tribes.
Woke Guy,
If Biden had just picked KBJ, I would have had no objection to it, other than not wanting another liberal on the court. I object to the announcement that a race-and-gender-based criterion was going to be used. Reverse discrimination is not the way to “right the wrongs” of history.
Not only did PCC allow anonymous cowards to accuse me of racism, they refused to tell me the specifics of the accusations. This is typical of woke academia. Afraid of running afoul of the First Amendment, they attempt to restrict expression of ideas they don’t like by creating a vague fog of intimidation.
Proof that I did nothing wrong: after numerous attempts to intimidate me, the college took no action against me.
The point of Whiteness History Month was to make something bad out of “whiteness”. As a white person, I objected to that. Blacks complain about “anti-blackness”; why shouldn’t that be a general principle? If the message is, “Everyone else gets to be tribal, but your role is to take abuse”, I am going to disrespectfully decline.
Seems to me that, since rating judge's qualifications is somewhat subjective, and since there are presumably many people who qualify for judgeships, it seems to be fair to pick someone whose race or gender has been underrepresented for the job.
For that reason, I’d like to see an American Indian on the SCOTUS soon, regardless of his/her gender.
Malcolm,
That would be cool. But pre-announcing that you are only considering a particular ethnic group is divisive and destructive and obnoxious. It’s pandering to tribalism and identity politics. Malcolm,
That would be cool. But pre-announcing that you are only considering a particular ethnic group is divisive and destructive and obnoxious. It’s pandering to tribalism and identity politics.
Just do it without the virtue signaling.
Is Joe my preferred candidate? No. But he's surrounded himself with good people that I trust.
Republicans are, and surround themselves with, crooks. Just compare data on convictions by presidential administrations and you will see Democrats are a better choice.
Michael, sorry-but hardly surprised-that u feel that way. I think a better descriptor would be “equitable”.
Post a Comment