PERFECT PEOPLE AND THEIR PURITY TEST

The Democrats have always been their own worst enemy in elections. 

All the 'perfect people' in the Democrat Party with their purity test, end up doing the Republican job of seriously tainting major Democrat candidates: because back in 1974 this person said... or this person voted... or this person was inappropriate... and they don't stand up to my pure standards.   

So, fuck you.






It is find to choose one candidate over another.   It is fine to have an opinion on your choice of Democrat candidate.   It is fine to have an opinion on who can beat Trump; but if you pick something a candidate did, or said, or some indiscretion that happened back forty years ago and make it the focus of a purity rant: you are aiding the Republican candidate.   
  

Sure, Pick a candidate.  Support a candidate.   But knock off tearing down your candidates opponent on purity grounds. 

The focus should be on beating Donald Trump; not electing your specific candidate by damaging opponents. 

the Ol'Buzzard   

HOW THE HELL DO WE EXPECT TO BEAT THE SHOWMAN/ CON MAN DONALD TRUMP WITH THE DEMOCRAT CONTENDERS FIELDED IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY?

There was not one person in the Democrat Primary in New Hampshire that can beat Donald Trump.   Oh, we have ultra-progressives, with pie-in-the-sky promises that will never get through the Senate and never become law.   These appeal to our left leaning primary voters, but they are not appealing outside our party; they primarily exciting the far left woke community, whose loud voice of support smother reality. 

All the people supporting Bernie Sanders are in a cult bubble.   Sanders is not electable.   He has a fraction of voters that support him passionately and an equal fraction of voters that are turned off by him.   Not great creds for a National Election.

Amie Klobuchar is bland.  People supporting her are picking the least of the non-electable candidates – they will settle for Amie. 

Joe Biden is past his sell-by-date.   If he can’t perform, and walk away in a Democrat debate as the consistent winner, he has no chance on stage with a showman like Donald Trump.  Joe’s big comeback is to challenge a push-up contest.

Buttigieg is bright.  Probably the smartest person on stage; but, older people, fundamentalist Christians, many blacks, Catholic parishioners and the Catholic Church will never support a gay couple in the White House.   He can ride high in the politically correct Democrat Primaries; but he is a non-starter in a national election. 

Warren seems almost like she is on amphetamines – hyper active – you can’t watch her more than a few minutes without burn out.   She has a plan – she has every plan – if you will wait just a minute, she will explain her plan in detail….  She is not the calm stable presence you wish for in a President of the United States.   You want enthusiasm in a candidate, but not manic behavior.

Andrew Yang will give you a thousand dollars, maybe two thousand; oh, what the hell three thousand…   If elected.

So those are the best choices the Democrats have chosen to support?

HEAR IS MY IDEAL POST-TRUMP GOVERNMENT:

President Bloomberg:  Bloomberg was a three-term mayor of New York City, the largest and most diverse city in the U.S.   He has the creds and experience to run this country.   He is a self-made multi-billionaire, one of the richest men in the United states.  He has financially supported democratic causes for decades.   He will emasculate Trump in a debate, and is appealing to many Republicans as well as Democrats. 

Vice-President Oprah:  Oprah Winfrey, similar to Donald Trump, is a television celebrity with a massive following.   She is an intelligent woman and business icon.   She could gracefully represent the United States on foreign and domestic issues.   But, moreover, she could intimidate the Republican Senate in the same way that Donald Trump has done.  We know the main object of every Senator and Congress person is re-election, and that is the hammer Trump has held over Republican politicians.    Oprah can play that card twice over.    Every time a Republican senator floats a conspiracy theory or makes an outrageous attack, or opposes a Democrat aim, Oprah could stage a Trump type rally in his district and destroying his chances for re-election; Oprah’s following dwarfs Trumps.  She appeals to women across party lines and to the African American community in entirety.   She holds the power to neuter Republican obstructionist, and it is easily feasible, with Trump type rallies, she could flip the Senate by mid-term elections.

Chief of Staff Steve Schmidt:  Schmidt is a Republican political strategist turned Democrat.   He is highly intelligent, no bullshit, and well versed in political of both parties.   He would be a bulldog gate keeper for the Oval Office and a valuable consultant for any president.

Attorney General Kamala Harris: We do not need to dive into the well of the House and Senate to fill cabinet positions.  Our aim should be to maintain our lead in the house and take back the Senate.   This is my exception: I would love to see this fierce prosecutor turned loose on the lawless factions of the Trump era.  She has the knowledge and tenacity to bring the federal law enforcement community back into normal functioning.   Harris is aggressive and knowledgeable of criminal law, which is what the next Attorney General will require in order to reestablish the United States as a country of laws, and hold those responsible that have violated the law in service of Donald Trump.

Secretary of State Pete Buttigieg:  Buttigieg is a brilliant man; he is a graduate of Harvard University, Oxford University and a Rhodes scholar; he speaks six languages.   He has an appealing and earnest demeanor.  He would be a most capable Secretary of State, and this position could be a step , as demographics change, toward further political opportunities.

White House Council Chuck Rosenberg: Rosenberg is a highly educated lawyer and has served in many positions in the Department of Justice, to include United States Attorney for both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations.  He has a quiet, compelling manor and doesn’t bend to power. 

Secretary of Treasury Andrew Yang:  A self-made successful business man with vast knowledge of finance and Democrat values.

Homeland Security Secretary Eric Holder: Holder was Attorney General of the United States under Obama.   He has a sharp legal mind and impressive presence.   He has the knowledge and tenacity to straighten out the Department of Homeland Secure.   He would release kids from cages and reunite them with their families.   He would close down Trump’s concentration camps and bring the U.S. Border Patrol under lawful direction.    He would not hesitate to hold past human rights violators responsible.

Secretary of Interior Lisa Murkowski:   Murkowski is a Republican Senator from Alaska.  Alaska has large areas of public land and Murkowski has a vested interest in preserving them.  We should also offer ambassadorships to Republican Senators who would like to separate themselves from the stink of the Trump Republican party, opening Senate seats to Democrat contenders. 

George Carville head of FEMA:  Carville was the firebrand organizer of the Bill Clinton election.  He is sharp and political savvy; but more important, he is an excellent organizer that doesn’t tolerate slip-shod performance.   Carville has lived through the devastating hurricane in New Orleans, so has a first-hand interest in disaster relief.   He would quickly shape FEMA into an aggressive organization ready to respond to emergencies, and he would retroactively take care of our responsibilities to the U.S. possession Porta Rica.  Besides that, I like his rants. 

There are other cabinet positions that will need filling, and I am sure the Michael Bloomberg and his team will choose responsibly.

the Ol’Buzzard

CARVILLE RANT

James Carville was the power behind the Bill Clinton Presidential elections.  He is out spoken, highly knowledgeable of politics and a staunch Democrat supporter.   

Beside that, I love his rants.









To me Carville makes sense.  I also don't believe that any of the Democrat contenders that competed in the New Hampshire primary are electable nationally against the showman/ con man Donald Trump.  

We are facing the decline of the United States as a the nation of laws and  morality.   We could easily be a third-rate power after four more years of a Donald Trump Presidency. 

the Ol'Buzzard   

FOR MY BROTHER RON ROBERTS

First of the day.



(Watch this enlarged for full impact.) 



Damn brother, 
if we were younger...

the Ol'Buzzard

A BUZZARD EGG OMELET NUMBER #34

For a couple of years, I have been saying that we are not only witnessing climate change, but also an evolution of the human species.

Back in the fifties, when I was a teenager, six feet was tall for a boy or man.  I am six feet tall, and when my wife and I go to the college gym to walk the track, the young men passing me on the track make me look diminutive – these young guys and many of the girls are well over six feet tall.

Stanford University just published a research stating that today’s people are fatter, taller and living longer.   The standard human temperature has been standardized for the last fifty years as 98.6, but today's research has set the new norm as 97.5.

  

In my opinion, this is a documented evolutionary change in the human species that is occurring as a result of a rapid societal change brought about by the technological revolution of the last thirty years.

  

Alvin Toffler, celebrated author of the book Future Shock published in 1970, predicted that humans would have difficulty adjusting to rapid change.   He was monumentally wrong; however, he did, meticulously, document how changes to human society and living environment had, for millennium, occurred very slowly – allowing mankind to adjust to change without shock.

 

Changes in societies brought about changes in living environments that resulted, over a period of time, in changes in the human animal; but as these changes took place over centuries, the evolution of the human being was barely perceptible from generation to generation. 

We are now in a new era for rapid social change.  Mankind’s ability to adjust to change has been the hallmark of his survival.   The rate of evolutionary change seems to keep pace with the rate of social change in the species; therefore, we can expect to see rapid changes in human mutation within a few generations.  

the Ol’Buzzard

IOWA EMBARRASSMENT

  I know Iowa wants to keep 'the first in the nation' because of the money it brings in.    Beginning months before the caucus; the state is flooded with candidates, surrogates and news media - a big financial boon for a small farming state in the middle of winter.


Iowa, at 99 percent white, does not represent the cross section of the Democrat Party.  This would be a fine state for the Republican Party lead off, as it is a majority white party.  But, Michigan, Illinois, Florida or North Carolina would be a better choice to lead off the Democrat selection process. 


The caucus system needs to go.   It is past its sell-by-date.  The caucus is more of a social gathering playing a political board game.    The majority of the Iowan Democrat Party is disenfranchised and unable, or unwilling to attend and play the game; which results in a small minority percentage (16%) of Iowa Democrat voters actually determining an outcome. 


It is time we stop playing politics as usual.   We need to have automatic voter registration; a national holiday on voting day, upgraded voting precincts; and get rid of the electoral college: one person one vote should be the standard for winning an election. 

Sorry Iowa; but you need to be moved to the middle of the pack, along with New Hampshire.      

just my opinion
the Ol'Buzzard

HOW DOES A CAUCUS WORK

We always hear about Republicans suppressing the vote.   But, in the Iowa primary the Democrat caucus system represses the vote like a Republicans wet dream.

At seven p.m. you are suppose to show up to support your candidate.  There are speeches, then caucus goers separate and join their candidate group.   Any candidate with less than 15% attendance is eliminated and that candidate's supporters must join another candidate's group.   There is kibitzing, begging and encouragement back an fourth between groups trying to encourage candidates from the eliminated group or undecided group to join their group.

Finally a count is taken and delegates are awarded.  The delegates are selected from the caucus attendees. 

What bullshit.   Why not 'one person one vote' at a voting center?   

This type of system is attended and relished by the WOKE community that gets off on public activism and being a part of a movement.  This system is difficult for old people that would just like to cast their vote and not have to join a party's party.    It is also difficult for single mothers, families with young children, people working shift hours and discouraging for people who don't like being a part of public spectacles.  

Last presidential election only 16% of possible Iowa Democrat voters showed up to caucus; which means only one out of every six registered Democrats decided the outcome for the mass majority.  










And then we have the Electoral College.


the Ol'Buzzard