By Bob Gaydos

     Staying in the game, Jimmy Cannon style.

Darline Graham
… a familiar name

• Maybe it’s just me, but: When you’re running for the United States Senate and you’re debating an opponent, it’s probably not smart or wise or politically astute to say, “I’m not that informed on national security.” Or to say at a subsequent debate on universal healthcare that you don’t support such ”woke” ideas because your parents, “if they were sick, they had to get up and go to work.” Both her parents died relatively young, as her now deceased brother, Lindsey, wrote about in his memoir. Yes, we’re talking about Darline Graham, who apparently dropped her married last name, Nordone, when Donald Trump decided she should get her brother’s vacant seat in the Senate, representing South Carolina. Just because name recognition is more important than job qualifications to him. The governor complied and appointed her. Now, she’s in a runoff with a congressman to decide the Republican candidate in November.
• Maybe it’s just me, but: I can’t decide who’s dumber, Darline or the Republican voters who let an admittedly unqualified Senate candidate get as far as a runoff.
• Maybe it’s just me, but: As long as we’re stuck in South Carolina, I wonder why voters, specifically Republican voters, would cast ballots for an obviously unqualified candidate for the U.S. Senate simply because she’s the sister of the now-deceased senator from their state when, on her brother’s watch, the state recently ranked: 41st out of 50 for the percentage of families living in poverty; 46th in infant and child mortality rates; 42nd in overall life expectancy; 42nd for overall physical health; 46th for overall safety; 41st in violent crimes per capita; 42nd for overall education quality; 35th for general economic opportunity; 36th in average years of school completed; 45th in affordability; 32nd in unemployment rate; 44th in citizenship and democracy; 37th in productivity; 39th in health and safety and, according to one survey, was the ninth worst state in the union in which to raise a family and, in another survey, conducted by Tulane University, ranked 42nd out of 50 states overall? Nice job, Lindsey.
• Maybe it’s just me, but: Lake America? Really? Couldn’t Natalie keep Trump away from his Sharpie when the Canadians told him to buzz off? Where were the orderlies?
• Maybe it’s just me, but: Isn’t Ted Cruz even slightly annoyed or embarrassed at the way Trump is dealing with the country in which the senator from Texas was born? I know Cruz, whose mother is American, renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 to prepare for his run for president of the United States in 2016, but still, it’s his father’s homeland and the Canadians were nice enough to accept his renunciation after 44 years of his enjoying it so Trump (who beat him anyway) couldn’t question his birth certificate, a la Obama. Maybe it’s like dumping your husband’s (and until recently your) last name to run for the Senate. Very convenient.  And very Republican.

By Emily Theroux

The Naderesque argument that the Democratic presidential candidate is merely “the lesser of two evils” has been making an energetic comeback on progressive blogs. Liberals have become restive about a growing list of incursions on civil liberties and human rights that President Obama once vowed to oppose or overturn.

I’m not wild about Obama’s national security policy, either. But making “protest votes” for unelectable third-party candidates is an exercise in futility. Far from merely sending a principled message to Democrats that their capitulation to GOP militarism will no longer be tolerated, this strategy may permit Republican extremists to sabotage both our economy and our social contract. If this radical contingent succeeds, middle-class Americans may worry far more about economic disaster than government surveillance, political prisoners, or terrorists overseas.

The president couldn’t possibly have lived up to the rosy expectations that voters, disgusted by the Dubya years, had of his presidency. But now, scores of disgruntled Democrats have resolved to abandon the two-party system and become registered independents. Some plan to vote for Obama only if they reside in swing states; others who live in solid blue states may write in Ron Paul (seriously!) or vote for a third-party candidate like former Utah Gov.  Rocky Anderson. Obama critics on the left claim there’s very little space between Obama and Romney, because candidates from both parties depend on corporate donors and are thus beholden to the same interests.

Rob Kall of the progressive website OpEdNews declared in a recent column that he had personally decided to leave the Democratic Party. Some 200 of the site’s 55,000 members commented, professing fervent opposition to Obama’s expansion of Bush policies, including the limited use of remote-controlled Predator drones to support battlefield operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama went on to implement drones operated by CIA officers to kill suspected terrorists (among them, American citizens) “without a shred or whit of due process,” in the view of Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald.

The CIA’s human quarry is tracked by U.S.-based “pilots” whose unmanned aircraft attack targets within the borders of sovereign nations. Drone strikes in Pakistan (which critics term “extrajudicial executions”) have been reported by observers to have killed numerous civilians near the pilots’ “marks” – indicating that these hits may not be as “surgical” as the CIA claims. The official record of “collateral damage” from May 2010 to August 2011? Militants: 600. Noncombatants: 0.

I personally deplore the barbarity of these strikes (and fear that we will eventually have to contend with terrorists acquiring this technology and once again blowing random New Yorkers to smithereens). I am also chagrined by the moral ambiguity of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which affirmed presidential authority over the indefinite military detention of prisoners without charge or trial. Other dubious offenses include the administration’s 2011 defense before the Supreme Court of GPS devices employed in warrantless surveillance; Obama’s failure to honor his inaugural promise to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp; his stepped-up policy of deporting undocumented immigrants at a far higher rate than Bush did; the continued use of military tribunals after vowing to try terrorism suspects in civil courts; and the ongoing militaristic fixation of our government.

Obama’s principled opposition to the Iraq War as a candidate for both the U.S. Senate and the presidency led me to foolishly imagine him as a pacifist. He did end the Iraq War, as he promised, but I don’t believe we should commit to staying in Afghanistan until 2024; no other culture, from the Mongols to the Soviets, ever succeeded in “unifying” Afghanistan’s warring tribes. Apparently we have forgotten the past and are condemned, as George Santayana observed, to repeat it.

Obama had to capitulate to certain political realities – the almost-universal opposition of both parties to allowing Guantanamo prisoners on American soil to be tried in civilian courts, as well as Obama’s apprehension about facing a military/national security “coup” if he attempted to prosecute Bush-era war crimes. With an intransigent GOP opposition obstructing his every move – and rejecting their own proposals once Obama endorsed them – the president had to drop the popular “public option” from health care, abandon comprehensive immigration reform, and limit financial regulation.

I remain a pragmatist willing to work within the current electoral system because I believe that a radical-right landslide would eclipse any Democratic failure. Once in office, Romney would repay his wealthy donors by doing the bidding of the Koch brothers, the House’s “Ayn Rand” faction, and the Christian right. He would follow the dictates of Grover Norquist on a regressive tax policy that would exacerbate income disparity. He would install Supreme Court justices who would ensure a conservative majority for a generation.

Do left-wing purists really want to see the Ryan budget passed, along with interminable “Kill at Will” gun laws, racist voting laws, and xenophobic immigration laws? Do they want to witness Roe V. Wade overturned and women subjected to personhood amendments and forced vaginal probes? A GOP Senate majority swept in on Romney’s coattails could conspire with the Republican House to turn back the clock on the rights of workers to the Industrial Age, of African-Americans to the Jim Crow era, of the unemployed to “Hoovervilles,” of the elderly to county poorhouses, and of women to medieval times.