FLAIT

It looks like Hillary Clinton and the Democrats will do very well on Election Day, leaving the Republicans Party in shambles in the process. So you'd think a liberal like me who has proven that Republicans are political terrorists and aren't just wrong, but couldn't be more wrong, all the time, would be ecstatic. And I would be. But I'm also angry because Clinton and the Democrats haven't gone after Republicans and their political terrorism at all during this campaign. Not one bit.

I was also angry that Clinton didn't defended herself against the barrage of attacks levied by Donald Trump during the debates, and by what we'll probably see in regards to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination.

I'm going to take each one of these aspects individually and explain why it does matter, even if the Democrats win big on Election Day.

Democrats and the campaign

I've also shown in this blog that Democrats are saps who couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag. But now I want to show that Democrats wouldn't even think of arguing themselves out of a wet paper bag, when they can. Let me explain.

Let me first point out that when it comes to partisanship, gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, Americans generally blame "both sides." They certainly didn't blame Republicans for it in the 2014 mid-terms because they won control of the Senate, picked up seats in the House and made big gains at the state level.

With that in mind, in June, I chronicled the GOP's irresponsible and reckless record, such as failing to raise the debt ceiling and shutting the government down, sabotaging Obamacare, blocking Zika funding, and blocking an unprecedented number of President Obama's judicial and executive branch nominees since the day he took office in 2009.

So once Clinton secured the Democratic nomination, I assumed that she and the Democrats would blast the GOP on that record of sabotage and deliberate gridlock every day of the campaign. And I don't mean once or twice, in passing. I mean really go after them every single day. Not only to put Republicans on the defensive for a change, but to tell the country that, no, gridlock and dysfunction is not the fault of "both sides." And to show that Republican's are in fact political terrorists.

I also assumed it would play a major role at the Democratic convention, with speaker after speaker having their own examples of Republican obstructive and destructive politics.

But it never happened. There wasn't a single word about it at the convention and next to nothing since then. I can't believe that Clinton and the Democrats didn't make Republicans, and what they've done since Obama took office, a strategic issue of this campaign. It should have been. But, incredibly, it wasn't.

Yes, I understand Trump takes up all the oxygen out of the campaign. And yes, I understand he's the focus and such an easy target to go after. And yes, I know Democrats want to tie him to every Republican that's running. But there comes a point where the attacks become repetitive and numbing, and just too much. So they only go so far.

Also, this election is more than Donald Trump. There's Senate, House and state races where Americans need to know what the Republicans have done the last seven plus years. Not only in Washington, but at the state level at well, where Republicans have done nothing but make it harder to vote, harder to get an abortion, but easier to buy guns (also here and here).

And yes, I get it. Clinton will win big, the Democrats just might take control of the Senate, and pick up seats in the House and state level. But the gains won't be because the country blames the GOP for the partisanship, gridlock and dysfunction in Washington. And it won't be because of their political terrorism. It'll be because of Donald Trump.

I'm not sure what happens to Trump and the Republican Party after the election. But he certainly won't be embraced by the GOP, and that will create problems between the party and the tens of millions of Trump's voters. But once the election is over, and the party separates from Trump, the stink, the Trump stink, will be gone. And by February and March, Trump will be forgotten and we'll be back to where we were before Trump: bare-knuckles, partisan, obstructive, sabotaging GOP politics where Americans will blame the gridlock on "both sides."

I just don't understand why Clinton and the Democrats didn't go after the Republicans, hard, every single day of this campaign. It's incredible.

You know, maybe if they did, Democratic gains up and down ballot would have been much greater then they will be.

Hillary Clinton and the debates

Trump fired attack after attack at Clinton during the debates, but I don't understand why she just stood there and let them go, unanswered. Had she done so, she could have made Trump look more foolish then he did.

For instance, in each debate Trump levied an attack Republicans been using for years, that President Obama should have kept troops in Iraq, and had he done so, there wouldn't have been an ISIS. But Democrats never say, first, the SOFA agreement that forced American troops out of Iraq was negotiated and put in place by George Bush. And second, despite the agreement, Obama tried to keep troops in Iraq, but he couldn't get the Iraqis to agree to the terms.

Bottom line, the Iraqis wanted U.S. troops out. So Obama had no choice and was obligated to honor Bush's agreement.

Surely, Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time, would have been privy to the negotiations to keep troops in Iraq. So why didn't she say that? Why didn't she defend Obama from Trump's charge that ISIS is Obama's fault? And why didn't she say that ISIS was formed as a direct result of George Bush's senseless war?

Actually, Trump's been harder on Bush for the Iraq war than Clinton and the Democrats have been. A lot more. And that speaks volumes about the Democrats (and I don't want to hear that Clinton said her Iraq war vote was "a mistake." Because if, say, Bill Clinton lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that didn't exist when he was president, and called for a war that turned into a colossal disaster, do you think the Republicans would have let it go and said their votes for the war were "a mistake"? My God, they would have forced Clinton to resign! Oh wait, I'm wrong. He would have been forced to resign for allowing the 9/11 attacks, never mind.).

Had Obama been successful in his negotiations with the Iraqis, and did keep troops in Iraq, the response from Republicans at the time would have been obvious:

Are you kidding me? You bleeding heart liberals have been screaming to pull troops out of Iraq for years! And now when you have the opportunity to pull them out, you're keeping them there? It's because Obama doesn't want President Bush to get the credit for ending the war! So by keeping troops in Iraq, Obama will get the credit for ending the war when he does pull them out!

Of course, Clinton didn't bring that up either. But it's true.

In the final debate, Trump said that Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country, inferring that gun laws don't work. But Clinton didn't respond with an obvious fact - that a vast majority of guns used in crimes in Chicago, and northeastern states that also have strict gun laws, come from states with weak gun laws, proving that gun control does work (which is probably why Clinton didn't say that, because that would mean she'd institute tough national gun laws (yea, right) and that would freak out the gun nuts, as if they're not kept in a perpetual state of freak by the NRA anyway).

Trump also said he'd use "stop and frisk" to take guns away even though Trump and the GOP insist it's Clinton that will take everyone's guns away (after saying for years that Obama would). Clinton let that go. Nor did she mention that you can't just take guns away from people in states that have right to carry laws; unless it's okay when a Republican calls for it (can you imagine what Republicans, the NRA and gun nuts would say if Clinton said it?).

And taking it a step further, Clinton didn't blast Trump's inference that he'd only be taking guns away from blacks.

(Hillary responses on guns and the Second Amendment are nothing but sickening appeasement to the NRA and gun nuts, as if that ever does any good. I go into the Democrat's pathetic stance on guns and the Second Amendment in this recent post.)

Trump kept attacking the $1.7 billion in cash Obama agreed to send to Iran. But Clinton never mentioned that, 1) it was Iran's money, and 2) it was part of a decades old legal claim that probably saved the American tax payers $10 billion. Isn't it those kinds of out-of-court settlements that Trump loves?

Trump blasted Obamacare, naturally, but Clinton never brought up the fact that Republicans have 1) tried to repeal all or parts of it over 60 times in Congress - as if they don't have anything better to do - and 2) have not in over seven years come up with an alternative plan.

Trump (and the Republicans) said that Obamacare insurance rates will skyrocket this year. That's funny; Republicans never gave a hoot about skyrocketing health insurance costs, co-pays and deductibles before Obamacare.

Anyway, it's complicated, but one of the reasons for this year's jolt to the premiums - and insurance companies leaving the exchanges altogether - is because Republicans failed to appropriate the money the insurance companies were expecting.

Also, most Republican-controlled states didn't take the mostly free federal money to expand Medicaid. And, as predicted, that's also playing a role in the spike in premiums, especially in those states (the hell with their constituents who didn't have health insurance. Republicans needed Obamacare to fail God damn it!).

These are great examples of not only Republican political terrorism, but how they deliberately create problems so they can blame it on "big government," Democrats, Obama, and in this case, Obamacare (and starting next January, Clinton).

Also, while insurance rates are rising, so are the government subsidies for those that qualify for them.

Anyway, despite having the facts on her side, Clinton didn't mention any of that and allowed Trump's attacks on Obamacare to go undefended.

When Trump said he'd release his tax returns after the audit, Clinton never said he's not prohibited from releasing them while his return is under audit.

In the town hall debate, Trump attacked Clinton, who was a defense attorney in the mid 1970s, for representing a defendant who was accused of a raping a 12-year-old girl. She didn't want to take the case, but was forced to by a judge because all defendants have a right to legal council (something about the silly Sixth Amendment). But Clinton, incredibly, let it go.

Trump repeatedly justified the questioning of Obama's citizenship and birth certificate by saying it was Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal who first questioned it in 2008. I guess it was true since Hillary let that go as well.

Trump kept up his instance that voter fraud is prevalent. Why didn't Clinton say "there's just 31 instances of voter fraud within a billion votes cast since 2000"? And why didn't she take it a step further by saying something like, "You know, Republicans are so outraged about voter fraud that barely exists, so they can use it as an excuse to install voter ID laws to suppress Democratic turnout (also here) - which Republicans admit. But when it comes to all the gun violence we see every day in our country, and all the loss of innocent life, there's no outrage at all. In fact, Republicans - supposedly pro-life Republicans - make it easier and easier to buy more and more guns. Shows you what the Republican Party's priorities are, doesn't it?" (Yes, yes, I know, she can't say that because gun control is a loser for Democrats, blah, blah, blah. I again refer you to this post).

(There has been an incident of voter fraud. It was by a Trump Voter! Freakin' hypocrites.)

So there was a barrage of attacks by Trump, but Clinton let them go, unchallenged, leaving it up to her web site's fact checkers. Nor did she bring up Republican Congressional gridlock, sabotage and political terrorism in any of the three debates.

Yes, I realize that Clinton's been in the "prevent defense" since the convention. And yes, part of her debate strategy was to let Trump rant and fall through the trap doors she set up. But when you have the facts and logic on your side, and can not only defend yourself against these attacks in a debate watched by 70-100 million Americans, but make Trump and the Republicans look even more foolish then they are in the process, how can you not respond?

Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland

If the roles were reversed - a Republican president was in his final year in office, with a Democratic majority in the Senate - he'd not only nominate a 40something year-old extreme conservative, but demand that he be given a vote get enough votes from Democrats to be confirmed. And if - if - Democrats so much as floated the idea of sitting on the nomination (yea, right), and said the "next president should fill this vacancy on the court" (Ha!), Republicans, the right and their ornery and bellicose media personalities would have gone ballistic. They would have questioned attacked the Democrats for "hating the country" and "Constitution" and would have bullied and intimidated them (similar to what they did here) into giving him or her a hearing and confirming vote. And Democrats would have.

That said, when there is a Democratic President (the fact that he's in the final year of his term is irrelevant), with a Republican majority in the Senate, naming 63-year-old moderate Merrick Garland to fill the seat was the perfect choice. So perfect that he received praise from conservative Republican Sen. Orin Hatch. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

So if Republicans took their responsibilities seriously - heck, just their job descriptions seriously - they would have had hearings and a vote last spring. And Garland would be on the Supreme Court today where he belongs. No problem, right? Nope, not from these Republicans political terrorists. They sat on the nomination because if a Supreme Court justice dies a year too early for Republicans, then the Constitution be damned. Republicans must get their way so they can fill every judicial seat with the reincarnation of Antonin Scalia. So no hearing for Garland, and certainly no vote. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared over and over and over and over again that "the winner of the Presidential election should fill this vacancy."

Alright then. Since Republicans were derelict in their duties and blocked Garland from a hearing and vote, and said they wanted the winner of the election make this appointment, then by all means, let the winner of the election make this appointment.

So if Clinton wins the election, President Obama should pull the Garland nomination. Makes sense, right? Because if Obama doesn't pull the nomination, and Republicans give Garland a confirming vote during the lame duck session, then Republicans were, 1) rewarded for their irresponsibility, obstruction, partisanship and political terrorism, and 2) in a no-lose situation the entire time. Because either Trump wins and the GOP gets a young, extreme conservative that Democrats, even with a Senate majority, would be forced, bullied and intimidated into confirming, or they get a 63-year-old moderate.

And from the Democrat's perspective, either they get a young, extreme conservative, even if Democrats take control of the Senate, or, after a Democrat was elected president and the Democrats gaining seats in the Senate (or winning a majority), they get a 63-year-old moderate. Is that how the system's supposed to work? Of course not. Would Garland be Clinton's choice had this seat opened up next year, with a Democratic majority in the Senate? Of course not.

So regardless of what happens with the Senate, if Clinton wins, Obama must withdraw the Garland nomination so Clinton can nominate someone else - someone as liberal as Trump's nominee would have been conservative. Hey, that's exactly what the Republicans called for all year. Let the winner of the election make this appointment!

However, despite that permission from Republicans, why don't we hear this from liberals and the left? Why isn't it even being floated that if Clinton wins, Obama will withdraw the nomination? Even more incredulous, why are Democrats still pushing for a vote on Garland? My God, Clinton said as much in the final Presidential debate!

With the Supreme Court shorthanded, cases had to be delayed because of probable 4-4 ties. So Democrats are going to pat Republicans on the back for that by allowing a vote on Garland during the lame duck session after a big Clinton/Democratic victory?

And don't forget, Garland isn't the only judicial nominee to be blocked from a hearing and vote. Republicans have blocked so many lower court nominations that there's now judicial emergencies throughout the country. And it goes back to 2012 and 2013 when Democrats controlled the Senate. And in all these years, not a word about it from Obama or the Democrats. (Nov. 5 insert: The consequences of having so many vacancies, and how Republicans use it to their advantage, is here.)

And keep in mind, those seats should have been filled by Obama-appointed judges. Instead, they'd be filled by Trump if he wins. So when it comes to the courts, the GOP's strategy is obvious. They will not confirm not allow votes on judges nominated by a Democratic president. Period (and no, that is not hyperbole). And yet, extremely conservative judges nominated by Republican Presidents are expected to receive full support and swift confirmation from Democrats.

Remind me again, who is it that Americans blame for all this partisanship, gridlock and dysfunction in Washington? Oh right, "both sides." Gee, I wonder why.

So this is a no-brainer. Assuming Clinton wins, Obama and the Democrats can not allow Garland to go through. Yes, he's the perfect nominee (last winter). Yes, he deserves (deserved) to be on the court (last spring). But business is business. The Republicans had their chance (chances), but they acted like the political terrorists they are and can not get rewarded for it. But just watch, Obama and the Democrats will because of the double standards that they allow Republicans to get away with.

And I don't want to hear that Obama, and Clinton, should allow a lame-duck vote on Garland as a "good will" gesture to "heal the wounds" of a bitter, divided campaign. No way. The kumbaya won't last three seconds from Republicans. And they don't deserve it anyway.

I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Obama and Clinton are being coy. But you just know that if Clinton wins, Obama won't withdraw the nomination and the Republicans will win this Supreme Court seat. That's what Democrats do

If the roles were reversed, do you think Republicans would? 'Nuff said.

Conclusion

It's very important to keep in mind that Trump isn't anything new on the right. For decades, Republicans have been anti-immigrant and intolerant of minorities. They have campaigned on a racial, even a racist platform; it's called "the Southern Strategy." And the GOP makes no secret that they want a white, Christian nation.

Republicans have made a political living attacking the so called "liberal media," and using it to rile up their base. They always use us vs. them dogma and push their (manufactured) paranoia and conspiracy theories - Obama's a Muslim! Obama was born in Africa! Your guns will be taken away! Voter fraud is rampant! Liberal media! - onto their mindless and gullible base to keep them a frenzy against Obama, Clinton, Democrats, Muslims, the media or whoever the "enemy of the week" happens to be. That - along with partisan gridlock and political terrorism to ensure that a Democratic president does not succeed - is the only way the GOP can win elections because they have absolutely nothing worthwhile to offer to the country.

But this is exactly what we've been hearing from Trump for the last 16 months. The only difference is that Trump has been more explicit and less tactful than Republicans and the Republican Party. And this is something neither the media nor the left has picked up on, as if we never heard this kind of (manufactured) hate, fear, intolerance, propaganda and paranoia from Republicans and the GOP before.

And this is why it was important for Clinton and the Democrats to defend themselves and really attack Republicans this year, non-stop. To show the country exactly what the GOP has become; and that, no, Washington gridlock and dysfunction is not the fault of "both sides." It's the Republican's fault.

But even more important, Democrats need to take back the narrative and agenda and become the dominant majority party because, as I've pointed out many times in this blog, there shouldn't even be a Republican Party anymore. So they need to use facts and logic and consistently call out Republicans and their propaganda, and begin the process of changing conservative/Republican minds and converting them to Democrats. (I said as much in 2010 and 2013). Waiting for them to figure it out on their own hasn't happened and won't happen. They need the proverbial slap upside the head.

Yes, I know, no one's changing the minds of hard-core conservatives and obsessive Fox "News" viewers. It is a cult after all. And yes, after decades of allowing Republicans and the right to get away with their propaganda, unchallenged, and creating such a strong, dedicated, and even brainwashed base, it will take time. But Democrats have to start somewhere. They never tried because it never even occurred to them that it's something they should be doing (sort of like not even thinking of arguing yourself out of a wet paper bag, when you can).

This is why it did matter how Clinton and the Democrats campaigned this year.

But despite having a mountain of ammunition they could fire at Republicans this year, Obama, Clinton and the Democrats never fired a single shot. Nothing new there either.

So even with a Clinton victory and big Democratic gains, I'll be angry because, 1) Democrats squandered a great opportunity, and 2) they'll still have the same fundamental problem they've always had. They'll continue to allow Republicans to sabotage the governance of the country, even if they lose control of Congress. And Republicans will get away with it like they always do. Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court will prove that.

So, yes, Trump will gone, and more Democrats will hold more seats up and down the line. But nothing will change.

Don't believe me? Congressional Republicans are already talking about investigations, special prosecutors and President Clinton's impeachment should they retain one or both chambers of Congress. Heck, they were talking about impeaching Clinton in September! And October...of 2015!

Of course they will because they have to drive President Clinton's poll numbers down and grind Congress, and governing, down to a halt. And to think you can actually "work with Republicans." Please.

Still don't believe me? Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee - the one that squanders all that time and money conducting investigations on Democrats - said that he has "two years worth of material" on Clinton. And that's a "low-ball figure." And this was before FBI Director Comey's notice about the possible "existence" of additional Clinton server e-mails.

I present your Republican Party: political terrorists.

I also present your Democratic Party: saps who allow Republicans to get away with it all the time.

May, 2020 insert: I was saying the same thing about Democrats in 2006.