Has America's Republic Faded Away?

 

As most everyone knows, much of our freedoms are actively under attack these days, especially our freedom of speech and expression. Ironically, most of those doing the attacking are individuals and groups who publicly claim to be "protecting" those very same freedoms. (it reminds me of when the police haul you in for "protective custody" when typically they are the ones you need protection from!).

 Nevertheless, apparently the freedom of speech or expression these groups and individuals are actually interested in is protecting theirs while the rest of us face censorship, which include gag warnings  for violating their "community standards" (which means they can say or imply what they want, but you can't even post the truth), suspension, being blocked, or wind up on some "government list".  

It's almost "as if" speaking out or having a different opinion is now somehow "un-American". It kind of reminds me of the McCarty Era when everyone was afraid of being accused of being a "Red" (that is, a communist). Thousands of lives, mostly innocent, were ruined by the atmosphere created by that U.S. Senator from Wisconsin who, albeit misguidedly, thought he was doing America a great service.  

Many will tell you that today's censorship is coming from the Left this time, which is true, at least to a point. Most of the groups and individuals (particularly those on college campuses) tend to lean not just Left, but Far Left, the money behind them and organization it takes doesn't come from Left wing organizations.

Instead, much of the money, especially the big money, comes from shell corporations created under such civic sounding euphemisms as "Society for Intellectual Enlightenment, the "so and so" foundation, and so on.  These philanthropic organizations are often fronts for very powerful Wall Street corporations and extremely rich individuals and families.

Ironically, this is the opposite of what most of us would expect. After all, the majority of these people are highly conservative and corporations only active out of self interest. So what gives? Well, America is no longer a Republic. It's a neo-fascist corporatocracy, not to mention a surveillance state.  Being fascist is typically thought of as being Far Right Wing, which to an extent it is.

However, fascism, especially the American version, isn't what we'd expect it to be. Fascism, historically speaking, involved close cooperation between the state and Big Business with the state often serving as the "senior partner". In fact, the so called "founder" of modern fascism, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini once said the fascism should more properly be called "Corporatism", which reflects its true character.

As a quick aside, claims of "socialism" or "Communism", which you often see online promoting some group or cause, are false. First off, fascism is different from most ideologies in that it borrows from both sides of the political spectrum, depending on the history and traditions of a given country (it should be noted that a theocracy, while a rule under some form of religion such as in medieval Europe or modern Iran, are considered fascist as well).

That's why the fascism of Italy differed from that of Germany, which differed from that of Spain or Argentina, Hungary or Romania. Typically fascists will adopt or kept some aspect of the Left in order to keep the people pacified. The more content the people are (at least in the beginning), the easier it is to consolidate control.

Secondly, under Communism, there is no independent ownership of private property. The government owns literally everything. That includes your home, the bank or grocery store down the corner. There would be no Wall Street. The company you work for would be owned by the state and you would be assigned where to work by the state.  

Under "socialism", the masses own and control everything. It would be a nation of worker owned  businesses, worker based committees, co-ops, credit unions, etc.  I'm sure you get the picture. As an aside, it bears mentioning that there has never been an actual "socialist" nation despite several countries calling themselves "socialist". It's like North Korea  or East Germany calling themselves a "democratic republic" or China proclaiming that it's a "People's Republic. The only things Communism has in common with fascism are that both are totalitarian forms of government and neither are big on freedom.

Modern fascism differs in that Big Business is the senior partner. It greatly influences legislation through aggressive lobbying, underwriting political campaigns and funding "leadership PACS" (which some consider to be a form of indirect bribery), run their own independent campaigns in the form of mailings and media spots through benign sounding non-profit shell political action committees (PACs). They often work to help head off or defeat any challengers. In exchange, all the politician has to do is play along, which can be extremely profitable privately.

Big Business, through its PACs and lobbyists, work to dilute or kill  any pending bills which could affect their ability to operate without government interference (at least of consequence) or impacts their bottom line (you didn't think those "loopholes" in all those laws were accidental did you?).

In fact, most people don't realize that corporate lobbyists either write or help write legislation and work to get it through the various committees and ultimately passed into law.   In addition, Big Business quietly works to undo previous laws which were aimed at protecting employees, especially those pertaining to organized labor.

Some freedoms will disappear rather quickly under the pretext of "national security" and often with the assurance by the government of being "temporary".  You know, it's funny how  permanent "temporary" can become if the public isn't paying attention.   

So, the next time you hear or read that we're on our way to Communism or socialism, you'll know better and be able to properly respond. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that our Republic has all but faded away just as the Rome's Republic did, and like the Roman Republic, the more it faded into memory the more the dictatorship of the Empire took hold. Before long it was all but impossible to restore the Republic. Don't let our Republic become just a memory.

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

America Is Eerily Retracing Rome's Steps To A Fall. Will It Turn Around Before It's Too Late?

The State of Democracy in the United States 2022

 

The Strange Decline of Pax America

American dream far from reality for most Americans: Poll

German politician convicted over gang rape warning

 

 

 

 

 

America's Political Divide: Exposing the Duopoly

America is a duopoly as everyone should know by now, but if not, let me briefly explain what a duopoly is.  A duopoly is simply rule by a two party political system, which our Founding Fathers never intended for America. In actuality, they never intended for the country to develop political parties at all!

While they recognized that a kind of ad hoc clique based issues would likely develop, they felt that the creation of fixed parties would ultimately grow into competing special interest groups which would come to usurp citizens of their political power. Of course, they were right.

Today, we've gone from the creation of a two primary political "cliques"  have evolved into the creation of a political class controlled by an artificial entity which didn't exist at the time of the Founding Fathers. I'm talking about corporations of course. Corporations are merely legal fictions which exist to serve a specific function and make money  for their shareholders.

Nowadays, these man-made legal fictions have been granted "personhood' just like you and me, but with one key exception thanks in part to a mistake made by the Supreme Court in 2010. That's when, in a 5 to 4 decision, they upheld Citizens United and in doing so, magically turned money into "free speech" as if they were some sort of legalistic alchemists. 

According to their decision, Corporations, which didn't represent the interests of its employees or even the majority of its stakeholders, could now  invest as much "free speech" as they wanted in any political election, party, or issue.  Thus politics became a commodity to acquire no different from any other. 

They could now legally and openly  "rent" or "invest" as much as they wanted in a candidate or issue of their choice short or long term like a commodity or share of stock.  Or, if they prefer, collectively just buy a controlling stake in the political party of their preference just as they would a subsidy, to hold as long as it remains profitable.  So far, I'd say they've gotten their money's worth wouldn't you?

So you could accurately equate the two dominate political cliques with being merely the public front for competing corporate cliques. I like to think of the blue donkey and red elephant as being on par with Quaker Oat's "Cap'n Crunch" or Post Cereal's "Sugar Bear".

While the two parties may disagree on certain facets or details concerning how our tax money is spent, much of the public disagreements you see on the evening news are superficial. In truth, they agree on certain core principals which centers on protecting and growing the interest of Big Business and the super wealthy (which naturally includes them).

This is done through the use of corporate money to not just underwrite the two parties and fund political campaigns but also by using corporate lobbyists to advise members of Congress and/or their staff about legislative issues, and by writing legislation which Congress will vote on. They also use the media to provide whatever spin is needed to manufacture the illusion of public support.

All of this helps to ensure that the cost of financing a political campaign to challenge the Status Quo is well beyond the reach of most average Americans. They also use their control of the election process to ensure that national and state election laws are written to make it as difficult as possible for Independents, third party candidates or certain reform related issues get on the ballot. Thus, the "common riff raff" are kept out and the running of government is left to our economic and social "betters" to fulfill their natural right to lead.

As an example, while a Democrat or Republican candidate may need as few as three to five signatures to get on a local election ballot, a Independent or third party candidate may be required to have 25 or more! In Nebraska, for instance, a partisan candidate needs only to pay a filing fee to get on the ballot for a federal office, which is quite doable. 

However, an Independent or third party candidate in Nebraska needs to obtain 4000 signatures on a petition to run for a federal office plus the filing fee. In Kentucky, they need 5000 signatures to get on the ballot! In Georgia it's 7,500 signatures. One set of rules for thee but not me.  What do you think, would you consider this biased or rigged?  

About half of the states prohibit voters from introducing a measure on the ballot. Some states require citizens to petition the state legislature in order to try and find a sponsor the potential ballot initiative. That's no guarantee they'll put any effort into getting  the measure through the labyrinth of committees in order to put it on the ballot.

Of course, it's imperative that any issue to be introduced on a ballot needs to be properly written to avoid any ambiguity or possible conflict with another law. It must also be constitutional. But assuming these can be properly addressed (perhaps through the use of a constitutional attorney or review by a state judge), is there any reason citizens should be prohibited from putting an issue on the ballot?

The two parties also use their control of key committees and government bureaucracy to limit or even exclude Independents and members of third parties from serving on committees and boards, even if that means leaving positions vacant.  Does that sound fair or unbiased to you? 

What about the fact that both parties have election officers to oversee voter registration and address election issues, and yet there is no one for Independents or the third parties. In most instances, the party with the least number of registered voters are assigned Independent and third parties voters "as if" they'll give them the same attention as they would their primary party.

When it comes to debates at the federal level, the Democrats and Republicans came together to form the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1987 (it had previously been handled by the League of Women Voters). It's worth nothing that some of its rules have been altered to all but prohibit third parties or Independents from participating. This came about following the 1992 debate which involved Independent candidate Ross Perot.

Ross Perot, for those too young to remember, was a very successful businessman who ran as a non-partisan candidate in 1992 against Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican George H.W. Bush. Needless to say, Perot kicked butt! If you get the chance to check the debates out, I urge you should do so (I've provided a link below). It wasn't  often that you saw Clinton or Bush flustered in a debate!

Nowadays, Independent and third party candidates are called as "spoilers" or treated as a circus sideshow. The reason? It's simply to psychologically influence voters into thinking they're "wasting their vote" or  not taking them seriously. It's all a mind game.  The candidacy of Donald Trump proved that. He wasn't a political insider. He also wasn't vetted by the powerbrokers. As a result, he couldn't be controlled and they knew it. That's why they went after him from day one and they're still going after him.

So, if you think our political system smells like a open dumpster at a daycare on a hot August day you'd be right (and for much the same reason). The average citizen has been essentially excluded from participating in election process. Congress caters to the wants of Wall Street, not to the needs of Main Street. That's tantamount to taxation without representation. Our Founders fought against that very notion, and yet here we are!  The single most important question is what are we going to do about it?

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Video: America's Two -Party Corporate Duopoly by Second Thought

Video: Bush, Clinton, Perot: The first 1992 Presidential Debate

Rats Jumping Ship: The Congressional Exodus

 

This article, "Frustrated lawmakers run for the exits: 'DC is broken'"  showed on my AOL feed  Tuesday as I imagine it did yours. Written by Mychael Schnell for The Hill,  the article strangely makes it seem that the level of dysfunction in Washington is somehow new, which it's not and hasn't been for quite some time. Still, it has some interesting points.

A record number of Congressional members--19 Democrats and 11 Republicans--are bailing due to the vitriol level of bitter partisanship and growing inability to solve even the most mundane of issues. However,  the political system isn't "broken" as the author alleges. In fact, Washington is running exactly as it is intended to by the ruling oligarchy (or kleptocracy if you prefer).

Congress, and indeed our entire operating bureaucracy, has been hijacked by a relatively small group of very wealthy individuals, who have managed to get their hands on the key levers of power in this country, and set up barriers to prevent their removal. This group of individuals are there to serve the interests of Wall Street, not the average American citizen.

Corporate lobbyists literally write bills designed to serve the interests of their paymasters, the big banks and wealth managers, technology, medical, and military companies among others. Meanwhile, no one is there to look out over our interests. The system is aimed to reward the wealthy and powerful while offering vague promises of change to the rest of us.

Benjamin Franklin famously said in 1787, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that they had been bequeath to us a Republic to keep, if we could. Well, we couldn't. While there has been those chipping away at it from nearly the beginning, it was  the Supreme Court that finally laid our Republic to rest on January 21, 2010.  In its place, we were given a Corporatocracy.

This day, January 21, 2010, was when the Supreme Court, blind in its understanding of modern politics and safely sequestered away in its ivory tower, grossly misunderstood the issue before it, that of money, corporate sovereignty, and politics, upheld Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by a margin of 5 to 4.  In doing so, corporations became de facto "people" with all the rights of ordinary citizens, but with one very important exception...free speech.

The court held that money was now the equivalent to "free speech". Corporations were free to spend all the "free speech" they wanted, be it on politicians, campaigns, or political parties, but what about flesh and blood citizens? Were we going to be allowed to spend what we wanted on candidates and campaigns to?

 The answer was "no". The average citizen's financial "free speech" would remain capped, as if uncapping it would matter anyway. Corporations were now free to step out of the shadows. They could drop tens of millions of dollars without blinking an eye. The result was that voters now had a much influence on elections as spit in a hurricane!

As an example, according to the FEC, during the 2019-2020 election cycle, corporations reported spending  $4.1 billion dollars during that 24 month period. In addition, Congressional candidates received $4 billion dollars while the two political parties, Democrat and Republican, were given $3.2 billion dollars. Corporations funded Political Action Committees ("PACs") to the tune of $13.2 billion. Lastly, electioneering communications and general communications reported to the FEC a received a overall total of $55.5 million dollars. Unions give just one dollar for every ten given by corporations.

The impact of Citizens United is all the more made clear when you consider that 96+% of all media---TV, radio, print, social media platforms, etc---are owned by just five corporations. This means that these same corporations can not only essentially underwrite a candidate or political party, but their control of the media allows them additional influence to affect your thinking on any given issue or candidate.

Citizens United also put the cost of running for office out of reach of most citizens. Races have become so expensive that only the wealthy and well connected can afford to run for political office. In 2022 for instance, the average cost to run for a Congressional seat was $8.9 million dollars according to the FEC. Even local offices can easily cost over $100,000 (as an aside, presidential elections are now firmly in the billion dollar stratosphere).  

It's not surprising that members of Congress are opting out, and who can blame them? The few idealists elected to office and thought they could make alliances in order to make a real difference, have found out otherwise.  Bills not favorable to corporate or special interest groups, are typically blocked or watered down to the point of bearing  little resemblance to their original intent.

In addition, it's not uncommon that newly elected members of Congress are often inundated with committees assignments, which are designed to keep them too busy to think about actually fulfilling any of their campaign promises while it indoctrinates  them into the mechanics of the system. They are also expected to spend hours upon hours fundraising for the party, party leadership and attending functions where they meet their new owners. It seems that you can promise whatever you want during the campaign just as long as you don't take it too seriously.

As the idealists (and naive) continue to vacate the halls of Congress, who do you think will fill their seats---more idealists? Perhaps. But in a political system which has intentionally been corrupted to serve the interests of Wall Street and the very wealthy, we're much more likely to see more charlatans running on promises they have no intentions of fulfilling, even if they had really wanted to. Former House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-GA) summed up the political process in Congress the best when he said "to get along you have to go along".

So is there anything we can realistically  do? Actually, we can still do a lot. We can help elect Independents and third party candidates. After all, Independents have the largest bloc of registered voters with 49%. Meanwhile, the percentage of Democrats (a distant 29%) and Republicans (20%) continue to shrink. Besides, why should two minority parties control our government? If nothing else, we can vote to oust the incumbents. At least it would be a change of faces!

You can run for office or perhaps you could seek out a board or commission position as way to influence local government. We can change voter registration as well. As I said, Independents are the largest bloc and growing. But there are other viable political parties you might consider such as the Libertarians, the Greens, or the Constitutionalists.

There are also a number of issues you can get behind that would make real impact, such as getting behind Rank Choice Voting, Term Limits, or ending partisan gerrymandering. Roughly half of all states prohibit voter referendums. That's where citizens sign a petition to put an issue on the ballot. Once the requisite number of signatures has been reached, the matter is placed on the ballot  and its voted on by the general electorate. That would be a great issue to get behind!

A key issue to consider is working to get some elected or appointed political offices changed for partisan to non-partisan. Why, for instance, should the State Auditor, Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, or Secretary of State be a partisan office? They are Constitutional offices. They don't make any laws. They simply enforce existing laws. The same goes for the offices of County Clerk, Circuit Court Clerk, or County Attorney. Why on earth would you want those to be partisan positions?

As an aside, it's worth nothing that the Board of Elections at both the state and local levels have Democrat and Republican Election Officers to oversee the affairs of their respective party as it applies to voting. But why doesn't Independent and third parties? They literally have no representation!

Currently Independents and third party voters are simply dumped in with whichever of the two corporate owned parties are the smallest to boost their overall numbers, and you can bet that their interests are totally ignored.  So why isn't there a third non-partisan election officer looking out for Independent and third party voters? That would be a great issue to get behind. 

You could volunteer to work for some local group on a particular issue of interest to you. Maybe you'd want to serve as a citizen lobbyist to help get support on some particular cause by lobbying you local elected officials. For example, why don't citizens get to vote on increases of taxes, fees, or rates, including any utilities owned by the city? You could help create or join a neighborhood association or block watch.  Finally, you could write letters to the editor of your local newspapers.

Personally, I've been urging voters to ignore endorsements by the news media for over 20 years. The reason is because I believe the media should focus on solely on reporting the news and not trying to influence elections through endorsements in order to promote their private agendas. That's not their job. Instead, their job is to provide the public with a honest accounting of the facts without bias.

At the very least, those doing the interviews and making the endorsements need to disclose their name, their position, and their party registration (or political leaning) in the name of full transparency. Very few news media endorsements do this. They also  need to release the entire unedited transcript of each candidate interview instead of the editors providing excerpts or corrected responses (unedited filmed versions of the interview would be better)

These are just a few suggestions. There are, without a doubt, many more. The point here is to become and exemplify the change you want to see.  But to do that you have to get off your butt to make it happen instead of whining about how things have become. We lost our Republic by sitting on our collective behinds and assuming someone else would protect our nation and preserve our Constitution for us while we played video games or daydreamed our lives away watching so-called "reality" television shows!

There's an old expression which says that a nation gets the government it deserves. I don't know how true that is, but I can't imagine the average American, regardless of their origin, race, religion, ethnic status or gender, wants to see this great nation continue to circle the drain ever tighter. So, what's it going to be? More bitching and moaning or doing what our Founding Fathers did--- taking a stand? It's your call.

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Statistical Summary of 24-Month Campaign Activity of the2019-2020 Election Cycle

Think: Supreme Court's Citizen United mistake just turned ten years old. It's time to reverse it.

 

What's Wrong with Citizens United v. FEC

Brookings Institute: What Americans still want fromgovernment reform: 11 takaways

Government Executive: More Americans Want 'Very Major' Government Reform

Political Endorsements: Providing the Masses with Bread and Circuses for Fun and Profit

 

Another Opinion has published an article like this in one form or another every election cycle since 2001 not just as a public service, but as part of the fight to save our Republic. Why? Because we now live in a world where independent thought is no longer considered "politically correct". We're expected to toe the line dictated to us by the Status Quo. America is no longer a Republic. It's a Corporatocracy run via diktat by a super rich Oligarchy.

There are just five of these corporations that control 96+% of all media content---TV, movies, video games, radio, publishing, newspapers and so on.  They have an incredably powerful ability to directly influence your opinions by controlling and spinning what you watch, read, or hear.  They keep you entertained, distracted, angry, confused, and ignorant of the real issues. Bread and Circuses. While they your attention, they try to influence your vote through their so-called "endorsements".

We have a problem with this. We believe you should make your own decisions based on your own research regardless of who you ultimately vote for. Independent thought  is important for our present if we are to have a future. Please consider sharing this article. Thank you.

BTW: The opinions expressed here are strictly my own.

 

Political Endorsements: Providing the Masses with Bread and Circuses for Fun and Profit

There was a time when the news media (particularly newspapers) were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public morality, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"). However, society and technology grew up. Today, we are better informed that at any time in history.  We have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates and the issues which are important to us.

The media, especially newspapers, make endorsements to serve their agenda, not yours, although they try to make it sound one and the same.  For years, I've campaigned for the release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews  and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and their political affiliations. The public has a right to know exactly what a candidate said and in what context, as well as political leaning of those making the so-called "endorsements".

I've been a community organizer and political activist for well over 40 years.  To many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed,  or instances  where the "correct" response was inserted while gaffs were carefully removed on behalf of certain candidates. In fact, I've been a victim of these manipulations. That's deception, whether intentional or not.

 Today, a handful of news and other media outlets are making public these interviews unedited and providing the facts behind their research in a timely fashion. They are also providing unbiased information regarding both side of key issues, particularly those that will be appearing on the ballot. To those brave few actual journalists and editors, bravo to you!  

However, not all are providing full disclosure of the names and political registration or leaning of the interviewers making the endorsements nor are they disclosing the criteria by which the endorsements are made. That remains hidden behind a false veneer of make believe "integrity"!  You-- the voter--have a right to know if an "endorsement" on an issue or candidate is honest and fair or is being made based on a political or economic bias.  

As I have done for decades, I'm urging voters to take a few minutes to do their own research in order to make an informed decision before casting their vote.  Using a Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider.  You can check out a candidate's or issue's website, or do a general search on the internet. You'll find out a lot more than just reading or listening to a biased review or opinion.

As an aside, if you're looking at a political party's website or that of an endorsing organization, bear in mind that they are writing from their point of view. Any endorsements or opinions they make serve their interests, not necessarily yours.  Always understand the political slant of any source.

If you find that you happen to be in agreement with a candidate or issue, fine. Support that individual or issue as a volunteer  or with a financial contribution, a yard sign, or simply with your vote. But whatever you, do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think or decide for you. Never surrender your vote!

I also suggest that candidates or those representing an issue who are interviewed for an endorsement, especially by the news media, to be sure and write down the names of those conducting the interview. Ask if they will be making the endorsement. If not, who will?  Also ask when their recommendation will be announced. If you're being recorded for TV or radio, ask when it will be aired.

 Finally, when being interviewed for an endorsement, don't be afraid to ask what their political affiliation is. If they refuse to tell you, note that too. You may want to make this public  once the interview is over in order to keep everyone "above board" and honest. Keep it factual and to the point. Leave any personal opinions or animosity out of it. If your campaign depends on their recommendations, then you, your supporters and the voters deserve to know what to expect.

The role of the media, regardless of its format, is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner. It is not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit their  political or economic  agenda, even if they believe it's "for your own good".  Only you can decide what's in your own best interests.  

Organizations, including business associations and unions, have a specific agenda.They even create a myriad of fake "committees" for this or that to hype their agenda (made all the more powerful by the 2010 "Citizens United" blunder by the not-so-Supreme Court). It's in their economic interests to make these endorsements. They are responsible solely to their board of directors and/or the stakeholders, not the general public. 

But it's not the job of the news media, including newspapers, to push any agenda! Their one job should be to provide the public with honest and balanced information free of political bias and let the people decide, wouldn't you agree?  

Remember too that endorsements are merely ultimately personal opinions, often based on money and access to power, and those opinions aren't always the most informed! Think for yourself. Do your own research.  And then vote!  Your community and America are counting on you!

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Voters Ain't Buying What Biden Is Selling: Time To Look Elsewhere?

 

A New York Times/Siena College poll came out on July 12th with some more bad news for President Joe Biden. According to the poll, President Biden's job approval rating was a paltry 33%. Worse is that 64% of Democrats want someone other than Biden leading their party and to be their presidential nominee in 2024. Only 23% want to see Biden nominated.

Digging further, 1/3 of those surveyed said age was key factor in Biden being replaced on the ticket. At 79 years, he is already the oldest person to hold the office of President. Many also cite Biden's apparent lack of mental acuity as well. Some of those polled said that watching Biden on TV reminded them of watching of a "zombie".

Biden is known to routinely suffer from serious memory issues, verbal slips, odd behavior and other SNAFUs, leaving his aides and staffers scurrying to "clarify" what he was saying, intending to do, or explaining away his "jokes".  Others point out that he uses a cheat sheet to get through speeches (which has occasionally been flashed to the cameras) as well as use an earpiece with someone nearby feeding him the answers, not to mention routine use of teleprompters.

Again, hinting as his age being a serious problem, 12% of the Democrats surveyed thought it was time to have "someone new" as president.  Meanwhile,10% of those polled said that Biden wasn't "progressive enough", while a mere 1% disagreed with on domestic issues. 

According to the poll, about 75% of the population think the country is headed in the wrong direction, while just 13% are satisfied with things as they are. That's the worse result since about 2007 when almost 85% disapproved on the country's direction.

To make matters even  bleaker, the nation's largest political bloc, Independents, are equally dissatisfied with America's political and economic direction. The poll indicates that 3/4 of Independents disapprove of President Biden's handling of the country. Not unexpectedly, the majority of Republicans think Biden is doing a terrible job as president. His disapproval rating among Republicans is 87%!

If there was any good news to come out this poll, it's that 92% of Democrats said they would vote for President Biden if he was running against former President Donald Trump (the same poll also projected that in race between Biden and Trump, Biden would squeak by with a 44% to 41% margin of victory),  and that brings us to how Republicans currently feel about "The Donald".

According to the same poll, approximately 51% of Republicans surveys said that wouldn't vote for the former president if the GOP primary was held today. The polls indicated that about 25% would back Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, while 7% would back Texas Senator Ted Cruz and 6% favored Trump's former Vice President, Mike Pence.

Nikki Haley tied with Pence, also with 6%. Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations. Her claim to fame was during her tenure as governor of South Carolina and ordering the Confederate battle flag to be removed from the State Capitol. Bringing up the rear in straw primary was Mike Pompeo with a polite 2%. Pompeo was Trump's former Secretary of State and director of the CIA.

Interestingly, the January 6th protest failed to register as a serious issue among Republicans polled. 75% said that then President Trump was simply exercising his legal right to contest the outcome of the vote and wasn't responsible for the actions of the protestors.  This may be one of the main reasons the Democrats and corporate owned media has remained focused on destroying Trump's character and bleed him dry financially so well ahead of the 2024 election cycle.

Nevertheless, despite the relatively favorable numbers among potential Republican primary voters, it's worth noting that among voters under 34 years of age, a strong majority---64%----said they wouldn't back Trump. Among those with at least a bachelor's degree, 65% said that Trump wouldn't be giving their support either (32% said they'd back Governor DeSantis, while 12% had Nikki Haley's back with 10% hanging on to Pence).  Notably, 58% of those without a college degree said they would stick with "The Donald".

So, if Biden backs out of running in 2024, who are the most likely Democrats to run for the top job? Well, obviously, the most likely prospect would be Biden's Vice President, Kamala Harris. However, Ms. Harris' job performance has been as dismal as her boss's. With having the distinction of having the worst job rating of any Vice President (her current disapproval rating is 64%),it's unlikely she'll get any serious support in a bid for President.

Next is the perennial candidate for president, Bernie Sanders. If Bernie runs again, he should at least received some sort of award for perseverance. This would be the third time the self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" will try to take a bite at the golden apple. It would also say something about his character.

In the 2016 Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton, Bernie and his campaign were (for lack of a better word) royally screwed over by the Hillary campaign, the Democratic Party, the Democratic powerbrokers, and all with the help of the mainstream media. The results were a total and utter farce.

The result of the blatantly rigged election resulted in the ultimate removal of not one, but two chairwomen of the Democratic Party (Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile), and yet, aside from their removal, were rewarded for their efforts by the power elite (if nothing else it displayed the brazen clout of the ruling Oligarchy).  

Further behind is Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom. Buttigieg is Biden's Secretary of Transportation. He is relatively young; in his early 40's. He's been a member of the Truman National Security project since 2005, which is a progressive institute focused in national security and foreign affairs issues. He is the former mayor of South Bend Indiana, and if elected, he would be America's first openly gay president.

Gavin Newsom is the current governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco, the hometown of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi who is also his aunt by marriage (which may be reason enough to look elsewhere). Newsom, who has a net worth of some $20 million dollars, comes from one of four of the most powerful political families in San Francisco, has been the subject of several recall efforts during his tenure as governor, including most recently in 2021 over his support of sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The effort failed. He is currently running for reelection which will be held on November 8, 2022.

Next in line is Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. A progressive, she finished third in the 2020 Democratic Primary. Senator Warren is known as strong supporter and friend of former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.  Although she has frequently publicly criticized corporate money in politics,  Warren began accepting corporate money from "Super Pacs" in February 2020 , which has included Microsoft, Apple Inc, Alphabet Inc, IBM, and AT&T among many others. She currently has just over $142 million in her war chest.  

Other possible contestants in a Biden-less 2024 Democrat Primary could be New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, and North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that Hillary Clinton might make a third run for the Oval Office. If she does, she'll be around 76 years old, still younger than Joe Biden, who'd be 82 if he runs.

But Hillary carries some seriously personal and political heavy baggage. She has also lost much of her former luster (her most recent approval rating, from 2019, was just 36%). Still, she has the credentials (and dirt) plus access to more than enough money to buy the presidency. If only she could get her personality and past history out of the way!

So, what about the Republicans? Assuming "The Trumpster" bows out, who else besides DeSantis, Cruz, Haley, or Pence might considering wading into the deep end of the swamp? Well, unfortunately, the bench on the Republican side isn't every deep.

Aside from the names mentioned earlier, South Dakota's Kristi Noem is mentioned as a possible prospect. However, with roughly a year to go before early campaigning begins, Kristi lacks name recognition and the big dollars needed to buy a presidency. The same goes for fellow Republican Tom Cotton.

Cotton is a U.S. Senator from Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Although he's still relatively young at age 47, he's graduated from Harvard University, served as a Captain in the Army where he was a member of the 101st Airborne and qualified as a Army Ranger.

He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, earning a Bronze Star, Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf, a Combat Infantry Badge among others. He also served  a term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has maintained a "A" rating with the NRA and is a strong opponent to amnesty for illegal immigrants. He opposes Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Healthcare Act ("Obamacare").  His view on foreign affairs is considered to be "hawkish".

Lastly, Cotton is known as one of Biden's most vocal critics. It should also be noted that he isn't much of a Trump supporter and has stated that the "insurrectionists" of January 6th should be "brought to justice". However, Cotton's twin Achilles heels are that he still suffers from a lack of name recognition outside of his state and lacks that all important access to the Corporate PAC teller. Cotton may not run in 2024, but I'd keep an eye on him. If you like conservatives, he's a player to watch.

So there you have it. Should Joe Biden run again? If not, who do you think should? What do think about a second term Trump or has his time past? One name not mention as a possible presidential candidate is former Congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. I think she would make a good choice, but she's not shown any signs of getting back in politics as a candidate.  

America is in serious trouble. I don't know if we can survive another term by either Biden or "The Donald", but our other choices at the moment don't look especially promising. What do you think?

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

 Most Democrats Don't Want Biden in 2024, New Poll Shows

Half of G.O.P. Voters Ready To Leave Trump Behind, PollFinds

55% of Americans disapprove of the president

Favorability rating of Vice President Kamala Harris in theUnited States, as of July 2022

Who will run for President in 2024? Rumored Republican andDemocratic Candidates

Leaked emails show how the Democrats screwed Sanders

DMC betrayed Bernie Sanders and the rest of America

 

 The 10 Republicans most likely to run for President

 

 

 

Rules For Thee But Not For Me: Congressional Exemptions (Including Covid Vaccine)

Maybe it's the word "mandate" which I don't like. It conjures up images of jackboots. It sounds so finite; so authoritarian.  I've never cared for authoritarianism, especially when it comes from the government, and particularly when it involves my personal choices. I've always been a strong advocate of individual rights.  So were our Founding Fathers. They were big on individual rights and restricting government's ability to impede those rights.

So, when President Joe Biden comes out with "mandates" about vaccinations, I have an issue with that. It's not that I necessarily oppose the vaccinations. I think they are likely beneficial, particularly if you're someone with a impaired immune system such as the elderly or someone with a illness which affects their immune system. However, the government also claims natural immunity alone isn't enough even for young and healthy people, which seems odd.    

Naturally, I have some questions about the vaccines themselves and the record time they were developed and approved. Most vaccines go through a long and laborious procedure of test trials and reviews lasting years, not four months, before being receiving the FDC stamp of approval (in fact, the average process takes 10-15 years). Apparently, however, the COVID vaccines were an exception, which is a little disconcerting.

And yet, President Biden has issued a mandate requiring virtually everyone to either get vaccinated or regularly tested.  Many employers, as well as schools, however, have insisted that everyone be vaccinated or lose their job. Other employers are more "lenient".  They are opting to forego proof of vaccination and instead require weekly testing, wearing a mask, and avoiding contact with customers and other employees as much as possible. How generous, especially if your income depends on customer contact (note intended sarcasm).

One reason I italicized the word "virtually" is because this mandate, which is causing so much grief among you and I, doesn't apply to members of Congress, the President, or their immediate staff. Yelp, you read that right. President Biden, VP Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and the usual suspects are exempt from the "jab". That doesn't mean they can't get the shot if they want to. It's just means they don't have to if they don't want to. I have a problem with that.

If the various vaccines are so safe, and Covid is so contagious, then why are they exempt from the same jab we're told we have to go to work, send our children to school, or is required by all other government employees including the military?  As an aside, all four of the military branches discharged military personnel for refusing the vaccination.

We've all been told to "social distance" by at least six feet, wear a mask, and avoid social gatherings, and yet how often have we seen government leaders, such as members of Congress, huddle around a microphone or photo-op without a mask (or drop their mask as soon as they think the press is leaving)? How about members of the G7 all setting around talking mask free? Monkey see monkey don't?

I'm particularly amused...and a little miffed...to hear government leaders or the uber rich tell us wear masks indoors or to avoid contact with family, especially during the holidays; tell us to remain inside unless it's essential that we go out, and then avoid all contact and get back as soon as we can. I'm sure they're in full compliance with their own instructions...not! Vaccinations aside, all this made me wonder what else besides the Covid jab is Congress and the President exempt from but still applies to us.

One item which caught my eye immediately is FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. Members of Congress, and any associated committees, are not subject to FOIA, which, in effect, means they don't answer to you. The explanation given is that responding to FOIA requests could put Congressional members "under undo pressure".

What about "insider trading"? In 2012, President Obama signed into law a bill prohibiting insider trading; that is, financial information received from sources outside the normal legislative process. But some enterprising legislators left a loophole in the bill as usual. Information received in the normal conduct of legislative business, including closed briefings, is not considered insider trading. So, if you learn something in a closed briefing about, let's say, a vaccine, that's not considered to be insider trading, you might want to have your broker on speed dial.  

Whistleblower protection. Ever hear the expression "See something say something"? Well, not if you work for the legislative branch! Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 to encourage federal employees, including those working in the executive branch to speak up if they see or hear something that's not kosher while protecting them from retaliation, including termination (at least in theory). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives similar protection to workers in the private sector.

However, Congress exempted itself and those who work in the legislative branch from protection. That includes those working in the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, and other federal jobs. So, if you  suspect something you'd better keep your damn mouth shut if you know what's good for you!

Along those same lines is subpoenaing health and safety records, and the ability to conduct investigations. The Occupational and Health Safety Act permits the U.S. Department of Labor to conduct investigations and obtain records from private businesses if required. However, the Office of Compliance, which issues those subpoenas, does not have the authority to investigate or subpoena records of alleged violations from the legislative branch. Kinda handy don't you think?

Public sector unions are the largest segment of organized labor in the United States. However, in addition to the above, Congress is exempt from keeping regular workplace records such as pertaining to the Age Discrimination Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act  to name just two.

It's worth nothing that in 1997, Congress passed Congressional Accountability Act. What's that you ask? It required Congress to adopt and apply certain legislation which had previously been signed into law but which Congress has exempted itself from.

A few of those laws (and when they were enacted) included the 1964 Title VII Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Occupation Health and Safety Act of 1970, and the Veteran's Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. Remember, these weren't formally adopted by Congress until 1997 even though they were passed into law years or decades earlier.

Then there's the topic of receiving outside money. Members of Congress receive a base salary of $174,000 (Majority and minority leaders in the Senate make a base of $193,400).  The House Speaker (that's Nancy Pelosi) makes $223,500. That doesn't include all the various perks they get such as gym membership, per diem, subsidized insurance (there's a taxpayer based fund which pays their premiums), first class seats on planes, free parking...anywhere (and no tickets!). Of course, there's always the "outside" perks which really make the job worthwhile.  

Why fly commercial when you can get a catered flight on a private airplane courtesy of a corporation or political association anywhere and at any time you want? Why live off a measly $174,000 when you can form your own personal leadership PAC to solicit mega donations which you can use to pay for all sorts of "political" related expenses? Others have set up special tax exempt foundations (funded by a "pay to play" scheme) and pay themselves in the six or seven figure range for "consulting".

You also can get speaking fees paying in the hundreds of thousands.  In 2001, Bill and Hillary gave 729 political talks averaging $210,795 each of them! After her tenure as Secretary  of State, Hillary received $22 million dollars in speaking fees. Most of the money---15.9 million---came from corporations which regularly lobby Congress.

While ordinary members of Congress may not do that well, they can still make a large chunk of change, and we're not even talking book deals or semi-regular appearances on talk shows! As an aside, bear in mind that just over 50% of Congressional members were millionaires (many are multi-millionaires) going into a job that pays $174,000.  You can bet that ain't doing it for their health or our wellbeing either.

The top 10% of Congressional members have three times the wealth as the bottom 90%, which is still far more than the average American household owns. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), saw her wealth go from $41 million to $115 million since making it into that top 10% bubble. Senator Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) wealth went from a paltry $3 million dollars to over $34 million. Then again, for some it doesn't matter. Senator Kelly Loeffer (R-GA) came into the game with a net worth of over $500 million.  The game has been rigged so that only those with deep pockets can play.

On the topic of money, there is one myth I want to dispel. Members of Congress don't get their salary for life, even if they serve just one term. Members can receive a full pension only if they're 62 years old and served for a minimum of five years; 50 years old and have served 20 years; or they've served for 25 years regardless of their age.

 Also, regardless of how long they served, they cannot receive more than 80% of the salary at the time they left Congress. They must also pay 1.3% of their salary into the Federal Employees' Retirement System and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

Many members of Congress, including key staffers, often end up on Washington's K Street as corporate lobbyists, "advisers" or "consultants" (members of Congress must legally wait 12 months before they start glad handing their former colleagues). How many are we talking about?

About 78% of former House members and 87% of former Senate members, plus key staff members, become lobbyists while most of the remainder "advise" or "consult" on a part-time basis. On average, when a Congressman becomes a lobbyist, they get a 1,452% raise over their former $174,000 salary (plus all the perquisite perks) while lobbyists spend approximately $3 billion dollars lobbying Congress and other federal agencies. Lobbyists also write the overwhelming majority of all legislation too.  Is it any wonder that we're a Corporatocracy?

On that note, I'd like to ask you dear reader if any of this sounds like "socialism" to you? I can't imagine it does. Socialism is public ownership or control. Communism is state ownership of everything. That's includes private businesses, banks, and property. That's means no Wall Street. No lobbyists. That means everything you read above couldn't and wouldn't happen under socialism, Communism or Marxism.

Hopefully, this article has shed some light on the abuses and misuses of Congress, as well as the political system in general, for you. President Biden can "mandate" all he wants, but for countless Americans, it carries little or no weight, especially given that Biden and Congress have exempted themselves. But, as shown above, they've exempted themselves from many other laws too (and that's just a partial list).

The Status Quo that created the rules created the two tier legal system. Some say it's biased towards blacks, or Hispanics, or gays, or women, or the poor, and in a sense they'd be right.  Its aim is to separate us from them and us from each other. The more divided we are, the easier we are to control and manipulate. President John Kennedy said, in 1962, that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". That clock is about to strike midnight.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider subscribing. It's free! Lastly please be sure to ""like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

 

Why is Congress exempt from the Biden Covid mandate?

No, President Biden's mandate for federal workers does not apply to members of Congress and their staff

Here's who paid Hillary Clinton $22 Million in Speaking Fees

Majority of Lawmakers in the 116th Congress are millionaires

When a Congressman becomes a lobbyist he get a 1,452% raise(on average)

 

Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants

Perks Members Of Congress Give To Themselves

 

Laws That Do Not Apply To Congress

Congress exempt from several federal laws

How Senators May have Avoided Insider Trading Charges

Amy McGrath vs. Mitch McConnell: A Breakdown and a Prediction

The McConnell vs. McGrath U.S. Senate race is probably one of, if not the most watched campaign in America next to the Presidential race. The latest polls show the incumbent McConnell with a pretty hefty lead over his challenger---52% to 41%. Forecasting models show McConnell with a 96% probably of being reelected, but as everyone who follows politics will tell you, anything can happen.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is considered to be the single most "hated" politician nationally, even more so than President Trump, thanks to the media which never tires of batching him. In July, his unfavorable rating was at 47%, the highest of any senator. McConnell is usually portrayed as Machiavellian, a master manipulator, and someone who constantly impedes progress.

Well, the veteran McConnell is certainly Machiavellian and a master of the backroom deal, he is less a barrier to progress as he is someone who wants to slow down the process and examine the issue given how politicians tend over react to the latest poll and don't think things through---regardless of party.

So, what's at stake? What would change if Amy McGrath (D) should defeat McConnell?  If we look at the bigger picture first, we see that the Republicans have a commanding control of the Senate by a 53 to 45 margin (with two Independents). Mitch McConnell, by virtue of his seniority and mastery of insider politics, is the Senate Majority Leader. That means that he is the leader of the Senate Republicans. Basically, what McConnell wants McConnell gets from his fellow Republicans.

Being the Senate leader has been called the most powerful position in America's political power structure up to and including that of President in terms of raw power. However, it needs to be noted that the Speaker of the House is third in the line of succession behind the Vice President and President. In fact, the Founders originally intended that the Speaker be the primary leader of the country with the presidency being primarily a ceremonial office.

The number two position is the Senate Majority Whip, which is currently John Thune (R-SD). His primary job as "whip" is ensure Senate Republicans line up and support the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell. In the event there is a Republican President (Trump is in this case), McConnell serves as his top general as it were. Sort of an Eisenhower while the whip acts like a Omar Bradley.

So, if we have a Senate Majority leader, then we have a Senate Minority leader, which is Charles "Chuck" Schumer (D-NY). His party's Minority Whip is Richard Durbin (D-IL). Their roles mirror that of McConnell's and Thune's. As the minority, they typically oppose whatever it is the majority are trying to accomplish. In short, they are there to "impede" and promote their own---partisan---recommendations.

If there is a Democrat President and the Democrats remain a minority in the Senate, they will back whatever issues that individual is promoting while the majority Republicans will do whatever they can to oppose; the exact opposite of what's happening now. At some point a compromise is reached, but not always, especially given the divisiveness of today's politics and media bias. 

As an aside, in the House the Democrats have the majority. Therefore, they control the Speaker of the House post, which is Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).  The House Majority Leader is Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The Majority Whip is James Clyburn (D-SC).  On the minority side is Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as the Minority House Leader.  Steve Scalise (R-LA) serves as the Minority Whip.

So, what happens if Amy McGrath should beat McConnell? Well, besides becoming perhaps the most popular politician on the Left and being on endless talk shows for months on end, not much else.

McConnell currently sits on some choice committees, including the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate Committee on Appropriations (where all the money is spent), Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Should McGrath win she would not, despite some misconceptions, assume McConnell's mantle as Majority Leader or any of his committee assignments. In fact, McGrath would take her seat in the Senate as a junior minority senator. She can request specific committee assignments, but her committees will be determined by the Democrat Senate Leadership based on what seats are available (as the majority party in the Senate, the GOP gets the lion's share of committee choices and chairmanships).

 In short, should Amy win, she would be at the very bottom of the Senate dung heap. While she would have great name recognition, her political clout would be nil. Even if the Democrats should take control of the Senate, she would still be at the bottom of the pile. In order to be appointed to any of the prized committees, she'll need to work her way up like everyone else has. Perhaps a victory over McConnell might help grease her ascendency somewhat, but fame is fleeting, especially in the Senate.

How realistic is the prospect that Amy McGrath will defeat the wily incumbent? Mitch McConnell's use of some pretty clever commercials (everyone in politics remembers the bloodhounds) went a long way in helping him defeat incumbent, Walter "Dee" Huddleston (D-KY). Amy McGrath is trying the same tactic with some cute cartoon-like commercials portraying McConnell as a slow moving turtle stuck in a swamp of his own making at Trump's beck and call. Cute, but that's about it.

McGrath's campaign has enjoyed a lot of funding, mostly from outside the state (about $34 million), which has brought in around $46 million dollars, with about $16 million still on hand. She'll likely get a last push infusion to do a final all out media blitz. Meanwhile, so-called "soft money" support has been coming in but not at level Amy needs to take out McConnell.  So, where is her money coming from?

The majority of her donations are coming from retirees, education, attorneys, healthcare, businesses, individuals and companies in the entertainment industry, real estate developers, media, and technology companies. Interesting, she's getting a lot (over two million) from lobbyists and single issue groups. Unions, which knee-jerk their endorsement of Democrats, have only donated a little over $53,000.

Key donors have included the University of California, Walt Disney, Harvard University, Stanford University, Microsoft, AT&T, and  Kaiser Permanente, which is a managed care consortium. Alphabet, Inc (the parent company of Google and its subsidiaries) and Moveon.org. Democracy Engine, which bundles donations, gave her over just at $164,000.   

On the other side, McConnell has raised just under $37 million dollars and spent a little over $20 million of it, leaving about $16 million on hand; $27 million has come from out of state. Outside groups and "soft money" has been very supportive of the Senator.  For instance, his Leadership PAC has provided a bit over $5 million dollars, of which he's spent close to $4.7 million.

The majority of his direct donors has come from retirees, securities and investments, real estate firms, attorneys, and insurance companies. Some of the largest donations has come from UPS,  Votesane PAC,  NorPac (a pro-Israel political action committee), NRA, Goldman Sachs, Humana, and global investment companies  KKR & Company and  Apollo Global Management.

Donations to his Leadership PAC (which everyone in Congress has regardless of party) are principally pharmaceutical and health product manufacturers, insurance and real estate professionals again, electrical utility companies, and healthcare professionals. The major notables are Eli Lilly, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Altria Group (a manufacturer of tobacco products), LHC Group (Louisville based senior care conglomerate), and Amgen, Inc., which is a multinational biopharmaceutical company.

So what's the bottom line? Amy McGrath, despite some impressive credentials (including being a former Marine, which being former Navy, I won't hold against her) and some cutesy commercials won't win this election. She lacks the resources, financial and otherwise, to defeat a seasoned pro like McConnell.

Even if by some fluke she should win, she won't be in a position to do the things she's promised to do (or, for that matter, any of those things she is being accused of "secretly" plotting to do). Politics doesn't work like that. It's a team sport. She'll need years to build up the clout inside and outside of politics to get much of anything accomplished. 

As for McConnell, at age 78, and with a six year senatorial term, I look for this election to be his swan song. He's served longer than most, and certainly longer than anyone from Kentucky. His legacy is secure. The Kentucky GOP has some prospects to put forward, including 4th District Representative, Thomas Massie. Amy McGrath would have a tough time against the popular Massie, but a much better shot than she does against McConnell. This isn't her time.

 

OpenSecrets: Mitch McConnell

Vote Smart: Amy McGrath's Finances

 

The Economist: Forecasting the U.S. Elections