There is very little Combat! blog today, since I was required to usefully intervene in a chiropractic emergency this afternoon. But I couldn’t help noticing Chris Cillizza’s intensely critical gloss of Bernie Sanders’s remarks on the possibility of endorsing Hillary Clinton. Here’s a sample of the remarks Cillizza called “remarkably condescending” and “by turns baffling and surreal”:

It’s not a question of my endorsement. It’s a question of the American people understanding that Secretary Clinton is prepared to stand with them as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford health care, as their kids can’t afford to go to college. Make it clear that she is on their side, that she is prepared to take on Wall Street, the drug companies, fossil fuel industry. Deal with the global crisis of climate change. I have no doubt that if Secretary Clinton makes that position, those positions clear, she will defeat Trump and defeat him by a very wide margin.

It sounds like Sanders is demurring on the question of his own endorsement by urging Clinton to adopt a platform that will appeal to left-leaning voters. Perhaps that is quixotic or even petulant, given that he is (still) running as a Democrat, and Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But it is not “stunning,” as Cillizza has it, nor “amazingly condescending,” as the headline promises. If it is condescending at all, it is no more so than asking a man still campaigning for the Democratic nomination when he will endorse his opponent.

I think Sanders should probably drop out. But insofar as staying in might pull the party platform to the left, he should keep at it. There are a lot of people struggling out there, and right now the interests of poor and lower middle-class voters are not being served by either party. Their choice is between a socially conservative party of the investor class and a socially liberal party of the investor class. As that same Bernie Sanders argues in the New York Times today:

Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class. In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind.

The angry, working-class voters who turned to Trump and wrecked the Republican Party are the Democrats’ target audience. Clearly, they want something different. I think Sanders is right to withhold his endorsement from Clinton at this point, because she has shown little commitment to the policies that he brought into the race. Those policies appeal to millions of voters. The Democrats would be mistaken to leave them on the table just to reassure, as Sanders puts it, “a handful of billionaires.

There’s no time for Friday links today, because I’m going camping. The good news is there’s plenty of other stuff to read. If you’re wondering just what kind of crazy this country will become after Hillary Clinton gets indicted, former Trump corporation executive John O’Donnell has written a tell-all book titled Trumped! that characterizes the billionaire as a “racist boor.” Props to race-neutral boor Ben al-Fowlkes for the link. Be sure not to skip the last paragraph, which reads as follows:

Trump declined yesterday to be interviewed. His assistant, Norma Foederer, said that she had not read the book but understood that it was filled with mistakes and that the public would be well advised to ignore it.

Just some friendly advice from the most patient woman on Earth, Donald Trump’s assistant. Meanwhile, over at the New Republic, Alex Shephard quotes another former coworker who wonders if Trump embraced Chris Christie because he likes having a funny fat guy around. Apparently, he stubbornly retained a fat buffoon on one season of The Apprentice, explaining to producers, “Everybody loves a fat guy. People will watch if you have a funny fat guy around. Trust me, it’s good for ratings.”

Man, I hope Chris Christie doesn’t read that. For the rest of us, it’s proof that Trump believes he can do lots of other people’s jobs better than they can, not just politicians. But it might make Christie sad. Let’s work toward a gentler, more decent America by not electing the mean billionaire and voting for the lady who will invade Syria instead. I’ll be in the woods if anybody needs me, possibly forever.

 

 

 

There is no Combat! blog today, because I have spent the whole day ghostwriting. Probably I am the only vain neurotic who experiences this phenomenon, but it’s easier to write someone else’s project. It really defangs that old bugbear of composition, the ego. Anyway, I’ve been stacking that paper and counting them words since I woke up this morning, and now I am all typed out. We’ll be back tomorrow with exciting news from Montana politics, featuring one of our favorite personalities.

There are no Friday links today, because my girlfriend and I have taken the day off to go to the beach. Is this a shocking abdication of my responsibilities as sole proprietor of this blog? Yes. Is it worth it to enjoy this sliver of dazzling Montana summer? Surely. We’ll be back Monday, unless we become beach bums full-time.

When last we spoke of Valerie Stamey, she had finally been located in South Carolina, the very state whose civil judgments she escaped to come to Montana. If you’re going to flee a second lawsuit, be careful to choose a third location instead of returning to the site of your original fraud. By committing this rookie mistake, Stamey has allowed our neighbors in Ravalli County to at last serve her with their lawsuit for neglecting her duties as treasurer. Unfortunately, because Ravalli County is in Montana and Stamey is in South Carolina, our district courts have no jurisdiction. Stamey schooled county attorney Bill Fullbright on this point of law in a letter she cc’ed to the Ravalli Republic. I quote their report:

In the letter to Fulbright, the former treasurer called the summons “constitutionally invalid” and said the district court did not have jurisdiction over her because she now lives out of state.

“This letter serves notice to you that if you continue in this action against me, I will seek legal remedies,” Stamey’s letter read. “I have made you aware of the flaw in your continuing to waste tax dollars to try and illegally serve me.”

Stamey has not responded to the summons otherwise. Needless to say, you still have to respond to a lawsuit even if you leave the state where it was filed. Any lawyer will tell you that, although conservative patriots may disagree. Isn’t it strange how the same lay readings of the constitution that endeared Stamey to a certain faction of Ravalli Republicans also justify her serial dodging of lawsuits? No consequence that befalls this lady is constitutional. She’s a scamp, and I’d love to write about her all day, but I’ve got to help Lagan unload windows at his house. Windows are pretty light, right? They’re mostly sky. We’ll be back Monday with hopefully unsevered tendons in our hands.