Decision 2026 Addendum:The Left Wing's Track Record in Senate Primaries This Cycle. What We Should Take Away Is Different From What They Will

 

There's been a lot written and said over the last about just how seriously we should take the far left in American politics, whether they are labeled progressive, socialist, DSA or even outright communist.

I've had a lot of time to reflect on this subject and this sums up my opinion:

The far left will be successful in the American political system as soon as they understand how America or politics works. And in the ten years since Bernie's primary run, I see no evidence that they've made any substantive progress in either.

I'm given multiple examples of why I believe this before and this week I intend to buttress it with the results of the Democratic primaries this year that more or less confirms my overall opinion. Later this week I'll deal with a final summation of how they did in the Congressional primaries this cycle and today I'm dealing with how they did in the Senate.

One of the reasons that I'm convinced the American left has yet to understand how politics works is that they have different definitions for what success looks like. In terms of the Senate this can be illustrated by how they define the term 'turnout'. Because it's pretty clear that the establishment wing of the Democrats, as represented by Chuck Schumer, and the progressive wing, which for these purposes I will refer to as Sanders-Warren, have completely contradictory definitions.

To the establishment wing and indeed most political figures, successful turnout is a two-fold affair. First there is turnout in the primary in which you do everything to acquire more votes then your opponents. In many cases that usually means going to the left to win over the primary voters. Once you've won the primary, you must then pivot the general election which means going to the center in order to win undecided, independents and possibly dissatisfied Republicans. You must build a coalition in order to amass more votes than your Republican opponent does and they are building their coalition the same way.

For the Sanders-Warren wing, however, successful turnout means winning the primary only. As far as they and their followers are concerned, winning the nomination is the end of negotiations with any undecided voters or anyone else who isn't completely on board with the metrics they set in the primary. To even consider mitigating your positions to win over the undecided is a betrayal worse then losing the election. And if there are Democrats who are uncomfortable with the position the candidate took in the primary they have two choices: shut up and get on board or vote for the Republican candidate. Put a simpler way: the establishment wants its candidates to go where the voters are, and the progressive wants the voters to go where the candidate is.

This is a formula that can only work in a deep blue House district or in the case of the Sanders-Warren wing, states where the Republican party is so moribund that that no candidate from that party could win a statewide race. For Warren and such newcomers as Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, this approach is one they can live with. The fact that there are very few other states that are either small enough and/or Democratic enough for this approach to work has done nothing to diminish their certainty that is the only approach the Democratic establishment must take.

For people who have so many degrees and claim such high intelligence, the only reason they believe this approach is workable is because they have stayed in their left-wing bubble as much as the far right stays in theirs. It falls apart the moment you think about it and they clearly don't. And as I've noted throughout the leadup to the 2026 election the DNC with Schumer's blessing has spent its time and energy recruiting senatorial candidates who can and have won elections in Republican states. These included Mary Peltola in Alaska, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Roy Cooper in North Carolina. All have proven track records at winning at statewide races in Republican states which made them strong possibilities to do so in the midterms. As of this writing all three are in a strong position to win in November.

The Sanders-Warren wing made a different approach. Over the fall they picked several candidates to run in the Democratic primaries in states of either various shades of red, swing states, or in one case where a vulnerable Republican was running for reelection.  Eventually they settled on six candidates and yesterday the last of those primaries took place.

So with that in mind let's look at their track record in chronological order of the dates of the primaries:

 

Texas: Jasmine Crockett

Jasmine Crockett began her run for the Democratic Primary in December of 2025, challenging James Talarico. Crockett had been negotiating for a while to come up with a dream slate that could possibly win across the board at every level and eventually went forward.

February she ran an ad in the Super Bowl which might very well have used AI and earned criticism. On March 3^rd she lost to James Talarico by more than six percent in the primary. Though multiple networks called it  by midnight she didn't concede until the following morning.

Crockett dismissed the term progressive, calling her positions 'common sense'. The people in Texas thought otherwise.

 

Iowa: Zach Wahls

 Zach Wahls declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the Senat in June of 2025.

Wahls was very much an activist while his opponent Josh Turek called himself a 'common-sense moderate' and prairie populist. The biggest difference going into the primary was that Warren was privately backing Wahls in large part because he said if elected to the Senate he would not vote for Chuck Schumer as Senate Leader while Turek said he would. Turek was backed by moderates such as Maggie Hassan and Catherine Cortez Masto.

Josh Turek would beat Wahls by nearly 25 percent of the vote.

 

Maine: Graham Platner

I've written so much about this and so much else has been said about this that there's no point relitigating it here. Suffice to say Platner won the nomination but eventually was forced to withdraw a few weeks later. I think it's safe to call this a defeat for the Sanders-Warren wing.

 

South Carolina: Annie Andrews

The Democratic Party had tried six years earlier to defeat Lindsay Graham with the very progressive Jamie Harrison, an African American who'd never held elected office in his life. He raised $57 million dollars in the third quarter of 2020, the largest quarterly total raised by a Senate candidate. And he lost in a landslide by nearly ten points to Graham.

In a demonstration that the Democrats learned absolutely nothing they chose to run Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who in 2022 had lost in a landslide to Nancy Mace. Harrison endorsed her and for all intents she ran unopposed.

On July 11^th Lindsay Graham died. A primary is scheduled is scheduled for next Tuesday. While this chaos may end up benefiting Andrews – the race has moved from Likely Republican to Lean Republican – it is still an uphill climb for Andrews in a state that last elected a Democrat to statewide office in 1998 when Fritz Hollings won reelection for the last time.

 

Louisiana: Jamie Davis

For all the enthusiasm that Jamie Davis might be able to argue for he faces an even bigger battle than Andrews.  He managed to win the Democratic primary but will be facing Julia Letlow in the general.  In both her primary win and runoff win Letlow got more votes in the Republican primary then Davis did in his Democratic primary win. And while a Democrat has won the Senate in the 21^st century when Mary Landrieu did in 2008 Landrieu was in the incumbent running for her third term. No Democrat has come close to winning a Senate seat since then.

Davis at best has been given a ten percent chance of winning a seat ranked as Safe Republican.

 

Michigan: Abdul Al-Sayid

I'll be writing about the race in Michigan in its own article in the next week or so but it is worth noting several things about this race.

First for all of the polls that emerged immediately in the final week of the race – many of them leaked from Al-Sayid's campaign – the primary was much closer then the polls said. And second Michigan has an open primary structure, which means you don't have to be registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary.

Mike Rogers was running unopposed in the GOP primary. So we can't rule out the possibility that many registered Republicans might have crossed party lines to vote for Al-Sayid so that the candidate who all polls shows would lose in the general election to Rogers's ended up being the Democratic nominee.

The Republicans were salivating for a match-up between Al-Sayid and Rogers, a man who narrowly lost to Elissa Slotkin just two years ago. And they ended up getting it.

Al-Sayid managed to win in what was by far the closest Democratic primary this cycle beating Haley Stevens by barely one percentage point.

 

Conclusion

 

 

The left wing will take away from this cycle what they want to take away. They will do everything to put the Platner debacle, which was entirely their mess, behind them and focus on the nominees they got as 'signs' of their inevitable movement.

Reality shows otherwise. In two of the states with a competitive primary the centrist candidate trounced the left wing candidate by a considerable margin. In Michigan the left wing candidate did win but by so thin a margin it shows just how divided the Democrats are in that state.

Al-Sayid now faces the more difficult task then Stevens was because if he wants to win in the general he has to move towards the center which involves many of the establishment Democrats he's spent the last year torching.  If he does this, he will almost certainly risk a backlash from those left-wing voters who chose him in the primary and who think that if Democrats are troubled by him, they can vote for the Republican.

Andrews and Davis managed to win in their states because in them the Democratic party is so moribund that there really is that much competition. Being the most progressive candidate in that state has no real value because both South Carolina and Louisiana are among the reddest states in America.

If the Democrats take the majority back this November, as is looking increasingly likely, it will because they've nominated centrist candidates like James Talarico and Josh Turek to run in red states. Al-Sayid and Troy Jackson – whose platform is as progressive as the disgraced Platner – might actually end up hindering the parties chances. 

Al Sayid is running as a far left candidate in a swing state, one that went for Trump just two years ago and that Biden barely won in 2020. Jackson has a similar platform and is running against a centrist Republican.  Both are running campaigns that will have immense burdens on them and combined with their left-wing platforms it is not impossible the Democrats may have to spend more time and money bolstering these campaigns then they would want.

As we enter the fall campaign the Sanders-Warren wing has picked its candidates for the stretch run and the establishment wing has picked theirs. Now will come the 'unity' part of the general election where both sides try to work together and win back the majority this November.

The difference is when all the votes are cast both sides will remember who was responsible for the Democrats getting – or not getting – the majority. And since the left wing has a selective memory at best, the establishment needs to keep its long memory.

 

 

Howard Gordon & Vince Gilligan on The X-Files: How Howard Gordon Did More To Shape Walter Skinner Than Almost Any Other Writer

 

 

While he never became a series regular until the final seasons Walter Skinner was the most important recurring character in X-Files history and one of the very few characters to survive until the end of the show. Played with remarkable restraint by Mitch Pileggi he was a fixture in the show for most of its run though given the way the show worked while he was loyal to his fellow agents its was often hard to know how much to trust him.

It wasn't until Season Three, when after a full season of prevaricating he chose to explicitly back Mulder and Scully against the shadowy forces represented by the Smoking Man that it became clear he was an ally. As Robert Shearman put in Wanting to Believe:

At the end of Apocrypha Mulder went as far as to thank Skinner for his support, something that would have been unthinkable at the start of Season 3 where the Assistant Director was still being played as a potential assassin to Scully….There is an acceptance now that Skinner must be regarded as a stable element in the series. It closes some storytelling ideas, but it opens up others.

As I mentioned in an earlier series Glen Morgan and James Wong created the character of Skinner in the first season episode 'Tooms'. By chance or happenstance the next writer to do an episode where Skinner was featured was Gordon for Season 2's Sleepless. Skinner's role in practically insignificant – he appears in the opening sequence when Mulder reports to him about a story he was told by what will be his latest informant – but it turned out to be a harbinger of sorts. For the two and a half seasons Gordon remained on the show he would be credited with writing more episodes that featured Skinner than anyone but Chris Carter, and often in collaboration with him. And he also was the first writer to pen an episode that was centered almost entirely on Skinner.

I think Monster of the Week explains the peculiar nature of The X-Files not only at the time but in hindsight:

If you were going to air the show today, Skinner would absolutely be a regular and CSM, X and possibly even Krycek would be regulars as well. The show would be more heavily serialized; there would be little bits of pieces of the alien story line threaded through every episode and the Monster of the Week episodes would keep getting interrupted  by the supporting players. But this odd little show did none of those things, and it all works because at its heart it's a simple little series that chooses to expand only when it really wants to.

(On a side note, you could argue that Seasons 10 and 11 were disappointments because it tried far too hard to put too much of these elements into what was a 1990s show and it was a failure. One hopes that Coogler's revival will try to remember what made the original work…but I'll save comments on that for a different series of articles.)

'Avatar', which aired late in Season Three, was The X-Files first real attempt to dive into the supporting cast's background. The experiment was successful and for the rest of the series the show would experiment more with that format, with episodes focused on CSM, The Lone Gunmen and even a former X-Files investigator.

Like many things with the show, it came about by accident. David Duchovny, who was already demonstrating the prima donna behavior that would become as much part of the series history as his performance, wanted a lighter work week late in Season Three. (He received a story credit for the idea.) To his credit Duchovny had also been pushing for a while more Skinner to have a bigger role in the series and it wasn't like Pileggi was complaining at the chance to be more in the spotlight. So Gordon took the reins for the first Skinner-centric episode. Fittingly with so many episodes Gordon himself would write; it's an odd mix of the supernatural and the conspiracy.

Unlike so many other episodes of The X-Files 'Avatar' focuses as much on domestic matters as it does the conspiracy. It opens with a divorce settlement where Sharon Skinner (Jennifer Hetrick) and Walter are having a final meeting but Walter leaves without signing the final papers. This is shocking because until now we never even knew he was married – and critically, neither did Mulder and Scully.

The implication, while Gordon never directly states it, is that the combination of running The X-Files, backing Mulder and Scully and fighting a shadow battle against the powers that be, have taken a toll on his marriage so great that his wife can no longer take it. Skinner has been known for being incredibly restrained in his professional life and it's now clear his wife has found this burden to much to bear. Skinner then goes to a bar and meets a random woman. They have sex – and Skinner wakes up with her dead next to him and he genuinely has no idea what happened. When the police are called in, he's unable to give direct answers to any question, is shocked to find out the woman was an escort – and is unable to state with certainty what happened afterwards.

Mulder and Scully end up being called in and while they are justifiably willing to defend their boss its clearly their stunned when they learn not only about his wife but that he's in the midst of divorce proceedings. At one point Scully actually puts her thoughts into words: "The truth is, we don't really know anything about him." Neither believe he's guilty of murder but they don't know best how to help him as a board of inquiry ends up meeting to mark the possibility of dismissal.

As the two agents investigate Mulder and Scully have conflicting theories. Mulder's initial belief is that there might be something supernatural going on, backed up by the fact that there is some phosphorescent substance on the corpse's lips that Scully can't identify and Skinner's statement that he saw an old woman at the murder. At a later point in the episode Skinner reminds Mulder of his time in Vietnam (which he memorably told his junior agent in One Breath) and that in order to get through he made the use of hard drugs. During that period he saw that same women in a red raincoat (the reference is clearly to the classic film Don't Look Now) that's been a source of protection.

However as the episode progresses there's actually a more grounded theory: the Syndicate is working to remove Skinner from the Bureau as a way to put Mulder and Scully in check. This is a perfectly believable theory backed up by what we've seen play out in Season Three. Just a few episodes ago Luis Cardinal, one of the Syndicates triggermen, attempted to kill Skinner and he spent the rest of the episode recovering. As Mulder points out, if they were to try to do so again so rapidly this would draw the wrong kind of attention and they're trying a subtle point. This is backed up by the fact that when Skinner is being interviewed we actually see CSM watching from a window even though William B. Davis has no dialogue. (There were apparently scenes between the two men that were edited for the purposes of time.)

The problem with Avatar is the final act. Gordon never decides which interpretation of events – the paranormal or the conspiracy – is responsible for what's happening to Skinner. Both are valid in their own right but they have contradictory aspects and Gordon wraps up the episode with no clear answer, certainly not from Skinner.  That's a flaw but not one that undermines the episode with any real force because Gordon knows that this episode is about the character of Skinner and every time he focuses on this it shines.

Mitch Pileggi is blindingly good in a way he hasn't really been allowed to. It's clear that he's done everything to compartmentalize his job and his personal life. We know Skinner's very much a rationalist and he has a hard time accepting most of what his agents are telling him in their reports of the monsters and the alien conspiracy. Combined with the battles he must face as part of the authority of the Bureau we know this has to be a struggle.

We get this with the scenes that involve him and Sharon, which show a bruising intensity. Halfway through the episode Sharon is involved in an accident and ends up in a hospital bed. During that episode Walter tells his wife (who is comatose) that he has no intention of signing the papers and just how much she has always meant to him. It's a powerful scene for many reasons, not the least of which Walter can only tell his wife what he really thinks when she's unconscious – and its all the more painful because in later seasons it will be implied the marriage has ended.

In another series after everything was positively resolved Skinner would have expressed his gratitude and he would have become more of an ally almost immediately afterwards. That is not the case at the end of Avatar. Skinner's attitude at the end of the episode is painfully familiar – he doesn't want to explain the events that happened and while he's polite to Mulder and Scully its with a cold professionalism we're associated with him. Duchovny and Anderson don't say anything but you can see from their expressions both agents are surprised and a little hurt – they put their lives on the line for their boss and he doesn't seem willing to return the favor.

 I admit the first time I saw this episode as a seventeen year old I felt much like the agents. Now I think it was a bold move by Gordon and one of the better long-term choices of The X-Files. Skinner's allegiance to his fellow agents over the course of the series was one of the better arc the show ever did, and it would have been cheat to do it in the first episode that was centered on Skinner.

This would become clearer in the second Skinner centric episode: 'Zero Sum'. A collaboration between Gordon and Carter, it was the last script of any type he'd ever write for The X-Files. I talked about this episode in a previous article involving Gordon and his use of informants but in order to talk about why Skinner is so important to it, we have to go back a little.

The set up for the episode comes in the classic Memento Mori. In this Emmy winning episode Scully is officially diagnosed with cancer and Mulder spends it trying to find out how she got it.  As a result he comes to Skinner and tells him to set up a meeting with CSM.  He has no doubt he's behind it – but Mulder makes it clear this time he's ready to deal.

Skinner flatly refuses.

Skinner: Find another way. You deal with that man – you offer him anything – and he'll own you forever.

Mulder: He knows what they did to Agent Scully! He may very well know how to save her!

Skinner: If he knows, you can know, too. But you can't ask the truth of a man who trades in lies. I won't let you.

Mulder: We are talking about Agent Scully's life.

Skinner: Find another way.

However in his next scene Skinner and Smoking Man meet in Mulder's office. The exchanges like all of them are classic. CSM remarks on the office.

Skinner: At least he doesn't take the elevator up to work.

CSM smiles. "You think I'm the devil?" Then oh so casually he asks about Scully's health.

CSM: Is it terminal? The cancer?

Skinner barely contains his revulsion about if there's something that can be done. CSM smirks.

CSM: You think a lot more of me then you let on?"

Skinner: What'll it take?"

CSM: "For Agent Scully's life? What will you offer?

Skinner asks again: "What'll it take?"

CSM leaves him dangling.

At the end of the episode Mulder calls to thank Skinner for talking him down. He doesn't know CSM is in the office with Skinner.

"There's always another way," Skinner says neutrally.

CSM responds: "Yes I believe there is. If you're willing to pay the price.

Zero Sum is about that pound of flesh Cancer Man is extracting from Skinner.

The opening five minutes after the teaser are a visual tour de force as we see Skinner doing everything possible to stop a case that is meant for Mulder's attention from appearing on his record, cleaning up a crime scene and destroying all evidence of an action by the Syndicate. In his conversation with a detective its clear he's trying to do everything possible to make sure that there's no record of Bureau involvement.

What he doesn't know is that he's being shadowed by one of the Syndicate's button men (identified by the show as the Grey-Haired Man)

When he gets back home, however, Mulder has met him and tells him he got the information on the case from the detective's partner. The detective who sent Mulder the information – and who they just found executed.

Skinner can barely contain his shock with Mulder and later that night confronts the Smoking Man. He knows exactly what has happened and who did it. CSM is unfazed by his accusations. "This only happened because you left your job unfinished…You failed to neutralize a potentially compromising situation."

Pileggi is superb in this episode because we can see the two sides of his dilemma. On the one hand at some level he wants Mulder to find the guilty party even if it turns out to be him because that would bring immense relief. On the other, there's still a part of him that desperately wants to believe the devil he's made the deal with will come through. This is true even as he realizes, in typical fashion, the Syndicate has stolen his weapon from his desk drawer and no doubt used it to kill the detective in question. Davis also gives a superb performance, as he dangles the bait that he can save Scully if he chooses. The viewer, like Skinner, knows that this is a man who he deals in lies but even the possibility of hope – and the reminder that Scully is in the hospital having tests run – is something that Skinner finds himself clinging to.

In theory this episode has to do with a trial run involving the Syndicate's plan for colonization, utilizing the infamous bees that will carry smallpox and so forth. But Gordon is less interested in the machinations of the men in shadowy rooms then the human consequences of it and how much of it Skinner is bearing. This is clear at the end of the episode when he returns home to find his gun returned to his desk drawer – and Mulder in his home, having followed the path to him.

Skinner implores Mulder in a brilliant monologue: "There was a reason I did what I did. One I think you're in a unique position to understand. I advised you against a certain course of action some time ago – concerning Agent Scully. I didn't follow my own advice."

We learn not long after that while the gun has been returned to Skinner's desk, they've filed off the serial number. They have the murder weapon but there's no way that the Syndicate can be brought to justice.

At the end of the episode Skinner confronts CSM, arguing they never had a deal. Yet again the Smoking Man is smug.

CSM: Yours isn't the first gun I've had pointed at my face, Mr. Skinner. I'm not afraid to die. But if you kill me, you'll also kill Agent Scully.

Skinner: You have no intention of saving her. You never did.

CSM: "Are you certain? I saved her life once before – when I had her returned to Agent Mulder. I may save her again. But you'll never know if you pull the trigger.

You can see the internal struggle going on behind Skinner's eyes as he tries to decide which lie to believe. And in the end all he can do is fire three shots to the other side of the Smoking Man's head.  Tellingly he doesn't stay to see just how much he's rattled his foe.

In hindsight one of the biggest weaknesses of The X-Files was how little detail it gave most of the supporting characters during the show's run. This was the nature of how Carter and his writers did the series, just as there was no road map for the mythology almost every character we ever met had to be ambiguous enough so it could come as a 'shock' when they inevitably had hidden motives.

Gordon's two Skinner-centric episodes demonstrate by far just how much was sacrificed by that decision. If Carter's writers, like Gordon, had illustrated that there were explanations for why the characters did what they  the show's universe could have expanded slightly and it might have been creatively richer. And particularly in later seasons when the mythology's house of cards became more and more unstable it might have helped the series find more energy. I'm not saying we should have had episodes focused on every one of Mulder's informants necessarily. But maybe the best way to have the conspiracy make sense was to what Gordon did with Skinner and show that the backstory of certain people was far more interesting then bees containing black oil.

Was There Anything Ever Really The Matter With Kansas?

 

Elaine May famously coined the phrase: "You have devoted yourself to a way of life that perished before you were ever born."  I'm fond of that quote because it is evergreen for many, regardless of politics.

And its particularly true of Thomas Frank. Frank has devoted his entire academic career to proving that liberalism is a popular idea and he was born in 1965 – around the time the conservative revolution began. There has never been a point in his adult life when conservativism wasn't immensely popular either with the voters during Reagan's landslide's, the Gingrich Revolution of Congress, talk radio, Bush's presidency, the Tea Party, etc. At no point in his life has the kind of old-fashioned liberalism he believes is best for America ever been popular with the voters in the electorate at large, never mind the Sanders campaign for President he was an adviser for.

Most people would argue that Frank is hopelessly behind the times. But Frank is an academic which is one of the few fields where you can comfortably argue your point of view is correct and that the rest of the world is the problem. (Criticism of film and literature are among the other professions.)

Now Ockham's Razor would argue that if so many people across the country vote Republican there must be something about it that appeals to the masses. But since simple solutions are for simple people Frank chooses to ignore the possibility.

The statistical and historical evidence, of which Frank is comfortably aware, paints an even clearer explanation. Ever since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 both the South and the white working class voter have always been major backers of the Republican Party. Therefore for Democrats to win elections they have always had to go where the voters are. And the times they have managed success with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's Third Way as well as Obama's Presidency to an extent would justify that. The figures back that up as well.

But to the Franks of the world that's not a solution they like, mainly because it involves going to where the electorate is, not where men like Frank say it should be. And so for my lifetime men with Frank's leanings have been trying to find as many erudite and academic terms to explain that there is something wrong with the rest of America, particularly regions where their policy has had by far the hardest time meeting success.

So I think that is the real reason Frank's most famous book What's the Matter With Kansas was published.  Because an academic doesn't like facts getting in the way of his pre-ordained theories Frank chose Kansas for a reason.

Let's be clear: Kansas has been voting Republican from the moment in joined the Union. It has voted for a Democrat six times in its entire history. The first time was in 1896 when William Jennings Bryan was running for President for the first time. It voted for Wilson both times he ran for President. It voted for FDR in his first two runs for President and for the last time during LBJ's landslide – one year before Frank was born. So never in his lifetime has it voted for any Democrat.

The last time it elected a Democrat to the Senate was in 1932 when George McGill won a full term. Kansas has historically had some of the most famous Republicans during the 20^th century, from Alf Landon and Charles Curtis to Bob Dole. Eisenhower was born in Kansas. The closest a Democrat has come to winning a Senate seat in Kansas was in 1974 when Bob Dole barely won reelection.

So to be clear the idea that Kansas ever was a state in favor of progressive or liberal ideals probably ended just after it joined the Union and after a brief flirtation with populism. It didn't believe in the New Deal; the Fair Deal or the New Frontier and Johnson barely carried it by nine points in 1964. It was smaller than FDR's margin in 1932.

This was by design when Frank went there when he was doing the research for his book in the leadup to the 2004 election. He could have chosen a lot of other states, even in the plains and gotten very different answers to his questions.

If he'd gone to Iowa, for example, he would have found a healthy Democratic Party in a state that had gone Democratic in 1988 to 2000. Tom Harkin was in his fourth term as Senator and Tom Vilsack was governor. Had he gone to his immediate west to Missouri – where he was born – he would have found that John Ashcroft had lost to a dead man two years earlier and where Claire McCaskill would win in the Senate two years later.

Hell had he gone north to Nebraska, he'd have gotten a completely different story altogether. This was the state of the brilliant progressive Senator George Norris. He would have seen Bob Kerrey had served there as Senator and governor in the previous two terms and that Ben Nelson had just been elected to the Senate in 2000.

I could make similar arguments for most of the states in the Plains, including both Dakotas during that period. Tom Daschle was still serving as minority leader when Frank began writing his book and Tim Johnson, another Democrat held the other seat. North Dakota was held by Ken Conrad. For that matter if he'd gone west he would have seen that Ken Salazar was about to win the open Senate seat in what was a major upset.

So why didn't he choose any of those states if he'd wanted to see how Democrats were winning in the world of conservatism? Because by that point he and his colleagues had labeled Democrats such as Kerrey and Harkin neoliberals which like so many things was seen as a plus when it was coined but by the mid-2000s academics like Frank considered it worse then being a Republican.

Furthermore if Frank had gone to states where people were voting for Democratic officials on a regular basis it would have come into conflict with the major theory of his book which is the same theory that honestly all academics thought well before he published his work and still do today. The people in the middle of the country are rubes and idiots because – well they live in the middle of the country.  

The academic left, I should be clear, has no more respect for the working class then the conservative elite does. The Democrats were only able to win those parts of the country when they were a more, rural agrarian party which basically ended by the time FDR was running for office for the first time. FDR managed to win the working class voter at an incredible rate and JFK managed a record 64 percent of the vote. And they did so, it must be said, because all of them were doing everything in their power to ignore the elephant in the room that was civil rights. It was FDR's greatest flaw, Truman only slightly tried to rectify it and JFK almost certainly would have delayed until his second term had he lived.

 The farmer and the working class voter were important parts of the Democratic Majority that Frank yearns for so badly and much of that meant dealing with the conservative Democrats. That the segregationists are now part of the GOP doesn't magically erase the fact that they were part of ours for more than a century and there's an irony then many in our party what to take so many Confederate monuments and southern statues down considering many of their distant political ancestors no doubt put them up in the first place. The magical thinking of the Frank's of the world does not make it so.

Frank and his colleagues have spent their long careers trying to find a way that liberals can win the working class vote without lowering ourselves to meeting them halfway. To do so, they've tried endless rebranding exercises including changing the term 'liberal' to 'progressive'  and as we've seen they're now trying to redefine 'working class'. We saw that happen in Maine first with Graham Platner and then with Troy Jackson, who for all their working class appearances are essentially running on a far-left platform that could just as easily be part of the Justice Democrats. By contrast Dan Osborn running in Nebraska, actually has a working class platform and has widened his appeal to everyone whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Independents. Those last two would be disqualifiers for Frank and I'm not sure how much he'd want Osborn to win Democrats at all.

I don't pretend to have the same education Frank has but even I know what works in some regions of America and what doesn't. And when you write a book that basically argues that because a state where the electorate has been voting Republican for your entire lifetime must de facto have something wrong with it, you're kind of playing into the culture wars that you say the right has been framing. I can't imagine how this book was advertised on Fox News after it came out with everyone from Bill O'Reilly to Sean Hannity saying some version of: "The liberal elites think that the people in Kansas are stupid!" It certainly didn't help Kansas turn Democratic in 2004.

Just for the record since Frank wrote his book Kansas has elected – and reelected - a Democratic governor, Laura Kelly. Now I do realize that other states in this region have also had female governors, but as Frank would no doubt argue Kristi Noem and Kim Reynolds don't count. California, for the record, is a far more progressive state than Kansas, yet it has yet to elect a female governor in its long tenure.

The first time she won office she defeated Kris Kobach, one of the most avid anti-immigrant conservatives in American life today. He spent his career developed the strict immigration laws in Arizona and did much to work to help try and build the border wall. He proposed the idea of self-deportation as part of the 2012 Republican Party Platform and was among the first Republicans to endorse Trump in February 2016. He implemented some of the strictest voter ID laws in the US as Secretary of State of Kansas and has been one of the biggest voices arguing of prosecution of voter fraud for decades. And in 2018 he lost the governor's race to Kelly by five points.

All of which is a way of saying, maybe there isn't as much wrong with Kansas as people like Frank think.

Coalition of The Sane: How A Recent Online 'Argument' With a Progressive Explains Why The Democrats Should Stop Talking With Them Altogether

 

One of the reasons I think the recent DNC autopsy of the 2024 election was absolutely on the right track is because of the reaction it provoked in certain people – and by certain people, of course, I mean progressives. If it had been released in a series of tweets from POTUS's account it couldn't have caused more pearl clutching.

One of the subtlest and most insightful points was that 'certain people are more interested in winning the argument then the election.' As always the Democrats are trying to use euphemisms but they're actually more on point.

The progressives, as we know, have no interesting in winning elections unless it's on their terms, which is why they win so few of them. And they absolutely care more about making a point then governing. It’s the term argument that I've a slight issue with because having spent far too much time on this site and others, I know that we're not speaking the same language with that term.

Their version of an argument is closer to the Monty Python version. To them an argument is not an intellectual process, it's just contradiction and the guy who does moonlights in abuse. They may think they're engaging in an intellectual process but at this point it involves four basic steps:

1. Stating a point of view in the loudest and most self-righteous way possible.

2. Using cherry-picked facts to buttress their argument.

3. Gaslighting any debate by saying the problem as you.

4. Calling you the worst name possible depending on the section of the left aisle they're stumping for (racial, gender, LGBTQ+ etc.)

And most times they go from step 1 immediately to step 4.

If you are a member of the coalition I suspect all of you are nodding sympathetically, having gone through some version of this yourself over the years, either in person, online or even within the comments section of this site. I myself have spent far too much time dealing with these citizens over the years before I basically realized that engaging with them simultaneously rose by blood pressure and dropped my IQ.

I now think it's more important to point these arguments out not just for our own sanity but to explain exactly why the Democrats should, with all deliberate speed, cut out all further engagements with them. In the past decade in particularly and throughout the 21^st century, my party has spent too much time trying to win to its institution people who say institutions can't solve problems. We're trying to win over people for whom wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt is as close as they will get to be a revolutionary, for whom wearing a Guy Fawkes mask is as they'll come to being anarchists, who have a hundred ways to tell you what's wrong with America but can't give you one way to fix it and if they do, they'll never tell you how you pay for it or get it through Congress.

I came to this realization, as I've mentioned, during Biden's administration though unfortunately the actual administration didn't come to it at any time. I think they're closer to it then they have been in a while but it's important for people to keep point out the manifest flaws in what passes for logic by the progressives. To that end, I'm going to highlight a series of exchanges I had on Facebook with one such individual in the past 24 hours that pretty much explains why rational or irrational debate is pointless.

Now hard as it may be if you read my articles or my snark in the comments, everything I've ever written to progressives is under the heading of 'constructive criticism'. I am, as I've mentioned over and over, in alignment with their arguments in theories and I want them to succeed. In order to do that they have to convince people who don't already agree with them. That means convincing a centrist Democrat like myself who knows history and electoral policy and knows what works and what doesn't. And as someone who's all too familiar with all things Republican and conservative, I'm a soft touch compared to whatever they're going to throw at you if you get that far.  You need allies and you need to convince them.

The conversation I'm about to relate took place on Facebook. Now while I can be someone snarkier on that site then on Medium, much of my remarks do fall under the headline of constructive criticism. I have little hope of reaching the poster or their acolytes but I'm trying to convince the middle which they've decided to reject.

For context I was dealing with a cartoon about socialism and capitalism. Here is what I'll refer to as A1 said:

We will be pooling our tax dollars when our candidates our elected and yours will be just as ours are being wasted currently…It is a sad day when you allow the wealthy to convince you the people who want you to have the free health care and a better life are the bad guys.

Boilerplate one percent stuff. No originality. My response:

So all that each the rich chat really just meant the wealthy pay their fair share.

They already do they pay their fair share on their income. You aren't saying that, Bernie and AOC. Socialism and communism are about taking all the money everybody has and pooling it, and to  be clear, you've said its only the one percent. Which again you can only do once and all the money's gone forever.

Wealth isn't like matter. It can be created and it is destroyed. So clearly you don't understand economics if you think it's like physics..

More sarcastic then usual but nothing I haven't said before.

At that point she wrote a loud and obscene response that I won't print the entirety of. But here's part of it

Someone who makes $100,000 a year and pays 20 percent is left with $80,000. Whereas someone who makes $1,000,000 a year and pays 50 percent is left with $500,000. Do you see how unfair that is?

She also said she had an MBA. (That will be relevant, trust me.)

Two things which I suspect you'll get. First she's acknowledging in this post that the rich do pay more than their fair share. So her defense she's not only undercut her own argument she's made it clear her problem is with the wealthy rather than the poor.

And two, this didn't prove anything I said was wrong.

This was my response:

I see a lot of profanity and you still haven't answered my question. I agree there should be tax reform. But simple arithmetic doesn't solve the problem. How do you get the money from the rich person to the poor PERSON? And you admit they pay taxes but your problem is they still have too much money? So how do you propose to raise taxes only on the rich and somehow not doing it on the poor?

Now I couldn't resist getting a little nasty.

By the way I'm proud you have an MBA. Does that mean you know more about economics then everyone who has studied it for decades over the last hundred years? Or is this more of the moral right and wrong BS that is really powering every argument people like you ever make. Try to answer calmly and without calling me an idiot, if that's possible.

I'll admit to baiting her but that's the thing with people on the left: they take any criticism as the worst kind of attack. And sure enough it was right to step four with two straight posts

I'll only deal with A1's second post. You don't need to see the first.

How do you not know that before Reagan we taxed the rich fare more than currently which many pay nothing or if they do it isn't even as much as I make? Exactly what the f—is wrong with you? Do you only have one set of grandparents or what?

I'm not even sure what that last insult is supposed to mean. However in the second part of the first sentence we once again what this is about: A1 is envious that the rich make more than they do.  That's not a reason for policy change; it's just a combination of vituperation.

Now as my readers know I do know about American history and the lead up to Reagan's election, having written multiple articles on the subject. I gave a brief summation.

And at this point I decided just to have fun because I knew what I was dealing with.

Now I know this recitation of history as it happened will do nothing to eradicate your worldview of 'Reagan ruined the liberal dream' from the Daily Kose scholarship of Why The Left is Never ever wrong. But as someone who actually studied American history in college and has read more books on politics by the time I graduated then you have in your entire life, I'm kind of interested in knowing which books you've read on the subject that told you these facts. I'm always interested in broadening my worldview.

This is all true. I actually want to know the books if only to criticize them on this site.

By thew way, you've now demonstrated a basic ignorance of economics, American history, political history and even math. But as always, top marks in moral indignation. I shouldn't be surprised. It's always been your major.

And with that I blocked A1 forever. A brief look at A1'a Facebook profile convinced me that I was right about everything about them and that further discussion would be useless. (I won't share this article on Facebook, obviously.)

To be fair (damn my impartiality!) I don't know anything about this person beyond what they said and the brief glance at their profile. But I'm pretty sure that based on the way they engaged and yelled that this is exactly the kind of voter the Democrats have been trying to win over for at least ten years. And that's a problem. Because they're not interested in rational debate, they clearly have no understanding politics or the basics of how policy works, and while they claim to have a college degree for all intents and purposes she really does only seem to have gotten top marks in moral outrage.  There were more debates this person had with far more conservative people who were far less pleasant and by and large they chose not to engage. I'm guessing that A1 sees them all under the same broad stroke of 'the enemy' and saw any intellectual debate as a sign of unwillingness to engage.

These are not people who are built to make alliance, form coalitions, or work to get policy made into law. These are people who are certain of their morality and will not accommodate any deviation from it. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Now personally I'm not going to give up on trying to reach even those who are clearly as locked on course as A1 was. Maybe I'm a fool, maybe I'm an optimist. I want to try and find common ground. But there's what I do and what others should do. And when it comes to the Democrats, the votes are in.

It's difficult enough to convince the undecided voter and we need to spend time on this. If the kind of people who should be on our side anyway are going to be this pig-headed and unwilling to help, we have to call them a lost cause. Considering that as a party we've always been more successful when we went to the center then the left, I think its time we went back to a strategy that worked.

That was also very clear in the autopsy of the 2024 election and for all the crap he's taken it looks very much like Ken Martin is following that path. I think for the record the Democrats can win without them and its time we started trying to do that. Let's stop trying to offer membership to people who think clubs are tools of the one percent.

 

 

 

 

Homicide Rewatch: Saigon Rose

 

Teleplay by Anya Epstein & David Simon ; story by David Overmeyer

Directed by Nick Gomez

 

was groundbreaking in the ways it dealt with racial issues, even though many of the African-American actors at the time complained it never went as deep as it could have.  This changed immensely in the last two seasons when the writers seemed more willing to look at controversial racial issues in a way it hadn't done before. It started the season taking an uncomfortable look at how the power structure look in a predominantly black city and showing that rich African-Americans could be, at their core, as good at manipulating it as rich white people could.

Now it takes on what was already one of the most polarizing issues in American discourse: affirmative action. And in what is an incredible twist a show that involves so many African-Americans at every level of the police force makes a convincing argument that there are very good reasons against it. That the case at the center of Saigon Rose  is being investigated by the two African-American detectives who've been on the show since the series debuted is all the more daring. They must be confronted with the fact that the system that almost certainly aided in their rise in the department also allowed an officer unfit for the job to get into a position where she would be able to kill a family who trusted her to protect them.

Saigon Rose also shows variations on how Homicide is evolving. The opening moments get us closer to the actual crime then we've been in a long time, perhaps since 'A Doll's Eyes' back in Season Four. We see the Nguyen family and Larry Jones about to sit down for dinner at the title restaurant after they close for the night. The two children Tom and Lucy go back to wash up. Then they hear a sound which sounds like a bang. Then we hear gunshots that seem to go on forever.

Halfway through the episode Lucy and Tom will describe what they remember hearing and just how horrible it was and then we will see the two of them in the immediate aftermath despairing as they try desperately to wake their family from their final repose. It's one of the most devastating scenes in Homicide's entire run and its followed by shots off all the members of the family on slabs in the morgue. Rarely have we seen the reality of what being written up on the board means.

Back in the squad the phone starts ringing. Pembleton picks up the phone. With Bayliss with stomach pain,  Frank asks Meldrick: "In the mood for a multiple homicide?" Interestingly the two previous times Pembleton and Lewis partner the two spent most of the investigation at each other's throats. This time there's none of the combativeness we associate with Frank every time he has to partner with another detective. This isn't an outlier. In another twist during Season Six Frank will work with more different detectives then in any previous season and he's more mellow than we're used to with him. That combativeness is still present on every other level of the job, as we'll see in this episode. (The way he mocks Tim when he comes back to the squad is classic.)

Of course there's mockery. Lewis calls Frank scary as they go into the interrogation room. "I'm the friendly affable type  and you're the terrifying intimidating type." (Frank seems to take that as a compliment.)

The crime scene is one of the bleakest in the show's entire history: we've seen multiple serial killers during the show's run but rarely so many bodies in the same place at once. What's more, it's clear from the start what happened. The Nguyen family were sitting down to dinner and someone broke in to rob the place. Robbery gone wrong is not a crime that we saw very often on procedurals: it's really too simple and its just a matter of finding who pulled the trigger. Even for a show that shows how simple murder is, we've rarely seen one that is just about a robbery. But like 'Bop Gun' which was capable of mining all the drama out of a crime that what at its core, so simple, Saigon Rose manages the same thing albeit a much more frightening scale in terms of the details.

The first detail is that Larry Jones, the one stranger at the table, is  a cop. Immediately afterword Toinette Perry shows up, saying she moonlit as a security guard. Then we hear the fact that in addition to killing the entire family and Larry, the robbers took all the jewelry off the dead bodies along with their wallets and purses, along with emptying the cash register. At some level we know this is how robbers can be but it doesn't make it any less ghoulish. Tom and Lucy are the only ones still alive. Officer Perry says all the right things and does all the right things. Then she starts saying the Nguyen's had a lot of money around the store – 'for the Vietnamese.'

Now it's one thing to have a white detective making racial slurs on anybody, but when Perry starts making references about how 'those people are', we're in uncomfortable territory. When she starts called them 'tight-lipped secretive' and mocking 'their language' it is going to make the most liberal viewer uncomfortable. Lewis plays along and Frank keeps a stoneface.  They're mostly deflected about Perry's offers to help, no doubt because they have notified Larry Jones wife – and we see very quickly he has a toddler and his wife is pregnant.

The truth comes out before the first act is over. During the initial interview Tom and Lucy clearly have talked and neither Frank nor Meldrick can penetrate their fear until Frank says: "if you're scared we can protect you." Lucy tells them that there were two of them. Black. Meldrick assumes that because the two detectives are black they're afraid they'll protect them.  They deflect at first saying they sounded black even though they didn't see them. More importantly they recognized the voice of one: Toinette Perry.

It's not like Homicide is a stranger to cases of cops abusing the badge; that's the overarching storyline of Season Six. But there's a difference between killing a man in the heat of the moment and the cold-blooded execution of five people in the process of robbing a restaurant.  It makes a horrible amount of sense. Jones's gun was not fired, so he recognized Perry let her in, then the other shooter enters and kills everyone. They know this will be a media firestorm: cop killing cop as well as the racial angle not to mention the morale of the department.

Larry Jones moonlighted the last six months to earn extra money for his new family. He and Perry weren't friends: she was complaining about the Nguyens, how prejudiced they were. Its then they learn she was hired because of affirmative action. Mrs. Jones tells them that she had a big chip on her shoulder and for once its not racial. Larry says she was a lousy cop and lazy and her record confirms it.  Excessive absenteeism, handful of complaints, excessive force, insubordination and she failed her initial psych screening. "Unstable, paranoid, borderline personality." Someone from the mayor's office overruled the psych consult.

Pembleton and Lewis instantly argue that this is affirmative action. "We're playing the game," Frank jokes. In addition she has no immediate family, her father has been missing for a year. And to prove the point she has cousin named Curtis paroled after serving for armed robbery. They decide to bring Perry in for an interview, saying the kids said something.

The irony is that Perry is no better at being a suspect in a crime then she is a cop. She walks right into the box not suspecting anything and within a few minutes Frank and Meldrick start picking apart all the flaws in her story, which she can't even really keep straight as she's telling it.  They remind her they said: "Did they ID the shooters?" Then they start making it clear: one of the shooter was a woman, he sounded a lot like Toinette. She keeps trying to deflect, blaming the local crackhead, then Tommy. They point out she rolled up in a squad car despite telling them she was off duty. She says she heard the call but she wasn't in a squad car at  the time. Then she heard the call but then rather than drive down to help the family, she got into uniform and then got the squad car.

By that point Falsone and Bayliss have brought Curtis in and they find a nine millimeter. And now they know all the bullets came from the same gun. Lewis takes a swing at Curtis and Pembleton hangs with Toinette. So for a change it is Lewis who gets to the truth first – and its somehow more horrifying then you'd think.

Toinette came to Curtis. It was going to be on his own. There was to be no shooting, he was just supposed to rob the restaurant and she'd come back later and coverup for him, allowing them to get away with a robbery no violence.  He knocks come in and asks for brown rice. And then Perry comes in takes the gun out, shoots her partner and then everyone else.  And what did they get for their trouble? "Two grand, including the tip jar."

We've seen serial killers and stone cold felons; we've dealt with Luther Mahoney. But there's still something unsettling about how Frank just sits there as Toinette casually tells him the shrink didn't think she looked like a cop but she was clearly jealous of her looks.  Now we learn the truth of how she got on the force. Her daddy made a few calls and got him to call a judge, to get them to overrule the report.

Immediately afterwards Lewis and Pembleton pin her down. Her reaction: "Punk? Always was weak." Watching from the observation room Al looks like he's going to vomit and Frank and Meldrick don't look much better. She instantly tries to pin it on Curtis and Meldrick goes back to him.

The final confrontation between Frank and Toinette is bleak. Toinette knew the Nguyen's. They didn't treat her badly. She was supposed to protect them. And when he she says that even though Curtis killed them she doesn't feel the least bit bad about it. And just to make it clear the depths of her evil, in the basement of her father's house is the father who cleared her to work as a cop in the first place.

Cox watches the whole ordeal in something close to shock. We know that she's used to death but to see an entirely family killed at once has affected her in a way we've never seen to this point. She actually seems upset when Lewis and Pembleton come to her for the autopsy report and seems more upset about the guns that are available in this city then usual. Cox apologizes saying she gets giddy doing an entirely family and gets fixated on the resemblances. For that reason she's getting stewed at the Waterfront which brings us to old business

 Giardello tells Falsone that the state's attorney can't make a case on Georgia Rae for her role in the murders of Molly Bowman or the Collins'.  Paul is understandably pissed as he was on both cases. The real news is that he assumed that after charges were dropped she split to Caymans but he isn't surprised to know she's staying in Baltimore. 'Unfinished business', he says but doesn't elaborate with Gee. Instead he goes to the source.

That leads to one of the most repeated scenes in Homicide history in the clips of "Previously On…" Falsone confronting Kellerman on how Georgia Rae's going to skate who seems not to give a damn about Junior Bunk beating the rap of killing Molly Bowman. Kellerman's casualness is the first sign he really doesn't care about his job anymore. Falsone is pissed that an innocent woman got killed because someone was taking shots at Stivers and he missed. And he's just as pissed that Kellerman really doesn't think he bears any responsible for it because he killed Luther and he doesn't seem disturbed that as a result three kids don't have a mother.

Falsone says he's got two choices. "Spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder or do Georgia Rae like you did her brother." I don't think Falsone has anyway of knowing that's exactly where Kellerman is right now and I honestly don't think it would make a difference. The scene where Kellerman and Falsone come to blows in the hall to the point of pulling their guns on each other may seem over the top in hindsight but it’s the fact that the two of them immediately try to play normal the second they see someone passing that sells it. Their feud is so intense they've forgotten that they were cops and where they are – and that Falsone can immediately pretend everything's fine – is a subtle way of showing they are two sides of the same coin.

It's worth noting Falsone actually tries his theory out on Bayliss when they're trying to pick up Curtis Lambright and Bayliss, who has arrested his share of killer cops, says he doesn't believe it. He tells Falsone that it's over and he should just let it go.  Falsone says it will come back and bite everybody in the ass. Unfortunately Falsone's right.

And its worth noting Kellerman's in agreement with him. When Cox shows up at the Waterfront telling Mike she's thinking of getting out of the profession he says almost casually so is he. Earlier this year when Cox confronted him about the Mahoney shooting he told her to go to hell. Now that he's in a spot he can't find a way out of Juliana is the first person he tells the truth to about everything. Her reaction is he can't do this alone. Kellerman actually seems human, it's clear he wants to take the weight himself. She points out Lewis and Stivers signed off – and so did she. When Kellerman tries to deflect she makes it blunt: "I really hope the grand jury would see it the same way." She pushes him to do the right thin and tell them about the tape.  In the next few episodes we will see him trying to do the right thing. It goes as well as doing the wrong thing does.

Thank God for Gharty and Ballard who spend the day talking about the merits of Baltimore crab. Gharty talking about the primordial desire to eating a crab and Ballard  talking about the merits of Louisiana blue and Alaskan and Puget Sound. This leads to Ballard saying: "These aren't bad." Gharty: "Blasphemy."

Nice to see partners bickering about unimportant stuff and having fun. Which means in typical Homicide fashion something's gonna go wrong. And sure enough while Ballard is looking over some cold case she starts getting dizzy. She nearly died from anaphylactic shock which came from an allergic reaction to shellfish. (You should see Notes for this.) When Gharty learns this he's horrified. When told lots of people live perfectly happy normal lives his reaction makes perfect sense from a Baltimorean. "Define normal!" Ballard is sanguine and takes her partner off the hook. 'Laura Ballard fought felons but was done in by a bad prawn!'

At the end of the episode Frank is sanguine and reflecting on guardian angels and realizing that Toinette Perry was supposed to be the Nguyen's. He has no doubt she is the killer and he can't understand why. And while he never says it he must wonder about a system that would allow a woman with so many pieces missing was allowed to serve alongside him for so long and making everyone who looks like him look bad.

Few shows would go so far in the 1990s. No show would dare go so far now. It's not just because we live in a world where any reasonable discussion about DEI has been labeled racist (and that so many conservatives have managed to roll it back on that guise) but because in 21^st century TV its considered an unqualified good. I don't think anyone outside the people who wrote for Homicide would ever go out of their way in the show's they wrote subsequently to deflect the narrative that racial diversity is anything but a universal good and those who oppose our bigots. There's a certain truth to the nature of the opposition but its because of the biggest critics that civilized debate is impossible.

And I can't help but thing of Shonda Rhimes work in this century in comparison. Olivia Pope would devote herself to dealing with some of the worst people in Washington but the system she thrives in was built on one that allowed a monster like Toinette Perry to slaughter an innocent family. Annalyse Keating might help people get away with murder but she would still be unable to look at a woman who by her actions proves all the worst things about women like her and is as monstrous as any of the rich defendants she helped escaped justice.  The rules of affirmative action are by and large good but as a result of them being bent a woman of one color was allowed to murder a family of a different color and two children will live without parents.

Toinette Perry was black and young…but the only thing she was gifted in was psychopathy.

 

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

Eric Overmeyer based this on a violent incident that took place in his home city of New Orleans.

This episode would receive a nomination for Episodic Drama by the WGA in 1999.

This episode marks the first appearance of Ellen McElduff as Billie Lou, the new bartender at The Waterfront. She's a performance artist who plays double bass topless. In a dark reference to the events, she's moonlighting to make ends meet. We learn in passing that Munch hired her but we won't figure out why until…well, you'll see.

Detective Munch: Gharty brings up Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde and asks if he thinks he took stuff for his last name. "Take it from Mrs. Munch's little boy, he did!" As he starts giving a debate about how Ballard is a Seattle neighborhood Ballard starts getting dizzy and she collapses soon afterward, in what is a near death experience. Now I know the diagnosis is the shellfish allergy, but wouldn't be funny if someone died listening to Munch's rambles?

The shellfish allergy that brings Ballard to the hospital was inspired by Callie Thorne's own food allergies. Once the writers learned that the frail Thorne couldn't eat a lot of very ordinary foods, they decided to rib her about it. And she was comfortable about it not to sue for a hostile work environment. I know, it was a different time.

On The Soundtrack: On the DVD but not the streaming or cable you will hear Charley Miller's Lullaby Peace Dreams when Bayliss and Falsone pick up Curtis Lambright and The Subdudes 'All The Time in the World' in the final minutes of the episode. It makes less of a difference for this episode then others. For what it's worth David Simon would use much of The Subdudes' music when he was scoring Treme.