Thursday, December 5, 2019

Biden Should Host the Cornpop Challenge Invitational

While campaiging in Iowa,  Ex-Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) took a hostile question from a Hawkeye voter.  The man asked Biden about setting his son Hunter Biden up for business with a Ukraine energy company  during his tenure as Vice President.  Biden responded to the allegation of selling access with indignation, calling the questioner a damned liar.


  This pointed question appeared to raise Biden's hackles.  In order to prove that the 77 year old Democrat presidential candidate was in shape for the Oval Office, Biden challenged the man to a foot race,  push up contest or even an IQ test.  Later, as he sought to end the colloquy, Biden said "Look fat...listen, here's the deal." What a way to win friends and influence people, man (sic).

Biden has long cultivated a "Lunch Bucket Joe" image, and feigning a tough guy may well be meant to appeal to rough and tumble working class voters.  Remember when Biden mused that instead of debating Donald Trump, Biden would like to take his opponent in back of the gym and beat the hell out of him.  This tough guy mystique may work well against his political opponents but it looks mean and out of place at a campaign rally meant to influence Iowa voters.  

Furthermore, Biden's odd obsession to physical challenges comes at the heel the video which Biden reminisced about his time as a life guard at an urban pool, when Biden was willing to fight Corn Pop and was fine about kids sitting on his lap and pulling at his leg hairs.  No wonder Biden's handlers wanted to restrict access to Biden for as long as possible during the 2020 Primaries.

Considering his presumed prowess at physical contests, maybe Joe Biden can inaugurate the Corn Pop Challenge Invitational.   These feats of strength could be held on Festivus on December 23rd  right after the Airing of Grievances.  Maybe they could add hair sniffing. 


Thursday, June 27, 2019

Mulling Over the DNC Miami Mixup #1

Democrats held the first in a series of debates for prospective 2020 Presidential candidates in Miami.  Since the DNC qualified 20 of 25 candidates to take the stage, the debate was done over two nights with purportedly random match ups.  The first night mostly featured 1%-ers – no not the taxpayers that Democrats want to jack up their rate to 70% but those who barely qualified for the debate with more than blips on political polls.  The only first tier candidate that night was Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA),

In the 2020 election cycle, a gaggle of Democrats pandering for POTUS will march like ten left feet together, so their policy proposals will track a similar progressive path.  So political junkies enduring this exercise look for overarching themes which brand a candidate’s campaign and for break out moments which elevate or deflate a debater.

During the first third of the Miami Mixup, Warren came out strong with an anti-corporate aura.  It was interesting that in an era of a booming economy with record unemployment, her thesis is that the economy isn’t working for everyone so we must dismantle the system. 

Senator Warren was one of the two hands raised to eliminate private health insurance when reforming American health care.  But when the organizers lost their close control of the debate stage, Warren became a less dominating figure, particularly when the exchanges turned to abortion and immigration.

Former two term Congressman and failed Texas Senate candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX 19th) tried to make his mark out of the box, starting to answer his first question  to him in Spanish. Booker had a remarkable look at “Beto’s” bilingual blurtation, which gives the impression of “Damn, he beat me to it on that pandering gimmick”.

But the problem with Beto is that he offers an alluvia of words but never actually answering a question.  Granted, a time tested political media trick is to answer the question that you want, not the one that is asked.  But when O’Rourke could not clearly respond to a direct question on whether he supported a 70% federal income tax rate for the very rich, it highlighted how “Beto” was all style and no substance.  Or to put it in faux Texan terms for a faux identity politics Hispanix (sic)– He’s all hat and no cattle.

Many of the low polling Democrats in the first Miami Mixup clung to their bio as a crutch to define their campaigns as sometimes as a cudgel as they fight for the political spotlight against their comrades.  Some candidates seemed more successful in weaponizing their bio.  While it seemed tedious for Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI 2nd) to keep referencing her military service, but it gave her gravitas when she verbally parried with Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH 13th) over continued American military involvement in Afghanistan. This may be why Gabbard topped a Drudge Report instant poll on who won the debate.  That moment both may be a break out moment for Gabbard and a break down moment for Ryan.

Former San Antonio Mayor and  Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro burnished his Hispanic identity politics credentials by highlighting his bio. Castro came prepared to be the immigration expert on stage and outstaged “Beto” on his immigration answer, with Castro chiding “Beto” to “do your homework”.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) garnered the most time in the spotlight that night, started nearly every exchange citing that he lives (or more honestly put– owns a condo) in a sketchy Newark neighborhood. Presumably, Booker is trying to swing some African American support away from former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) while appealing to social justice warriors.  But the repeated references became too obvious.  Inquiring minds might connect Newark’s persistent urban problems to his seven years tenure as Newark’s mayor before ascending to his Senate seat.

Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) defined his campaign as being all about climate change.  Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was a me too women’s candidate who fights for the total right to abort unwanted unborn children. Comrade New York Mayor Bill De Blasio (D-NYC) seemed to be about changing the character of the Democrat party to be union oriented and progressive.  In his four years running for the Democrat presidential nomination, ex Rep. John Delaney (D-MD 6th) has tried to steer a somewhat centrist course to his campaign. Delaney applied his campaign’s premise in disputing the wisdom of totally overhauling America’s health care system by qupping “We should be the party that keeps what is working but fixes what is broken.”  Wise words but such wisdom is unappealing in an unbridled pander-fest.

Perhaps the most egregious example of progressive pandering was Julian Castro’s reproductive justice tact for supporting abortion.

Castro’s invocation that men can have abortion too may sell well with convicted intersectional progressives but hardly seems like it would appeal to Trump Democrats in the general election.

This early in the campaign cycle, political promises are ambiguous and do not stand for close scrutiny.  But the rhetoric used during this Democrat Debate repeatedly invoked emergencies for climate; gun control and health care.  This may be the modus operandi for a successful Democrat President to impose unpopular progressive policies under the guise of “emergency action”, particularly if their nemesis President Trump cites in addressing illegal immigration issues.

President Trump had promised to live tweet during the Democrat debate.  He summed up his impressions of the debate with a one word critque: BORING!

But the real Donald Trump did not spare debate hosts NBC News for their five minute technical difficulties by not cutting the mikes of the first panel of interviewers.  For a network celebrating seventy years on the air, this TV Miami Mixup merits mockery.

Hopefully, President Trump will live tweet the second debate, with leading candidates socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE). Nevertheless, expect more live tweeting from @CalamityDC using the #DemDebate heading. 

Friday, March 8, 2019

Is a New Chesapeake Bay Crossing a Bridge Too Far?

Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD) announcing 2nd Maryland Chesapeake crossing in August 2016

Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD) has championed studying a new crossing of the Chesapeake Bay for Maryland.  The existing Bay Bridge (officially dubbed “The Gov. William Preston Lane Memorial Bridge” was completed in 1952 at a cost of $45 million  to connect the Eastern shore of Maryland with the heart of the state (adjacent Annapolis and proximate to Baltimore and Washington DC). A parallel three lane span was added in 1972 for $145 million.  The shore-to-shore 4.35 mile length is one of the world’s longest over the water structures.

When the Chesapeake Bay bridge was conceived in the 1930s, it was intended to augment connectivity to the lower Eastern Shore.  It turned out that the Bay Bridge spurred the tourist industry at coastal Ocean City, Maryland.  To a lesser extent, the US 301/50 route can be a lesser congested Eastern Seaboard alternative to the heavily trafficked I-95. A new crossing is projected to cost $6.78 billion and may take a generation to complete, if it is not blocked.

It used to be that most communities would rejoice in announcements of infrastructure as a harbinger of progress and economic improvement.  But there has been a generation of progressive politicos who have sought to slow many infrastructure expansions under the guise of environmentalism and to tilt towards  “smart growth” (which usually gravitates towards urban options).  

Another impediment to economic expansion projects is social justice community activists, as was recently demonstrated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY 14th) et ali. who chased away 25,000 high paying Amazon HQ2 jobs in New York City because of the impact on the underprivileged residents in Queens by giving too many corporate tax breaks.

To prognosticate about a new Chesapeake Bay bridge crossing, one must assess the underlying  motivations for the crossing, consider opposition groups arguments to discern how it would locate and shape the project, and assess the feasibility of the endeavor.  Prima facia, the three leading rationales for another crossing would be: 

  1. To alleviate current congestion (oriented towards tourism on the Bay and the shore) 
  2. To spur economic growth on the Eastern shore aside from agriculture or tourism; or 
  3. To foster urban expansion along the Bay with bedroom communities.  

It is vital that the aim of the infrastructure is clear, as the “Free State” of Maryland does not have the money to burn like California to have an expensive white elephant infrastructure project like the high speed train boondoggle.  

In August 2016, Governor Hogan shepherded $5 million into studying the issue of a new Chesapeake Bay crossing.  Some of these funds included a survey to assess the inclusion of mass transit components to such a project.  Unlike previous studies which only considered expansions and reconfiguration of the Bay Bridge (2015) or just a handful of options (2004), the current study considers 14 crossings to Maryland’s Eastern Shore.  These prospective one mile wide corridors span from Havre de Grace in the north to the southern St. Mary’s County. Several choices were routed through parks or wildlife sanctuaries, which is rife for spawning environmentally inspired lawsuits, but may serve as Overton Window wedges.  A couple of options butt against US military installations, which poses its own problems with Uncle Sam.

Preliminary map of new Chesapeake Bay crossings, Feb. 2019

The “green” inter-modal option of  a transit crossing appeared to be a bust as only 1.4% would seek using mass transit Chesapeake crossings on weekends and 4.4% on weekdays. The focus on traffic intimates that alleviating current and prospective congestion leans towards option 1. There is room between the current spans of the Bay Bridge to squeeze in three more lanes in a new span but they would also be likely to be narrow lanes without a hard shoulder.  These  might help with the flow of traffic once on the Bay Bridge, but there is the problem with the gateways, which may be hard to expand and that contributes to congestion.  Sunday traffic is expected to grow to 125,000 cars on a Sunday by 2040 - which is a 31% increase.

If the impetus is to alleviate the swell of weekend beach traffic, southern routes seem optimal, except traffic patterns, logistics and politics.  Depending upon how far south the crossing is routed, this puts traffic pressure on Rt. 2 & 4, which are just four lane highways that are far off the Baltimore and DC Beltways. Then there is the small matter of the length of the crossing. One route would have the bridge be 22 miles long, which indubitably would make the project much more costly than current projections. Not to mention, a far southern Chesapeake crossing would require a bridge height of 186 feet for shipping instead of the 100 feet further north.

A second possible driving force for a new Chesapeake Bay crossing would be to stimulate economic development. Clearly, tourism is a key component of the Eastern shore economy, whether it is vacations to the shore at family friendly Ocean City or maritime merriment on the Chesapeake.  That being said, much of the Eastern shore is agriculturally oriented and not particularly prosperous, such Cecil County and the Northern part of Kent County. Crossings near Aberdeen could stimulate some industrial expansion and have a synergy of having a northern connection to US 301.  This option would probably not alleviate beach traffic congestion but might not engender as much political opposition. Another drawback is routes would cross through a state park and necessity crossing around (or through) Aberdeen Proving Grounds, which is a US Navy facility and requires significant environmental remediation.

A third motivation for another Chesapeake Bay crossing might be to facilitate urban expansion.  Since Baltimore’s suburbs abut the Chesapeake, constructing a bridge from Anne Arundel County to Rock Hall or Tolchester Beach within easy reach of urban commuters in prospective Eastern shore bedroom communities.  This connection makes historic sense as prior to the advent of the Bay Bridge, Tolchester Beach was a day trip getaway by ferry for Baltimoreans. But in the seventy years that have past, there is a marked cultural shift between the shores.  Those on the Eastern Shore who appreciate the bucolic character of their locale would bristle at the bustle effectively being bedroom communities to Baltimore, with all of the association urban problems. This crossing place would also endanger historic landscapes around Rock Hall and Chesterton. 

This appeal to history to thwarting big projects worked in thwarting building Disney’s America near Haymarket, Virginia (near the Civil War Bull Run Battlefields) in the early 1990s. However, there was one key difference between horsey-country around Haymarket and the pastoral Eastern shore–who’s ox was being gored?  

Disney certainly had commercial muscle but this was pitted against those are monied owners of horse farms or who fancy themselves as gentlemen farmers yet commute to Between the Beltways.  The added congestion would impede well connected people getting to their country retreats where they live and exercise political influence.  It is dubious that Eastern Shore anti-growth groups have such political sway, and those interests would be pitted against those interests want to play on the Eastern Shore. 

Community organizing on the “West Bank” might also thwart crossings in that area.  Local politicians note that if a site is selected in Anne Arundel County that major opposition would be engendered to keep further congestion out of their area. 

How does this get resolved?  That’s that $6.78 billion question. The results of the $5 million environmental impact study will be released in 2020. Nevertheless, one should expect environmental court challenges. The study allotted 10% of its budget anticipating litigation.  Green challenges may be more of a Trojan Horse for no growth. 

The process also requires assent of the majority of Eastern Shore counties.  There will be public hearings during the spring of 2019 to identify corridors to be retained for analysis.  This would be followed by a final environmental impact statement in the winter of 2020.

 Anti-growth opponents such as the Kent Conservation & Preservation Alliance suggest spending that bridge-full of funds to bolster livable communities which obviates the impetus for long distance commuting, especially across the Chesapeake Bay.  That is wishful thinking, especially if facilitating tourism is the driver to the project. Other community activists might be open to another crossing but with a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) nuance.  

While this seems like parochial politics, it does impact the District of Calamity (sic) because of its proximity to the Nation’s Capitol, as many DMV denizens like relaxing on the Eastern Shore. But in a broader view, it illustrates a riptide of public policy.  Environmentalists and Smart Growth (translated “No Growth) interests pitted against those who want to keep easy access to their Eastern Shore playground and politicians who want to grow the state’s economy through infrastructure expansion.

Let’s just hope that something is complete before the Bay Bridge needs to be replaced by 2065.

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

How Hannity Was Hanoi-ed (sic) at VietNam Summit

Sean Hannity Has to Scoot to Cover President Trump's Summit in VietNam

Fox News political commentator Sean Hannity traveled halfway around the globe to cover President Trump's second meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for the VietNam Summit.  But had Hannity not improvised, he would not have made it to his live spot on time.  

Hannity found himself stuck in Hanoi traffic on the way to the studio for his US prime time show.  To avoid being an on camera no show, Hannity hopped aboard a scooter to make it to the set on time. 

Friday, February 22, 2019

Thanks for Nothing AOC!

The Job Creators Network reacted to Community Activist turned freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY-14th) celebration of chasing away Amazon from expanding its HQ2 to Long Island City (Queens), New York by erecting a pointed message at Times Square. The message offers some economic analysis for the loss of the business opportunity and sarcastically suggests: "Thanks for Nothing" AOC.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on Blocking Amazon's HQ2 in New York City

Donald Trump on the Boy Who Cried MAGA

President Donald Trump on Jussie Smollett - The Boy Who Cried MAGA

The Chicago Police Department attributed actor Jussie Smollett's motive for staging a hoax hate crime in Streeterville, Chicago during on polar blast on January 29th as an attempt to garner a higher salary on the Fox TV series "Empire".  

Perhaps, but how does that square with Jussie Smollett's emotional softball interview with Robin Roberts on Good Morning America.

To that end, Smollett opined that the reason why he was attacked was because he comes at the Trump Administration "really, really hard".  Smollett has been quite visible in his political activism.  And enquiring minds want to know if there were connections (or just political opportunism) between the Smollett drama and Democrat Presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) offering anti-lynching legislation.

Tulsi Gabbard on Hate Crime Hoaxes

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on Jussie Smollott and Hate Crime Hoaxes

Friday, January 4, 2019

Nancy Pelosi on Vulgar Calls for Impeaching President Trump

Nancy Pelosi on Vulgar Calls for Impeachment

Newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to tamp down the controversy  created by freshman Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib's vulgar call to impeach President Trump.

Pelosi dismissed criticism of Tlaib's vow to impeach the "motherf*cker as being "No big deal" as it was free speech from an individual and is just the way people talk

However, Pelosi proclaimed that President Trump's rhetoric mattered as his words have a direct impact on people. Huh? Hypocrisy much?  

Perhaps Pelosi ought to consider the context of Rashida Tlaib's crude call for impeachment.  Even though Tlaib doubled down on her remarks as speaking truth to power, the reality was that her crude comment was directed to her young son.   So such free speech has no impact "on the children"?  Sure. 

h/t: MRC

"Young Turk" Rep. Rashida Tlaib Ready to Rumble in the House

Rashida Tlaib heckling Trump in 2016
First term Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI 13th) rose to prominence being the first Muslim woman in the Michigan legislature.  She first achieved national notoriety for heckling candidate Donald Trump at a Detroit Economic Club luncheon in August 2016.  Tlaib parlayed that protest into winning the 2018 House Democrat primary in a crowded race for a seat that represents Dearborn, Michigan in a crowded primary , which has a large Muslim population.

Tlaib ran unopposed in the 2018 general election and was one of two Muslim women elected to the House. Tlaib was sworn in on President Thomas Jefferson's Quran. As Rep. Tlaib was sworn in, her brother spoke to CSPAN to say that he was proud of her being a fighter despite the fact the he was a Trump conservative. 

Tlaib certainly lived up to that young turk reputation on her first day in office.  While Tlaib did vote for Speaker Pelosi (despite what she said on the stump),  Tlaib did make waves by modifying her House provided world map by inserting Palestine, backing her position for a one state solution.

Later that day, Tlaib made headlines at a Move  reception when she called for President Trump's impeachment by a profanity laced ejaculationTlaib lived up to her reputation for cursing like a trucker. But Tlaib should only metaphorically be labeled a young Turk as she proudly professes her Palestinian identity.
Young Turk Rashida Tlaib is ready to rumble in the Houe

Most politicos expected the 116th Congress to be totally focused on the upcoming 2020 Presidential election, full of investigations and efforts to oust President Trump. Democrats seem to be obsessed by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  The hope is to persuade enough establishment Republicans who are offended by Trump's abrasive style and perceived lack of comity to limit Trump's term as chief executive.

Establishment Democrats may try to tamp down impeachment efforts, as the chances to force Mr. Trump from the Oval Office with a 2/3rds Senate majority seem slim.  It is reasonable to presume that their game will be to continue to drive down President Trump's favorability numbers and to pressure those close to him that he will throw in the towel.  Alas that strategy will not satisfy radicals like Rashida Tlaib.

The problem that young turks like Tlaib pose is their persistent in your face vulgar approach is great for generating headlines (much the same for their nemesis Donald Trump).  But that turns off independents and establishment Republicans who embrace civility.  Ironically, Democrats condemned Republicans about their supposed lack of civility in the wake of the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ 8th).

Moreover, the more prominence that  Democrat Socialist radicals like Tlaib and Rep. Ocasio Cortez (D-NY 14th) are given, it is likely that the Democrats will be driven to the left, which will produce a presidential nominee who who the base loves but alienates any remaining Blue Dog Democrats and fails to win back "The Great Revolt" Trump voters and loses in a landslide, much like McGovern lost to the great silent majority in 1972.