Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
Presidential debates are not like Oxford Union style debates, which can be scored on points and form. Often, the policy points do not matter. What often is the take away from a presidential debate is a zinger (usually pre-planned) or some canned ham (scripted witticism). Occasionally, the demeanor or appearance of a participant is what is long remembered. Then there are the blunders, both verbal and non verbal.
To give an example of how seemingly superficial factors sway voters, consider the dichotomy of perceptions that people had about the Kennedy/Nixon debate in 1960. Those who listened to the debate on radio generally thought that Vice President Richard Nixon won on points and substance. People watching on television, however, thought that Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA) won the day as he looked collected as well as tan and rested.
[L] Vice President Richard Nixon (R-CA) & [R] Senator John Kennedy (D-MA) during 1960 Presidential Debate, Sept. 22, 1960
The rest of the story touches upon Nixon’s demeanor, health, and appearance. Television viewers opined that Nixon looked nervous. Despite being a ground breaker for long form televised ads (the “Checkers” speech from 1952), the camera did not love Nixon. He had nervous demeanor which did not display well. Nixon came to the debate coming from a campaign appearance, whereas Kennedy had polished talking points which he rehearsed with aides the weekend before.
On top of that, Nixon refused television make up as he heard that Kennedy had declined TV make up. Instead, Nixon tried to his five-o-clock shadow with “Lazy Shave”, which melted off under the hot television lights during the debate. That contrasted with the clean shaven Democrat challenger.
[L] 1960s Lazy Shave Ad [R]Button of New York Review caricature by David Levine
Nixon also looked in pain, green and sallow. This is attributable to being hospitalized for 12 days during the general election campaign due to a Staph infection. These deficiencies really came across to the television audience.
Zingers are common during presidential debates, as they are the source of post debate water cooler humor and can crystalize a perception of a candidate. Take President Barack Obama’s quip to ex Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) in 2012 when Romney opined that America’s major foreign policy concern should be the Russians. Obama joked: “The eighties called and wants their foreign policy back.”. This painted challenger Romney as out of touch with a sardonic smile on his face.
Sometimes zingers have some substance to them. After President Ronald Reagan had a shaky first debate in 1984, there were concerns that the 73 year old President might not be up to a second term. But in the second debate, Reagan was prepared for this issue and said: “I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Everyone laughed, including Reagan’s opponent ex Vice President Walter Mondale (D-MN). That charming canned ham dispelled any doubts and Reagan went on to win in a landslide.
An awkward phrase tossed out during a debate can come back to haunt a candidate. During the 1976 presidential debate, incumbent President Gerald Ford was attempting to fend off a challenge by then Governor Jimmy Carter (D-GA). President Ford asserted that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. The moderator was incredulous at this answer and Ford offered examples of how the people of Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland do not feel dominated by the Soviet Union.
This incredible response was given at a time that there were Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain and within Soviet hegemony of the Warsaw Pact. Later, Ford’s campaign tried to spin that the spirit of Eastern Europe was never dominated by the Russians. But that blunder was a stand out blunder and may have tipped the scales of an election.
Body language can deliver debate body blows to a campaign. During the 1992 Town Hall Presidential Debate between incumbent President George H.W. Bush, challenger then Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) and Reform Party candidate H. Ross Perot, there were timed questions and answers between the three candidates and the audience. The camera caught President Bush “41" looking at his watch.
[F] President George H.W. Bush & [B] H. Ross Perot at Richmond Townhall Debate, 1992
He may well have been figuring out what portion of the debate they were in to switch tones or emphases. But the spin from this Richmond Town Hall debate was used as a cudgel later in the campaign to show that President Bush was bored and out of touch.
With this background in mind, we need to consider the expectations game and the later spin.
[L] President Donald Trump and [R] ex Vice President Joseph Biden at the Presidential Debate in Cleveland, OH Sept. 29, 2020
Former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) spent the better part of a week putting an early lid on campaigning, supposedly doing campaign prep. Cynical sorts have suggested that the Biden campaign may have been adjusting the candidate’s clock to avoid “sunsetting”, which would not have Joe at his best. Many Republicans questioned the vigor of Biden’s campaigning and though he might not be physically or mentally up to the job. However, expectations had been set so low, that a sympathetic news media could proclaim Joe Biden’s debate performance as a triumph if he merely appeared.
The first (and possibly only) Election 2020 Presidential Debate in Cleveland was a food fight between an incumbent street brawler and “Lunch Bucket” Joe who on prior occasions has threatened to beat up his opponent in back of the school. Let’s not forget the third debater in this supposedly mano-a-mano imbroglio, moderator Chris Wallace.
In the first minutes of the debate, Wallace lost control. But instead of letting the principle fighters duke it out, Wallace seemed to tag team with Biden, asking candidates questions pointedly rooted from a progressive perspective (climate change, racial justice, COVID-19 and “science”), interrupting Trump when he was on a roll, not allowing retorts to obvious distortions, prompting Biden when he answered the wrong question and not allowing pressure when Biden refused to answer.
Biden’s performance of surviving the Cleveland debates may give him the ability to avoid sharing the stage with President Trump for the remainder of Election 2020 because of the unpresidential atmosphere. But calling his opponent a clown, a perpetual liar and a racist had nothing to do with this so c’mon man (sic). Such a strategy would align with a campaign which has been critiqued for “Hidin’ Biden”, giving structured pressers with preplanned questions and responses typed out on a teleprompter. Biden’s staff may feel like they got the credibility which they needed, the debate cast Trump in a negative light and further debates might cause unforced errors. But in the post debate hubris, Biden’s staff promised to do all of the scheduled debates.
President Trump did not do much debate prep but seemed to wing it. He lived up to his reputation of counter punching and raring for a fight. Honestly, it was not pretty. Trump used sarcasm, redirection and interrogatories to verbally attack his opponent. For those who liked Mr. Trump’s scrappy style, they may have been pleased. Those who are anti-Trump were not going to be won over. The unstated objective may not have been to sway undecided voters, but to convict the base while dividing the opposition.
For instance, “Moderator” Wallace asked the question about race, Trump keyed in on Biden’s 1994 lead on the crime bill when he kept referring to Super Predators, which still rankles the Black community. Then he shifted his answer to law and order. This has elements of answering the question that a debater wants, painting the opposition and playing to your strong suits. Trump could have touted his Administration’s success in the 2019 prison reform bill, which aided disproportionately impacted African Americans, but he did not. Was this a missed opportunity? Perhaps. But Trump wanted to do a quick hit on his opponent and then segue to a prominent campaign theme of law and order, which is a sharp contrast to Biden. Despite making inroad in polling African American men (presumably from economic opportunity), it is likely that Trump was trying to depress Black turnout for Biden, which has been taken for granted by Biden (e.g. “You ain’t black if you aren’t voting for me” from the Breakfast Club).
Trump’s pivot on the question to law and order plays well with communities that peaceful protests caused burnt out small businesses. In instant polling on Telemundo, Latinos disproportionately thought that Trump won the debate, which seemed linked to law and order. This was further cemented when Trump pressed Biden on which law enforcement groups endorsed the Democrat, and there was no reply at all.
When the topic shifted to public health and insurance, Biden wanted to tout the virtues of Obamacare and paint President Trump as heartless. Trump wanted to show that Democrats want to wipe out private insurance and pointed to the Bernie Sanders manifesto which Biden supposedly had bought into towards the end of the primaries. Biden insisted that the manifesto was not his plan and distanced himself from Sanders. Trump chimed in that Biden just lost the left. Obviously, Bernie bros will not be happy that they were pushed to the side. That might dampen some turn out on the left, even if was a “necessary evil” so Biden might triumph.
The debate in Cleveland did not feature a spin room, but that did not really matter because the mainstream media had their narratives already established. Biden survived so he thrived. Trump acted “unpresidential”. In addition, it echoes the Biden campaign’s narrative that “this clown lies all the time”. More establishment Republicans tsk tsk the street brawl flavor of the debate. Some commentators on the right lament missed opportunities. It certainly did not look pretty.
In rereading the debate transcript, Trump was able to strongly reinforce his law and order message, offer negative news about Biden family corruption which the “fake news media” has ignored, and shown that Biden is a politician who is light on accomplishments in 47 years of public life and lacks leadership now. If Trump did not have to debate Chris Wallace, there were some instances which Biden’s ramblings might have shown that he’s lost some steps, but Trump’s challenges redirected the contentious conversation.
Time will tell if there will be more presidential debates in Election 2020 and what messages will resonate among the electorate.
As Democrat voters begin the 2020 Election Cycle, it seems that establishment Democrats are putting their thumbs on the scale to try to shape the outcome.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is outraged that the DNC and CNN are not allowing her on stage for the New Hampshire debate, despite garnering 8% support, while they are letting former Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) onstage as he only has 2% support.
The DNC seems worried that Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist- NH) may well sweep the first few primaries, which would make him the odds on favorite to win the Presidential nomination. So the DNC changed the rules for qualifying for future debates, ignoring the grass roots element of qualifications. That rules change allows billionaire candidate ex NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to participate. That becomes crucial as Bloomberg is banking on a strong Super Tuesday showing on Tuesday March 3rd and the fact that he can self finance his campaign.
The Democrat led House of Representatives broke light speed records in order to vote to impeach President Donald Trump before Christmas. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA12th) has refused to name impeachment managers and send the Impeachment Resolution to the Senate. Inquiring minds seek to know why. As the final impeachment vote was taken on December 18th, 2019, perhaps Pelosi hoped that it would dominate holiday conversations while the House was adjourned. This tactic did not achieve the tsunami of support for removing President Trump. In fact, polling show that Mr. Trump increased his favorability ratings. After the vote was taken, it was difficult for the mainstream media to keep up the clamor about impeachment, especially as it is procedurally stalled. Officially, Pelosi has proffered the rationale that she was withholding the Articles of Impeachment from a Senate to ensure a fair trial. This is laughable considering how the Democrat majority ignored its own precedents on impeachment, ditched due process and achieved passage on a partisan nearly party line vote, with Democrat Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbord (D-HI 2nd) voting present and three House Democrats voting “nay”, including Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ 2nd) who switched parties after the vote. Pelosi reportedly got the idea to stall sending the Impeachment Resolution to the Senate based upon a suggestion from Nixon White House counsel and MSNBC contributor John Dean. This may be a ruse to allow the leftist firebrands of the party to claim victory for getting Mr. Trump impeached without going through the formality of a trial which is destined to fail as it can not achieve 67 votes. Or it may have been a delay tactic to try to tack on more articles of impeachment to accompany the rather weak tea “Obstruction of Congress” and “Abuse of Power” allegations. However, the taking down of Iranian terror leader Solemani did not lead to an undeclared war, so that charge was for naught.
Surely the Speaker’s staff knows that having an outsider dictate how the Senate will take up an impeachment trial is unconstitutional. Article I Section 3 Clause 6 of the Constitution stipulates that: “The Senate has to sole Power to try all Impeachments”. Of course, constitutional considerations might not prevent some grandstanding in a power play over the Christmas holidays. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had pencilled in a light legislative schedule for January 2020 in anticipation of an impeachment trial. With Speaker Pelosi’s incalcitrance on sending the Senate the Articles of Impeachment, Leader McConnell proposed that the Senate might well take up the Impeachment even if the House fails to name Impeachment Managers, which would effectively dismiss the charges. This move prompted Ms. Pelosi to indicate that she may take steps to move the resolution forward next week. The reasons for holding the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate might been more political. Former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy suggested on Fox News that holding the Impeachment into the primary season might have caused tough votes for vulnerable Republican freshman Senators Martha Mc Sally (R-AZ) Corey Gardiner (R-CO) and Joni Ernst (R-IA). That may be true but the politics may well have been more intermural. Democrats are engaged in an uncertain Presidential primary process with no clear leader before the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary. Several leading candidates (and a few also rans still in the race) are still in the Senate. Impeachment trial rules require all Senate participants to attend all of the trial in order to vote, which effectively would take Senators Sanders (Socialist/Democrat-VT), Warren (D-MA), Klobachar (D-MN) and Booker (D-NJ) off of the campaign trial or reveal them as slackers of the current elective office. Had the Articles of Impeachment been immediately been sent to the Senate in December, it is likely that it would have impeded the January 14th debate, which is the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses. Democrat Impeachment backers have argued for an expanded trial, which would include public witnesses which go beyond the nearly non-existent fact witnesses during the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA 28th) Show and House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY 10th) proceedings. But if the witness list is opened up to President Trump’s defense, former Vice President and presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) and his controversial son Hunter Biden may be compelled to testify, which could be messy and take a favorite of establishment Washington Democrats off the hustings and into the fire of tough invigilation. Presuming that Pelosi is being procedurally political and tipping the scale to favor the only establishment candidate who consistently has a chance to beat President Trump, it would be prudent for the Speaker to prompt a floor vote on Thursday January 16th and then adjourn for the Martin Luther King Holiday (oh, that’s right, District Work Sessions) and it would not be picked up until January 28th. Even if House Judiciary Chair Nadler worked expeditiously in sending things to the Senate, it might not be received until the eve of the Iowa Caucus. That sort of scheduling would require Senators to be present in Washington and not canvass in the final days of the New Hampshire primary, which would give Joe Biden and South Bend “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg a leg up on the competition during opening arguments which may last about a week. The next week is the South Carolina primary where (if polling is accurate), Biden has a commanding lead and Mayor Pete is quite weak. That might give Biden the mojo to become the front runner.
While it is highly unlikely that the Senate will muster the 2/3rds Super-majority to remove President Trump, the case may not be dismissed in a summary judgment like vote after opening argument. In the even that Biden is requested to testify by the Senate, he may be able to stall until after Super Tuesday March 3rd, when he would either be the odds on favorite or an oddball also ran. So Pelosi’s slow roll of advancing the Articles of Impeachment presumably are political but may well be partisan in inter-Democrat politics along with trying to take the Senate back into Democrat hands in the 117th Congress.
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).
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:
To alleviate current congestion (oriented towards tourism on the Bay and the shore)
To spur economic growth on the Eastern shore aside from agriculture or tourism; or
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.
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.
During the extraordinary hearings for Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CN) harkened back to his days as a prosecutor as he mangled a Latin admonition given in jury instructions that: "False in one thing, false in all things". But instead of impeaching Brett Kavanaugh, Da Nang Bloomenthal ironically impeached his own credibility.
When Richard Blumental was first running for the Senate, it was revealed that Bloomenthal had often boasted that he was a Vietnam War hero, when he had never been to Indochina during his military service.
That mendacity inspired President Donald Trump to sardonically cite the Connecticut Senator as Da Nang Richard.
If it was not invoked in such a sad situation, it would be funny. Somehow, it is unlikely that this just jibe will be satirized on Saturday Night Live.
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? 
